Talking Footy

Cracker wrote:

$12 million plus the revenue from the other CDRL outlets, Xman. They count whether you like it or not because it's part of the club's bottom line. To ignore it is to understate the club's true financial position. Canberra is in a much more enviable position than some Sydney clubs in this regard - Cronulla for example.

Cracker the biggest difference between AFL clubs and the Raiders set up is the separate arms of the group are ALL separate legal identities - (I suspect for tax reasons) the money that each part of the group make is separate from each other and among other charities the GIFT money to the Raiders FC get money gifted to them, so they can't access that other money as there are separate boards legally (although there may be directors common amongst boards) The AFL clubs have access to ALL there funds and are free to use that money as they wish - this is what RD just doesn't get. The Raiders could theoretically if an adverse board comes all be legally locked out of those funds. That's what all AFL posters are saying!

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

$12 million plus the revenue from the other CDRL outlets, Xman. They count whether you like it or not because it's part of the club's bottom line. To ignore it is to understate the club's true financial position. Canberra is in a much more enviable position than some Sydney clubs in this regard - Cronulla for example.

Cracker the biggest difference between AFL clubs and the Raiders set up is the separate arms of the group are ALL separate legal identities -

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

our resident

ignorant know nothing cock
strikes again :_<> :_<> :_<>


they are one & the same
all run by ONE board
all monies into one Kitty


All controlled by the Mighty Canberra Raiders RLFC


read it & weep fumblers
while yr clubs CEO is in his best suit with Andy Fatso down at the local Bank filling out loan applications to stay solvent in 2014
our CEO is counting our millions in profits

Read it and weap..............the Raiders are rolling in money they cant spend because its tied up in the ongoing costs of another business....

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m, so they may offer the Raiders security but very little in funding. This leaves the raiders to struggle along with a lowly budget

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

$12 million plus the revenue from the other CDRL outlets, Xman. They count whether you like it or not because it's part of the club's bottom line. To ignore it is to understate the club's true financial position. Canberra is in a much more enviable position than some Sydney clubs in this regard - Cronulla for example.

Cracker the biggest difference between AFL clubs and the Raiders set up is the separate arms of the group are ALL separate legal identities - (I suspect for tax reasons) the money that each part of the group make is separate from each other and among other charities the GIFT money to the Raiders FC get money gifted to them, so they can't access that other money as there are separate boards legally (although there may be directors common amongst boards) The AFL clubs have access to ALL there funds and are free to use that money as they wish - this is what RD just doesn't get. The Raiders could theoretically if an adverse board comes all be legally locked out of those funds. That's what all AFL posters are saying!

Cracker if you see the reports from each arm of the group they say they have their own fully constituted boards that meet regularly and directors - poor ol RD just can't grasp what a legal identity is or what it means - I have tried to educate him on this many times. That's why KE doesn't get involved as he doesn't like to be on a losing argument!

But Swans4ever they are all owned by the CDRL. The fact that each club (Mawson, Queanbeyan etc) has their own board is really a seperate argument. Maybe they do divide it up for tax purposes. That's perfectly legal and above board. This isn't about taxation. It's about available revenue to the Raiders. And they can access the other revenue in an emergency.

Raiderdave, the owners are the CDRL. Not the Raiders. Just to correct you there.

Cracker wrote:

But Swans4ever they are all owned by the CDRL. The fact that each club (Mawson, Queanbeyan etc) has their own board is really a seperate argument. Maybe they do divide it up for tax purposes. That's perfectly legal and above board. This isn't about taxation. It's about available revenue to the Raiders. And they can access the other revenue in an emergency.

Raiderdave, the owners are the CDRL. Not the Raiders. Just to correct you there.

How does accessing funds in case of an emergency help their yearly ongoing existence? Theyre poor and roundly ignored by FTA coverage by the NRL and channel 9. They have a tiny following and play in poor facilities. Its like amateur hour.

