DVML report: $1.9 million loss

### ODT Online Wed, 9 May 2012
Dunedin stadium posts $19m loss
By Chris Morris
The size of the financial hole occupied by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd – the company tasked with running the Forsyth Barr Stadium – has been confirmed. Figures released at a media conference this afternoon showed the company had lost $1.9 million in the first six months of the 2011-12 financial year. Projected full-year results were yet to be released, but were expected to be worse.

Losses were now also expected for the following two financial years, and expected to be confirmed when DVML released an updated statement of intent later today.

Read more + Video

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr


Filed under Business, Concerts, DCC, DVML, Economics, Events, Media, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums

60 responses to “DVML report: $1.9 million loss

  1. Anonymous

    Updated statement of intent very brief: “We quit”
    The problem that the dimwits at DCC now have for themselves is that they didn’t just tie DVML to the stadium; they tied it to ALL DCC-owned/operated venues. So they can’t quietly let it die.

    • Elizabeth

      Yeah well, didn’t we say successful trading would be impossible before it was built. The line up of “school dinners and stag nights” (you heard right) doesn’t ‘operate’ a multimillion dollar debt-funded loss-making multipurpose RUGBY stadium.

      ODT editorial team, are you listening.

  2. Russell Garbutt

    The body language of David Davies at the press conference was that of a beaten man. He hasn’t a clue how to make a profit – not because he is not capable, it is a fact that no-one can make it pay. All it can do is to lose money and the only real question that needs to be answered is “how much?” Just how can those complete idiots that signed off on an operational profit continue to either hold office or draw a salary?

  3. Amanda

    The complete idiots can continue to draw down large ratefunded salaries because no-one is calling them to account. Accept from forums like this. The gormless media in this town doesn’t seem to understand ‘political accountability’ and seems to believe the stadium debt was created by aliens or just fell out of the sky.

  4. Anonymouse

    The $1.9m net loss would be without accounting for interest on the DCC loans and depreciation/maintenance funding which was removed from the budgets? So in other words, even being very selective with what costs were included, and holding several large events, the stadium is sucking millions from ratepayer funds. I am surprised, after that nice Mr Farry and his friends assured us the Stadium would be an asset to the city. Don’t assets make money?

  5. Anonymous

    A gleeful Malcom Farry felt “unusually good” on April 25th 2009.

    I wonder how he feels now? No sense of shame, probably.

    • Elizabeth

      He flies back into Dunedin tomorrow (from Westpac Stadium town), ready to greet the full news coverage. Personally, I’d be working on a ticket transfer to anywhere offshore.

  6. Amanda

    Those who were going to benefit from the stadium, have done so. The lucky folk who owned the land the stadium is built on for example, how wonderful for them that their land turned out to be so valuable. How much were the landowners paid ? $32 million? These land owners and their children sure are lucky that this stadium opportunity came along. I guess it is up to the rest of us to just smile and keep on paying for the next forty years so that these lucky people can continue to live in the style to which they and their descendents are entitled.

  7. Calvin Oaten

    Interesting that the public announcement obviously only picked the operating loss of $1.9 million. What about the overall picture? There is the documented fact that DVML incurred debt in excess of $6.2 million to debt fund the large screens, the extra toilets, the catering fit out, signage and of course the funding of the temporary seating. None of this was budgeted in the main contract but was essential to complete the stadium. DVML of course needs to service that debt. Is that part of the $1.9m? I doubt it. At 7% $6.2m would require $217,000 in interest for six months. Then there is the undertaking for DVML to produce $4m per year for DVL to service its debt. How is that to happen? Does this information figure in this report? We will have to read it in its full form to determine that. All in all, a weak whitewash is the only description one could give it.

    • Elizabeth


      Hello Radio NZ – the model was wrong from Day 1.
      This is not about current economic conditions.

    • Elizabeth

      Calvin, a discussion I was having just before the news came out had amongst it my question about how would they “package it”, to seem slighter by some way than the REAL BIG PICTURE. Of course, you’re painting it rather well.

