Saints Financial result

[CQ SAINT]

The ’going concern’ accounting assumption is for financial reporting purposes; it doesn't necessarily reflect economic reality.

Am I wrong?

Just a FYI with the ongoing concern portion of the financial statement it has been in every saints finance report for at least 15 years, and basically means without payments from AFL (ie salary cap payments every club receives) we would be broke

Now this is Corporate control through vertical marketing. Call it administration if you like, but even the stand alone clubs wouldnt survive without the AFL's handout. Unless they could cheat the cap, hide sponsorship and falsify contracts.

[Selhurst Saint]

It distorts (and from the foregoing it appears there is a change in treatment to exclude these pre-payments)

Plus, if there is a need to refund for any reason?

Because the product is not delivered

Just examples

What are you looking for the Financial Statements to provide?

So in regards any particular playing season that revenue received equaled or exceeded (such that debt can be repaid) the costs of operations for that particular playing season

Hence the Accounting year concluding when it does, as soon as practical after the season concludes and not 30 June (or with some 31 December where there is ultimate foreign ownerships and those parent Companies close their books on 31/12)

So are expenses for the next season bought forward?

In regards Companies, expenses from out years can be bought forward to reduce tax liabilities (eg Qantas) including to receive tax holidays (plus writing down asset valuations)

But there is no such incentive for a not for profit entity because there is no tax assessment issued

It distorts from the answer you are seeking

What you are alluding to here is the concept of "Matching". Company financial statements are prepared on the basis that the Profit and Loss matches the income relevant to that period to the expenses of that period. Any revenue received in advance or expenses paid in advance do not affect the bottom line of the P&L
Any membership instalments received for the 2021 would not be included in the profit for 2020, it would be disclosed as "Unearned Income" in the Balance Sheet.
Any expenses paid prior to 31 Oct 2020 that relate to the following financial year would be disclosed as a "prepayment" in the Balance Sheet. This is regardless of whether a tax deduction has been received.

Therefore the deferment of the $2.3M membership instalments to Nov does not effect the 2020 profit. It does however effect the debt level as at 31 Oct. If the club had charged October membership instalments as normal our debt would have been $2.3M less at 31 Oct. For cash flow purposes there will now be one extra month of membership instalments booked in the 2021 year.

[asiu]

Therefore the deferment of the $2.3M membership instalments to Nov does not effect the 2020 profit. It does however effect the debt level as at 31 Oct. If the club had charged October membership instalments as normal our debt would have been $2.3M less at 31 Oct. For cash flow purposes there will now be one extra month of membership instalments booked in the 2021 year.

there it is

Thank you

now i understand

[To the top]

“on 31 October”

But that $2.3 Million will contribute to the funding required by the Club to compete in Season 2021

So in terms of debt, the net impact of the $2.3 Million on the Clubs debt is?

The “come and go” trading facility will reflect the pre-payments of Season 2021 Memberships, and then will be drawn down on for operating purposes

Bit the same as a school uniform provider, drawing down facility debt to build inventory, repaying that debt with back to school sales in January then again availing of facility funding

On 31 January they have no debt

Working back from the interest cost will tell you where the average debt level is

Figures can be made to say anything

[Selhurst Saint]

Perhaps we are arguing the same point.

By deferring the Oct membership instalments our bank debt is $2.3M higher.

If we issued the instalments in Oct our bank debt would be reduced by $2.3M but we would have a liability for unearned income of $2.3M.

I agree that figures can be manipulated but St.Kilda are a reporting entity and therefore audited. Income of a financial year will be matched with expenditure of that same financial year regardless of when it is physically paid or received.

[To the top]

Yes

Some are referring to the level of debt the Club carries and the impact of carrying (and servicing) that debt on future viability (where the broadcast rights used to include a certain number of Clubs, so binding the AFL to required financial support)

Simply, that debt reflects the trading cycle so varies throughout that cycle

As I say, you could calculate the average debt by working back from the interest expense

In reviewing the Working Capital Position of Companies, I always put that the Bank was in a position of privilege because the bank knew the facility limits

Therefore a Liability being debt at bank became an asset being the margin between that debt at bank and the facility amount available and not utilised

As with all data it comes back to consistency in presentation and the trend in evidence over a period of time (so years), that trend protecting the ownership of the Balance Sheet

So external financiers were not assuming a greater percentage of ownership than the Shareholders because such a trend is not sustainable

Enjoy

[Yorkeys]

Lets be pedantic, eh. Membership revenue deferred but not the membership privileges attached to those membership payments. Matching? My bet is the club wants to report better results next year.

The clubs are the AFL so going concern issue for foundation clubs is a bit circular. AFL Admin has the going concern issue (if one really exists) even if it can't recognise it through the fog of hubris.

[mr six o'clock]

Maybe the club should try to get bernie madoff to look over our finances .
I hear he's got plenty of time on his hands.