Rumblings on The Parade

There are plenty of vague whispers about some disquiet down at the Redlegs, but no one seems to be offering any specifics. Can anyone enlighten us? If you were going to take a stab in the dark you'd think it might have something to do with the new CEO, or perhaps the development proposals.

There is so much I'd like to say, but I really can't at this point in time. All I will say is, yes, there are some issues with the new CEO, but whether they will be a problem, only time will tell.

My problem at the moment is with the previous administration and with one person in particular who has moved on to bigger and better things.

That's all I will say for now. We've got an AGM to get through first.

The AGM is tomorrow night, I don't expect much to come out of that. Over the years our Board has dodged many big issues and I would expect this one to go past without any major issues despite the rumours.

The biggest concern for me is our financial position, we shouldn't be making a loss like we did last year given we appeared to be up in key areas. Concerning times in my view, I'm not being dramatic but I fear for our future financially.

My understanding was that the Pokies room on North East rd was done as a stop gap measure is the club are paying a % to the Highlander to run the venue as a compromise to get it out of court and up and running.

Will be interesting to see the figures from the venue. I suspect that they would like to see a strong increase, yet in order to gain that a move may have to be on the agenda or a lease on a second venue may be the next step towards it?

ca wrote:The AGM is tomorrow night, I don't expect much to come out of that. Over the years our Board has dodged many big issues and I would expect this one to go past without any major issues despite the rumours.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. 2011 saw the club have a massive increase in membership, substantial increases in attendances, and yet we've turned in a loss (and a big one) for the season. Questions will be asked, and I doubt a "she'll be right" attitude will be accepted this time. You wouldn't keep me away from this AGM for anything. It's just a pity that some of the people who really need to answer the questions won't be there, for obvious reasons.

Is there a reason for the big loss?

I know some of these can be kind of technical sometimes.
Has there been a big decrease in revenue or perhaps a specific increase in spending?

I think these days clubs are being more frugal and cautious generally, as they are not insulated much from a poor financial season. Probably only takes one area to suffer a bit, for it to have a reasonable effect on the P&L.

How can you have more members, more attendance and lose money???

magallo bootsoo wrote:How can you have more members, more attendance and lose money???

Very good question. One I hope that will be addressed this evening.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Is there a reason for the big loss?

I've got some thoughts on it, but would prefer not to say much at this time.

magallo bootsoo wrote:How can you have more members, more attendance and lose money???

In a word "Pokies". If you look at most club's financials, you immediately see that memberships and ticket sales between them account for less than 5% of total revenue. SANFL dividends perhaps another 5%, Sponsorships, general fundraising etc, maybe 10%. The rest, 80% or more, comes from the gaming venues. These venues are very expensive to run, with narrow profit margins. Consequently even a modest drop in patronage, particularly on the machines themselves, can knock your budget right out the window. Much depends on how high your fixed costs are. Particularly servicing borrowings.

I think that is mostly correct but the pokie revenue can be lower. One league club who's books I've seen had pokie revenue at just under 60% of total income in 2011.

Notwithstanding all that, pokie revenue is obviously extremely important to most, if not all clubs.

CEO SACKED TODAY

Ann Jovi wrote:CEO SACKED TODAY

Yep...

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/redlegs-boss-stood-down/story-e6freckc-1226272552155

In a way, I'm a little disappointed the CEO was sacked because we needed someone to shake the club up, but this guy came on like a tsunami. I'm not saying any more until I get the whole story, but I'll be back.

At this point in time, the newly appointed CEO has not been sacked. There may, however, be developments in the next few days, so watch this space.

Wish I could say more, possibly in future I may be able to add.

Bill has only been there 2months. I wonder if there is a 3month clause in the contract for either party.

Things must be very bad for a CEO to be stood down ( hasn't been sacked yet) after just 2 months

I think they should give the guy a go , i think its what the Norwood Football Club needs in the long run , i like the way since he's come on board he's contacted supporters online and involved them with whats going on with the club, the former ceo you were luckly to get a couple of updates on the Norwood web site during the year, i met Bill early in the year and found him a pretty good guy who was in there trying to do his best for the club, change is always hard but sometimes it's whats needed . Hope he gets another chance.

lachlan wrote:Bill has only been there 2months. I wonder if there is a 3month clause in the contract for either party.

Yes, a 3 month probationary period.

Should have kept quiet until after the 3 months were up, and then shook things up.

Not very smart on his behalf.

It's now official. After meeting today, both parties agreed that nothing will come from continued mediation, and have reached mutual agreement to part company.

I am hoping this time we appoint a certain Norwood premiership player who was my preference in the first place. And no, I will not name him .. not yet anyway.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:It's now official. After meeting today, both parties agreed that nothing will come from continued mediation, and have reached mutual agreement to part company.

I am hoping this time we appoint a certain Norwood premiership player who was my preference in the first place. And no, I will not name him .. not yet anyway.

not thinking of luring Keith Thomas back AH ?

One thing must be certain this bloke must have been some Tornado to rip through a club in only 2 months.

Quite surreal in a way.

Hopefully stability returns soon.

bayman wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:It's now official. After meeting today, both parties agreed that nothing will come from continued mediation, and have reached mutual agreement to part company.

I am hoping this time we appoint a certain Norwood premiership player who was my preference in the first place. And no, I will not name him .. not yet anyway.

not thinking of luring Keith Thomas back AH ?

No, not at all. We couldn't afford Keith Thomas ... not sure how Port Adelaide Power can afford him either Can't name the player, but would be delighted if he scored the job.

Thomas is still owed $50k. Leane will need to be negotiated a payout and an independent review was commissioned on Leane by an external company.

Doesn't sound like the responsible actions of a club who reported a loss last year. Is the Greek/Italian treasurer in charge down at the parade???

The figure owed to Keith Thomas is $33,000 and it doesn't have to be paid in one hit. It is being negotiated by both parties. Keith always understood that Norwood would not be able to pay the $100,000 Consultancy fees up front. It is money invested for the future development of the club, so I will be watching closely to see if we get return for our investment.

Although a separation figure would be negotiated, Bill Leane was still in a probationary period, so there will be no large payout that would have been the case further down the track.

As for the independant review by an external company, I have no knowledge of that. This project SHOULD have been undertaken prior to his appointment.

The one part I do agree with is the time has come for the Norwood Football Club to start acting more responsibly for their financial decisions. I remember Russell Ebert saying that board members tend to be business people who take risks with club finances they wouldn't dare take with their own businesses.

I'm not saying this is the case with Norwood's current plight, but I'm always slightly suspicious.