      • Elizabeth

        People who are unaware of the financial problem that the stadium delivers are very much ignorant of the fact that being open for any event incurs a loss to ratepayers and therefore residents – such is the ‘going concern’. That’s not going to change, ever. Not in Dunedin. Never.

        And that is the good news. Keep it open you get the very bad news.

  8. Hype O'Thermia

    If it were me, I’d be wondering if there would be a reception group with placards waiting to meet the flight.

  9. Anonymous

    Hey, hey, there they are. The stadium proponent(s) have got all riled up at ODT Online. Anyone want to guess at which Stakeholders helped craft their familiar scripts? Can’t wait for the day that “marketing” department at DCC starts spinning wheels too.

    As for the ODT editorial team. They’ve been informed in many different ways of the bad behaviour of this council and its stakeholders over the years. Frequently softening the issues or just ignoring news tips outright. Newsworthiness seemed a goal reserved for cats stuck up trees at times. Even the Forsyth Barr question has been raised on their site.

    For some reason there always seemed a sort of… you know… something… luvvy-duvvy?… between the DCC, CST and ODT. Likely though just one big misunderstanding.

  10. JimmyJones

    Yea, its probably just a coincidence that the ODT’s hyper-optimizm towards the DCC is matched by the odd exclusive story and early releases of some stories. The DCC’s generous contribution towards the ODT’s new TV transmitting site is completely unrelated to anything.

    “DCC staff are working through the options and the process for Channel 9 to establish its own site within the ‘Coverage Mask’ area at the top of Mount Cargill Scenic Reserve (which is vested in the Council), so Channel 9 can continue its broadcasting operations.”
    Channel 9 are a bit skint and can’t afford to pay for space on the big mast. The extent of the DCC’s assistance remains to be seen.

  11. Carol

    I’m wondering why I ever came back to this city and its stadium disaster. Farry has run off to Queenstown. David Davies is going home to Wales. Richard Walls, one of the most staunch stadium advocates has died. They’ve all left Dunedin in a hell of a mess.

  12. ormk

    I guess when Mr. Farry said, “Build it and they’ll come” he must have been referring to auditors and debt collectors.

  13. ormk

    It’ll be interesting to see how the DCC long term plan takes account of this. Last year the overall objective for the stadium funding was creating “Wealthy Communities”. They’ve already had to ditch that way of spinning the budget in the draft plan. Things are coming to the crunch and I hope Dave Cull will finally come down on the right side. Is that possible?

    My view is that we have to acknowledge a sunk cost. We also can’t let those that shafted us get away scot-free. Highlanders and ORFU should not be allowed to use the stadium. The later should be forced into liquidation. A full investigation into possible corrupt practices connected with the DCC should be launched. If we can do all the above then we should raise rates a bit to pay the debt sooner rather than later so that our grandchildren aren’t screwed. We should support community participatory rugby just like we support swimming pools and gardens but the professional game should bloody well look after itself.

  14. Calvin Oaten

    “Dunedin to review Stadium after Huge Loss”; so says the ticker tape on tonight’s Channel 7 news hour. Will this mean the DCC will hold off ratifying the deal with the ORFU until the review is completed? And will the council take into account the full details of the stadium financials? Will it conveniently ignore aspects such as the true position of DVML? Or will it accept the DVML loss of just $1.9m as announced today as being the sum total? Did the PWC report detail a full investigation or just as per an instructed briefing? Oh so many questions, oh so much left to our imagination. Dave Cull must either be in “cloud cuckoo land” or is convinced we ‘plebs’ are dull and stupid. This whole affair has been a slow moving train wreck from day one. Entirely predictable and playing out exactly to plan. I guess we will just have to wait for Malcolm Farry to issue a statement with the ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ after he has read the DVML report as he promises. Personally, I can’t wait.

  15. Phil

    What they should do and they will do are sadly going to be two different things. What they should do is not have a bar of professional rugby at the moment. If it were any other business enterprise they wouldn’t even be looking at it twice. Sadly, no-one says no to rugby in New Zealand. No-one. And that’s why throwing everything we have and most of what we don’t have at a minority sport keeps us as a minority region and country.

