Roughriders Post $3M Profit

Speaking only for myself, I am not at all convinced that revenue sharing would have been a good thing. Nearly hitting the wall was what forced the Riders and its fans to take steps to become the franchise it now is.

Sure it is cyclical but, like is says in the bible, store up in the seven good years for the seven bad year. Just prudent management, not corporate leaching.

well allright ill bite, under conditions, much like the nhl does, u need a certain number of season tix sold to qualify for revenue sharing so lets go.. minimum, what? 20,000 season ticket holders and u qualify for revenue sharing? seems fair.

surely toronto and hamilton and montreal can do that.. cant they?

all i know is if i owned the bombers lets say and the bombers made say 5 million one season in profits.. and i had to split my 5 million with 3 teams who lost money.. man why would i want to own the team anymore?its a business no? if im not making any money, why would i bother. its just.. an 8 team league.

the more reasonable i think solution is next time the tv contract is up.. take tsn for all they are worth. ratings are huge on tsn for football.. make em pay a ton of cash and that cash right there, goes to each team... 2 million per team per year? works for me.

I think average attendance would be a better way to go than season ticket holders. If it were season ticket holders I would probably put the minimum number at about 15,000 rather than 20,000.

As for NHL revenue sharing, I did some research and I'm not sure I totally understand it but the jist of it seemed to be that the revenue sharing comes from league revenues which are held in escrow for each teams, not team profits. A percentage of money from the escrow accounts for the top 10 earning teams is taken to pay to the bottom 15 earning teams who qualify for revenue sharing so it isn't actually coming out of team profits per se. With a little tweeking that could work for the CFL but there are also likely simpler forms of revenue sharing as well.

In the 2009 annual report for the Bombers, it indicated that the league revenue they received was $1,828,350. So let's say with some complicated formula it works out that the top 3 earning teams had 50%* of their league revenue deducted and that money was split between the bottom 3 earning teams (if they qualify). The top 3 teams would each get $914,175, the middle 2 teams would each get $1,828,350 and the bottom 3 teams would each get $2,742,525.

*That's a high percentage and I doubt it would be that high if that form of revenue sharing occurred. I chose it because it was an easy percentage to figure stuff out.

It starts with sound management and good aggressive marketing that makes the corporate community want to be involved as well as the down to earth fans.
The CFL has been fortunate to have some excellent examples of good managers. As many know I dislike the Lions immensely but had the utmost respect for Bobby Ackles who singlehandedly saved the Lions from extinction. He rolled his sleeves up and touched on the above points and made it turnaround. We need more like him who believed the CFL was a Canadian institution and more loyal to its communities than the NFL where ackles worked too. I applaud the Riders management tremendously but mourn the loss of Mr. Bobby Ackles - a true Canadian patriot who saved the CFL I believe.
Riders Rule

:cowboy:

The Riders are already revenue sharing. Merchandise sales nationwide of ridergear are shared. the $7.1m is based on Rider store sales and a piece of the national. The stuff sold at Jersey City, Walmart, CFL stores, 7-11 is all spread around.

And if I was a real **** I'd point out that the Riders share by selling out other teams stadiums.....but I wont

Here is the link to the 2009 Riders Financial Statement:

[url=http://www.riderville.com/uploads/assets/SSK/PDF_ROSTERS_DEPTH/2009-10%20Annual%20Report.pdf]http://www.riderville.com/uploads/asset ... Report.pdf[/url]

How I read it, the Riders have $22 million in cash, up from $17 million last year. I don't think they want you to know this, as their Financial Statement is a bit misleading to say the least. But a $3.1million (or $1.6M last year) profit sounds so much better, than $8 million...especially when the Riders don't want to be lowering ticket prices.

The Riders learned well from the Eskimos, whose Financial Statement shows $45 million in cash reserves....but the Esks barely turn a profit most years. :wink:

I believe the numbers you are looking at are net assets, not cash. They are not the same thing. And the amount the net assets increased is equal to the $3 million profit.

The Riders have $15 million in Scotiabank bonds and $7 million in cash and equivalents, totaling $22 million. They also have $3.5 million in physical plant, totaling $25.5 million in assets.

A lot of those net assets are not liquid and they have been accumulated over the years. The expenses the Riders had were really high (which they say is because of the 100th anniversary celebration events) which cut down on the profits.

Time out here. :? Yes of course net assets are not the same as profit.

However $7 million in cash and equivalents is about as liquid as it gets, and the $15M is in bond FUNDS not bonds awaiting some future maturity. Those are relatively liquid too.

Of course the physical plant and infrastructure are not liquid, but that $22M is leftover liquid assets or cash from somewhere including the following:
Profits from prior seasons as stated PLUS
2009's $3M profit PLUS
Additional capital investments in the team by any of the ownership interests.

Also note for those suspicious, the $10M in "Football Operations" for expenses would be the worthy of scrutiny more than the other expense categories it appears. I wouldn't bother, but for those who care that much go for it if you can manage to find what within those looks like more than just a routine operating expense (salaries, equipment, travel, team medical, FOOD, et cetera).

A certain amount of such expenses in many a corporation or other business entity, even in a small business, are really items that are a convenient tax write-off too.

Though these items have a primary business purpose they also have material and intangible PERSONAL benefits. In other words, expensing such items in addition to other routine ones is a clever way to derive some sort of additional income without having to call it as such, for otherwise one would have to pay for such items more on an AFTER-tax basis personally rather than on a PRE-tax basis when expensed under the business umbrella.

Most anyone who owns a business knows these legal tricks for sake of reducing the tax burden at tax time and to diminish the public perception how well they are doing, for when such an entity shows it has that much more or "too much free cash" a whole lot more greedy and other prying eyes take notice.

The financial statements say they had $29.6 million in revenue and about $26.6 million in expenses for a profit of $3 million. There is no way Deloitte & Touche would approve those financial statements if the expenses weren't legit.

I'm not sure why $10 million in football operations is suspicious. On the Bombers annual report they list just under $8.7 million for football operations and the Bombers have been cheap for years.

It is not a question of the LEGITIMACY of the expenses Blue Blood as indeed I would not doubt they are legitimate.

It's a question of what every business can get away with when doing so to justify such expenses as legitimate.

In other words, as detail-oriented as is the field of accounting and the tax code, there is plenty of grey area sometimes with regard to what is a qualified expense and then on top of that just how much one derives in personal benefit off the books from such an expense. :slight_smile:

I did not say $10M in football operations is suspicious, but for those who think so and as it is also the largest expense, THAT'S where to look if one is suspicious and knock yourself out.