Besieged WT's cut big $ deal to move home games to ANZ

Has anybody on this site read the contract and it's implications? I think not. Let's wait and see the full context of this arrangement before condemming all and sundry.
 
The only question I have on this subject would be " Who gets the share of the profits from the particular games played at Allianz ?? "
 
@happy tiger said:
The only question I have on this subject would be " Who gets the share of the profits from the particular games played at Allianz ?? "
Click to expand...

ANZ not allianz.. $$ Goes to WT

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
Maybe we got paid overs for a percentage of the timeframe in return for the timeframe.
Without knowing the ins & outs of it all, speculating's pretty pointless.
Though its ironic people find fault with this yet are happy to continue to play at outdated venues that more often than not end up costing us
 
It wasn't my intention to condemn or find faults in the deal… I was just trying to say that I was surprised at the length of the deal, and those were the reasons why I was surprised.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@magpiecol said:
Has anybody on this site read the contract and it's implications? I think not. Let's wait and see the full context of this arrangement before condemming all and sundry.
Click to expand...

So you're anticipating the club releasing this information to the rank and file are you Col ?

Don't hold your breath mate !
 
@innsaneink said:
Maybe we got paid overs for a percentage of the timeframe in return for the timeframe.
Without knowing the ins & outs of it all, speculating's pretty pointless.
Though its ironic people find fault with this yet are happy to continue to play at outdated venues that more often than not end up costing us
Click to expand...

Whether we know the ins and outs or not is irrelevant …. What is relevant is we are locked in for ten years .... The point me and others are raising is this sort of arrangement does not come without risk. I hope your mate has thought through how he manages these risks as circumstances change over the next ten years.
 
A few old country boys who used to attend games at ANZ because it had easy access back to the Mountains made a decisision back around then that we'd only go to game friendly matches, well since 2009 we've gone to bugger all.
Crikey we'll be back at ANZ as it's more user friendly than AlliANZ.
 
I can't see the big deal like I said financially and geographically much better off. Who want to share a home ground with the Roosters. Please. Ten years means we won't be at Perth or anything like that.
 
@Knuckles said:
@southerntiger said:
Knuckles how would financial difficulties for the trust effect us? If they cant pay, surely you're not suggesting we wouldnt be entitled to terminate the contract?

None of your suggestions are anything but fanciful. Taxations arrangements???

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

If the government changes the rules on taxing Trusts of course it's a risk. Ink asked me what could go wrong by locking in for an extraordinary length of time. I answered with possible hypotheticals. I think what is fanciful is locking in for ten years thinking nothing can go wrong and risk doesn't exist. If you run a business with that mindset you are headed for disaster.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No its not. If the trust cant afford to meet its obligations, we wont have too either and will simply switch back to the SFS.

In any event, the changes to the taxation of trusts is intended to simplify who will be liable for the tax income of the trust. The changes will mainly impact upon discretionary trusts and other closely held trusts who appoint income to beneficiaries. The Stadium Australia trust is not such a trust and any changes (if and when they ever happen) will have little impact upon the Stadium Australia trust.

In any event, as noted above, the changes to the taxation of trusts simply is going to have the drastic impact you suggest. The changes aim to simplify taxation of trust income not increase it. Trust income is already subject to tax at the same level as other taxpayers.

The ATO does believe trusts can be used for avoidance but you can safely assume the Stadium Australia trust doesnt engage in such practices.

I have a bit of an interest in tax hence the rant.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@steve-o said:
The biggest risk in being locked in for 10 years is that the value of our games could up and yet we would still only be receiving the $600k a season that we got ourselves locked into. Its like the previous TV deal the NRL had… Imagine if that deal was for 10 years instead of 5\. The nrl would only be receiving half of what they are receiving now thanks to the new deal

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...

This i agree with but the truth is that whilst the tv deals have potential for growth, stadium deals are limited to the amount fans are willing to pay for tickets and food. There is less potential for growth. I imagine that there is some scope for growth factored into the deal in any event.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@innsaneink said:
Im sure he has.
Meanwhile you can worry & whine for the next decade.
Click to expand...

You don't like it when someone questions your mates decisions do you !
If you can't think up something better to post then don't post at all.
 
@southerntiger said:
@Knuckles said:
@southerntiger said:
Knuckles how would financial difficulties for the trust effect us? If they cant pay, surely you're not suggesting we wouldnt be entitled to terminate the contract?