  16. Hype O'Thermia

    Swings, roundabouts. What goes around comes around, and so on.
    Some advertising you just can’t pay for.
    See the headlights of the karma shining on the association “Forsyth Barr” with “multi million dollar loss”.
    Through the grey clouds a ray of sunshine…..

    • Elizabeth

      Another day of racing stats at What if? Bravo, people.

      • Elizabeth

        The DCC General Manager Finance and Resources has constructed a report to present to Monday’s Council meeting, ‘Review of the Stadium Operating Model’ (his argument being 5 pages of a 47-page report). This report is not available online.

        On page 3, item 3., take note (in light of today’s announcement on DVML’s six-monthly report) that Athol Stephens says:

        “To date, the company [DVML] is on course to generate $4.6m per annum, from commercial rights to the stadium. In terms of conferences, catering and hospitality commissions, the company is performing above expectations.”

        This before a run at the deficits in the millions from 2013 to 2015, for DVML and DVL. Pointing to the need for a stock-take.

        No kidding. Could have written this a few years ago and saved the city from building the damn stadium.

        Further to the Larsen Report, does DCHL really want to assume governance authority for DVML and DVL ? How would you like your holding group to assume all that stadium debt ? What effect will it have on all of your commercial operations ?

        (page 5) There is a write-up on the High Performance Sport Centre, built and operating inside the stadium precinct. It cost $4.6m to build, funded with $3.6m from the DCC’s Logan Park redevelopment budget (gee thanks Cr Paul Hudson, Cr John Bezett, and your clansmen), and $1m from Sport NZ (formerly SPARC). DCC grants $350,000 pa to the Performance Centre under a service level agreement. Maybe, the report says, DCC could lease out the land and buildings to the Performance Centre, “to simplify their occupation of their new site”. Thus the HPSC would transfer to DVL.

        A lot of other joy contained within but only so far as Statements of Intent, and financial reports, for DVML and DVL. And the suspicion all is not as it seems.

        • Elizabeth

          Interesting to see what unfolds about the former New Zealand Academy of Sport (South Island) and its new guise as the new High Performance Sport Centre (HPSC) – professional rugby training facilities, in brackets. Got to keep reminding ourselves how things tie together. And how charitable funds meant for amateur sports codes get somehow diverted, by who.

  17. Calvin Oaten

    Elizabeth; in your last post you state: And how charitable funds meant for amateur sports codes get somehow diverted, by who. Do you mean the World Health Organisation?

    • Elizabeth

      Calvin, I’m not terribly good with anagrams. How unhealthy is a defamation suit might be the question. In other contexts of course, the ‘o’ might well stand for something like the beginning of organised crime. I got lost after that.

  18. Anonymous

    I disagree with ormk above. The stadium has almost certainly created “Wealthy Communities”. They just happen to be a few people living in big houses in Queenstown rather than a larger number spread across Dunedin city.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Thu, 10 May 2012
      Stadium’s big loss ‘a dose of reality’
      By Chris Morris
      The Dunedin City Council says it will be forced to consider more funding to help the company running the Forsyth Barr Stadium overcome a nearly $2 million loss and debt-servicing costs it cannot afford to pay. It was confirmed yesterday Dunedin Venues Management Ltd, which runs the stadium, had recorded a $1.9 million loss for the first six months of the 2011-12 financial year.
      Read more

      Paul Orders says “councillors would have to consider how best to overcome the current DVML deficit, but options included funnelling any end-of-year council surpluses into the company to cover the shortfall”.

      The stadium will always create shortfalls, that’s the problem.
      [the lack of maintenance on the building is already starting to show]

      Nope, that ratepayer money – the end-of-year council surpluses – has to service council debt, nothing else. Otherwise the flakes on Council will spend it on their pet projects and propping up their favourite community groups, like they do. It’s election year next year.