Canberra has competition from the local AFL. It's a split town so of course it's hard work. I think the Raiders were lucky to get that $2 million from the ACT government because I think they've spent more on AFL grounds in Canberra than they have rugby league. They're spending quite a bit on Manuka last I heard. Bruce on the other hand is on federal land. It creates a problem that money can't solve. I suspect that's why their budget is presently small, so they can't spend to excess and stay liquid.

I never said they didn't have issues. I'm merely pointing out that things aren't as bad as you think. Yes they can be better, but they can also be a whole lot worse.

Xman wrote:

Read it and weap..............the Raiders are rolling in money they cant spend because its tied up in the ongoing costs of another business....

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m, so they may offer the Raiders security but very little in funding. This leaves the raiders to struggle along with a lowly budget

all of the raiders money comes from pokes, yes they make money, but cost a lots to maintain, as well as taxes as as well no doubt debt that is still owed to the bank, the different business raid each other for money, (has that got anything to do with where the raider's got their name? )
an interesting article about their set up
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 1xzpx.html

the point i keep trying to make is most AFL clubs can at lease raise 30 plus million, through sponsorship, membership, match returns. revenue through football the Essendons & collingwoods do 50, 55 million plus out of football revenue, sponsorship's etc..
the whole of the NRL could only manage 90 million 25,726,950 sponsorship, $9,781,011 government incentives hence the NRL clubs reliance on pokes.

nearly all of the AFL clubs release Annual reports, hence idiots like raider & AFLcrap carry on about the debt levels of AFL clubs, but NRL clubs do not release annual reports so it is hard to get a full break down on their full incomes, but their clubs have a pissy revenue level, & high debt levels thanks to their league clubs
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 2swhv.html

a lot of the debt from the AFL clubs comes from increasing spending of clubs as well up grading of training facilities. again Essendon & collingwood have both spend 30 million plus on training training facilities Essendon recently moved it entire club home base from Essendon to Tullarmarine. building a brand new facility. which sent the club in to debt for the first time in their 140 odd year of history

even the Broncos the NRL most Wealthy club by a mile, trains on a shitty council ground, behind their mini casino sized leagues club with a gym attached to it, if any one is ever in Brisbane, their home is over in Red Hill!

Cracker wrote:

But Swans4ever they are all owned by the CDRL. The fact that each club (Mawson, Queanbeyan etc) has their own board is really a seperate argument. Maybe they do divide it up for tax purposes. That's perfectly legal and above board. This isn't about taxation. It's about available revenue to the Raiders. And they can access the other revenue in an emergency.

Raiderdave, the owners are the CDRL. Not the Raiders. Just to correct you there.

Yes I know - but the difficulty when you have separate legal identities is that the Raiders don't control those funds - if a board is elected (not saying WILL but it is possible COULD) that refuses a request for funds the Raiders can't force them to part with the green. Whereas Essendon have complete say in how those funds are spent. Again the actual owners is a complicated matter - when you have a separate legal identity for whatever reason the business itself are the owners - so the CDRL might through its position having the right to vote or elect board members but they technically aren't the owners. Now say for an instance the CDRL find itself in massive financial troubles and need money for (say are sued for several mill by a player and insurance won't cover it). They go to the other arms of the group and because they are separate they can put the interest of their business before the CDFL and say no. Alternatively the Raiders are in Cronulla's position (not saying they are just hypothetical for argument sake) then say fined millions) and huge legal bills etc etc and are insolvent the rest off the group can refuse to bail them out and take them down with them. Because of this they are distinctively different to AFL clubs - revenue they get from these different arms is gifted - therefore they can't say as a football club we have this much in total revenue. I hope I have explained enough to put my point across.

Xman wrote:

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m

:_<> :_<> :_<>

I'd rather that
then revenue of 50 million & costs of 55 Million dickhead .. like many ... many VFL clubs do

fuck me
you seriously don't have a clue re money do you :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Swans4ever wrote:

Swans4ever wrote:

Cracker wrote:

$12 million plus the revenue from the other CDRL outlets, Xman. They count whether you like it or not because it's part of the club's bottom line. To ignore it is to understate the club's true financial position. Canberra is in a much more enviable position than some Sydney clubs in this regard - Cronulla for example.