None of your suggestions are anything but fanciful. Taxations arrangements???

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

If the government changes the rules on taxing Trusts of course it's a risk. Ink asked me what could go wrong by locking in for an extraordinary length of time. I answered with possible hypotheticals. I think what is fanciful is locking in for ten years thinking nothing can go wrong and risk doesn't exist. If you run a business with that mindset you are headed for disaster.

No its not. If the trust cant afford to meet its obligations, we wont have too either and will simply switch back to the SFS.

In any event, the changes to the taxation of trusts is intended to simplify who will be liable for the tax income of the trust. The changes will mainly impact upon discretionary trusts and other closely held trusts who appoint income to beneficiaries. The Stadium Australia trust is not such a trust and any changes (if and when they ever happen) will have little impact upon the Stadium Australia trust.

In any event, as noted above, the changes to the taxation of trusts simply is going to have the drastic impact you suggest. The changes aim to simplify taxation of trust income not increase it. Trust income is already subject to tax at the same level as other taxpayers.

The ATO does believe trusts can be used for avoidance but you can safely assume the Stadium Australia trust doesnt engage in such practices.

I have a bit of an interest in tax hence the rant.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good for you ! But can I suggest you diversify your interest into contract law which I have a bit of an interest in ? If we were to switch back to SFS as you suggest, unless the appropriate get out clauses are put in place, this comes at a substantial penalty …. Bit like what's going on with Sheens' three year contract that didn't even last one year. Why do we get ourselves into these parlous situations when it's not necessary ? Don't they ever learn ?
 
@Knuckles said:
@innsaneink said:
Im sure he has.
Meanwhile you can worry & whine for the next decade.

You don't like it when someone questions your mate do you !
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And neither do you!

You both b***h and whine about anyone who disagrees with you. Toughen up and realise other people's opinions are valid, not just yours.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@Blake93 said:
@Knuckles said:
@innsaneink said:
Im sure he has.
Meanwhile you can worry & whine for the next decade.

You don't like it when someone questions your mate do you !

And neither do you!

You both b***h and whine about anyone who disagrees with you. Toughen up and realise other people's opinions are valid, not just yours.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah well, where's your opinion on the subject Mr Righteous ?
 
@Knuckles said:
@southerntiger said:
@Knuckles said:
@southerntiger said:
Knuckles how would financial difficulties for the trust effect us? If they cant pay, surely you're not suggesting we wouldnt be entitled to terminate the contract?

None of your suggestions are anything but fanciful. Taxations arrangements???

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

If the government changes the rules on taxing Trusts of course it's a risk. Ink asked me what could go wrong by locking in for an extraordinary length of time. I answered with possible hypotheticals. I think what is fanciful is locking in for ten years thinking nothing can go wrong and risk doesn't exist. If you run a business with that mindset you are headed for disaster.

No its not. If the trust cant afford to meet its obligations, we wont have too either and will simply switch back to the SFS.

In any event, the changes to the taxation of trusts is intended to simplify who will be liable for the tax income of the trust. The changes will mainly impact upon discretionary trusts and other closely held trusts who appoint income to beneficiaries. The Stadium Australia trust is not such a trust and any changes (if and when they ever happen) will have little impact upon the Stadium Australia trust.

In any event, as noted above, the changes to the taxation of trusts simply is going to have the drastic impact you suggest. The changes aim to simplify taxation of trust income not increase it. Trust income is already subject to tax at the same level as other taxpayers.

The ATO does believe trusts can be used for avoidance but you can safely assume the Stadium Australia trust doesnt engage in such practices.

I have a bit of an interest in tax hence the rant.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Good for you ! But can I suggest you diversify your interest into contract law which I have a bit of an interest in ? If we were to switch back to SFS as you suggest, unless the appropriate get out clauses are put in place, this comes at a substantial penalty …. Bit like what's going on with Sheens' three year contract that didn't even last one year. Why do we get ourselves into these parlous situations when it's not necessary ? Don't they ever learn ?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Mate no disrespect but whilst you may have an interest in contract law your post suggests otherwise. Look up the words "termination clause" and "repudiatory conduct" in google.

If the contract did not confer a right to terminate on the club for non-payment of the agreed payments, then we have bigger issues than the length of the deal.

I prefer not to assume the club is retarded.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 483 (members: 38, guests: 445)
Back
Top