  19. ormk

    If I’d been quicker last year I’d have made a submission to change “Wealthy Communities” to “Funding our Mates”. If one is going to be shafted at least it could be done honestly.

    • Elizabeth

      [DCC chief executive Paul Orders] doubted heads would roll over the erroneous estimations of the facility’s performance. The process was legal but risky, he said.

      ### stuff.co.nz Last updated 16:05 09/05/2012
      Southland Times
      Dunedin stadiums predictions proven correct
      By Wilma McCorkindale – Dunedin
      The flash new Forsyth Barr Stadium has fulfilled the prophecies of doom with a $1.9m projected loss in its first six months announced today and new projections showing a $1.4m loss in the 2012/13 year. Stadium supporters told Dunedin ratepayers who revolted against the development that it would make a profit from the outset but now those ratepayers are footing the bill.
      Read more

  20. Phil

    Council has to shoulder the lion’s share of the blame with this. More so than CST. The original recommending report, commissioned by, and signed off by, Council prior to Council agreeing to fund and build the stadium was very specific and very clear. The viability of the stadium relied solely on the financial success of rugby at the stadium. Without rugby succeeding at the stadium, the stadium could not succeed as a venture. Concerts and conferences were to be considered as extras, but without significant and sufficient income from rugby, the stadium would fail. It was very very clear in the report recommendations. Dave knew this from the start so there’s no point in pretending to be shocked and surprised now. There’s also no point in blaming the global economy, or whatever, for a lack of concerts. Concerts were never intended to provide the base income. Only rugby was. That’s all just smoke and misdirection. This is an issue between Council and professional rugby in the region.

  21. It is remarkable the difference in tone between the ODT and the Southland Times. The Southland Times emphasis is that the opponents of the Stadium have been proved correct, but that Cull and Orders believe that it is time to move on, and nobody will be held to account.
    But isn’t the “doubted heads would roll” comment from Cull and not Orders?

  22. Amanda

    “..The financial funding and operating model of the stadium was put in place to convince people to build it,” Cull said. Notice he dare not mention the councillors who told Dunedin that the stadium would ‘work’. Like Cr Hudson’s and mates’ little white lie of “Only $66 a year”, for example. And of course the ‘media’ does not bother to remind readers who the councillors are that have driven Dunedin into the ground. Guess what that means? Hudson, Brown, Collins and the rest of the Fiscal dunderheads will be re-elected to council next year.

  23. Anonymous

    Wanting to know who brought Dunedin to its knees for professional rugby? Make yourself familiar with the remaining Stadium Councillors here: https://dunedinstadium.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/does-the-insolvent-orfu-deserve-any-more-community-support/#comment-22110.

    Use the information to heal the city’s future by throwing out the remaining councillors at the next election. This especially applies to voters in the Mosgiel-Taieri and Waikouaiti Coast-Chalmers wards.

  24. Amanda

    Re-electing councillors Hudson, Noone, Weatherall, Acklin et al basicly tells them to continue selling Dunedin to their stakeholder mates ( we don’t care ) and to continue to trash transparency in this council. We are in this worse situation because Cull has to kowtow to half of a council that will crush him if he does one thing to make the stadium appear the con it is.

    • Elizabeth

      Bev Butler makes the following observation:

      DVML loss is $1.9m
      DVL loss is $5.2m (page 42)

      The combined loss of DVML and DVL is $7.1m and is the more realistic figure.

      In 2007, stadium opponents predicted a $15m to $20m annual loss so the $7.1m half yearly loss is close to our predicted figure.

      The report also mentions subvention payments to offset some of the loss.

      Report – Council – 14/05/2012
      (PDF, 2.3 MB)
      Review of the Stadium Operating Model. This report was released to the media on Wednesday 9 May 2012 and will be part of the agenda for the Council’s meeting on Monday 14 May 2012.

      DCC Weblink

  25. Phil

    David Davies was initially employed as a DCC employee, not as a DVL/DVML employee. At what point did his employment transfer to DVL/DVML ? In other words, is his salary, and associated employment costs included in the 6 monthly statement and, if so, what percentage of his employment costs are included ? Only a small amount in the grand scheme of things, but an example of many costs which have been moved sideways in order to paint a different picture. As happened with the construction.