Cracker the biggest difference between AFL clubs and the Raiders set up is the separate arms of the group are ALL separate legal identities - (I suspect for tax reasons) the money that each part of the group make is separate from each other and among other charities the GIFT money to the Raiders FC get money gifted to them, so they can't access that other money as there are separate boards legally (although there may be directors common amongst boards) The AFL clubs have access to ALL there funds and are free to use that money as they wish - this is what RD just doesn't get. The Raiders could theoretically if an adverse board comes all be legally locked out of those funds. That's what all AFL posters are saying!

Cracker if you see the reports from each arm of the group they say they have their own fully constituted boards that meet regularly and directors - poor ol RD just can't grasp what a legal identity is or what it means - I have tried to educate him on this many times. That's why KE doesn't get involved as he doesn't like to be on a losing argument!

:_<> :_<> :_<>

captain wrong
just can't help himself

ONE board
CEO of Football Operations .... Don Furner Junior
CEO of the Raiders Group ( all of their other operations ) Simon Hawkins

all monies under the control of the mighty Canberra Raiders
it hurts
fumbler can't attack me about my clubs financial situation ... they are doing great & they now... know it

I can smash them about theirs
they hate that :_<> :_<> :_<>

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m

:_<> :_<> :_<>

I'd rather that
then revenue of 50 million & costs of 55 Million dickhead .. like many ... many VFL clubs do

fuck me
you seriously don't have a clue re money do you :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

how do the raiders make money pokes
cant attract sponsor, crowds tv ratings

Cracker wrote:

But Swans4ever they are all owned by the CDRL. The fact that each club (Mawson, Queanbeyan etc) has their own board is really a seperate argument. Maybe they do divide it up for tax purposes. That's perfectly legal and above board. This isn't about taxation. It's about available revenue to the Raiders. And they can access the other revenue in an emergency.

Raiderdave, the owners are the CDRL. Not the Raiders. Just to correct you there.

the CDRL & the Raiders are the same entity Crackers
one board
running everything

our multiple clubs are each run by directors.. not a board
reporting to CEO of the Raiders Group .. Simon Hawkins who reports to the main board

the Raiders that strong financially
they are going to fund the 80 Million development in civic themselves

they are not leasing the land off to a developer who'll own the project like the Sharks are with their land next to Remondis
they are doing it themselves & will own every scrap of it

now I think you're a way bit smarter then the clowns in singlets in here
& you'll know what this means in terms of the Raiders financial future ??

adamj1300 wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m

:_<> :_<> :_<>

I'd rather that
then revenue of 50 million & costs of 55 Million dickhead .. like many ... many VFL clubs do

fuck me
you seriously don't have a clue re money do you :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

how do the raiders make money pokes
cant attract sponsor, crowds tv ratings

do you mean pokies you illiterate fuckwit ? >

yep they make coin off them..... food & beverage... functions at their clubs ... etc etc
but also

as a Landlord
they have a property portfolio of over 35 Million dollars in assets

they have a 700K a year sponsor in Huwei
& another 700K in minor sponsors a year


all of this adds up to profits of 3 million plus ... every year
for the past 5 years
a figure some fumbler clubs would slaughter their gannies for :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>
so
is there any thing else I can help you with you shit for brains imbecile ?

Raiderdave wrote:

Xman wrote:

The Raiders business arm earns 70m but has costs of 67m

:_<> :_<> :_<>

I'd rather that
then revenue of 50 million & costs of 55 Million dickhead .. like many ... many VFL clubs do

fuck me
you seriously don't have a clue re money do you :_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Well youre stupid. The 50m is available for the club to spend so if they cut their spending to 45m they'll make a profit. Where as the Raider can't access any of the 67m so theyre stuck on 12m budget, about 1/4 of the AFL club