    {An auditor is on the case. -Eds}

  26. Anonymous

    First glance at the report and my reaction is ZOMG: this thing is NEVER going to make money.

  27. Rob Hamlin

    Get a load of this video – Big Malc. at his best

  28. Peter

    ‘Every penny, every dollar was sweated over’. Malcolm Farry, May 10, 2012.

  29. Calvin Oaten

    Malcolm didn’t elaborate on just what the CST’s working model consisted of. Could it be that he would have had by now a Papal visit, twelve big star concerts, three Bledisloe tests, two Lions tests and one Springbok test. Plus the Super 15 matches all in the stadium. We will never know.

  30. Hype O'Thermia

    Calvin, you left out the concert by Oor Wee Malc’s own troupe of all-singing, all-dancing flying pigs.

    • Elizabeth

      And yet. I have witnessed Malc snivelling and depressed (all time low) at Nova being bolstered up by John Ward.
      Because at the end of the project they can say they’ve done a great job, Mr Ward felt sure.

      • Elizabeth

        Today has been our BUSIEST DAY since What if? Dunedin… was started by Paul Le Comte in March 2007.
        Thank-you to everyone for your comments, information, visits and support.

        A lot more work to do. Keep it up.
        Extraordinary. You ROCK.

  31. ormk

    “But this should not be interpreted by Mr Cull as a free licence. There is a limit to anybody’s patience and tolerance,” Mr Farry said

    Quoted in this morning’s ODT. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/208857/comments-anger-farry)

    Farry and his friends are well past everyone else’s limit on patience and tolerance. The reality of the huge losses cannot be ignored. Where are all your predictions now Farry old boy? Who is coming now that you have built it?

    Stick it to them Chin. And ODT- the way you are going now it looks like you finally have some competition in town. How about an article reminding us on who exactly made a profit on stadium land sales and how the valuation proceeded?

  32. Anonymous

    Sweated over every penny? What a load of bollocks. Remember that one guy getting paid a thousand a day and claiming printing costs? What was he doing again? This has been a financial scam right from the start and one of the worst kind – taking advantage of stupid, gullible people in positions of influence and using legal loopholes to gut a city’s finances and line their own pockets.

  33. I see in the “Kick For Touch” column in the ORT that some club rugby games are going to be played at the Stadium : entry by gold-coin donation.
    How can this be?
    With Otago Rugby bust and DVML broke, surely spectators should be paying $10 or so.
    Those who use the Stadium need to pay for it.

  34. Anonymous

    “‘Every penny, every dollar was sweated over’. Malcolm Farry, May 10, 2012.”
    Fixed that for you.

  35. Amanda

    Yes, would be interesting if the ORT did a story on the lucky benefactors of the stadium spend. Like land owners…

  36. Russell Garbutt

    Has anyone else noticed that if a contribution is made to the ODT on-line comments page that the comment is quite often shuffled down to about p3 or 4 of the comments despite it being only recently “received”? Is this a subtle way of editing or controlling what people read? Why don’t comments appear in chronological order?

  37. Hype O'Thermia

    It’s a practice that has raised the same questions in my mind, Russell.

    • Elizabeth

      ### ODT Online Fri, 11 May 2012
      DVML shortfall – cost-cutting begins
      By Chris Morris
      A fresh round of cost-cutting is under way at the Dunedin City Council as it scrambles to cover a projected $2.4 million loss by the company running the Forsyth Barr Stadium. Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull yesterday confirmed the losses revealed by DVML on Wednesday were “unsustainable” for the council, and fresh savings would need to be found within already-tight budgets. DVML lost $1.9 million for the first six months of 2011-12. It projected a $2.4 million full-year loss, and forecast losses totalling $3.3 million for the three financial years to 2015. Mr Cull said that meant councillors already working on the council’s 2012-13 draft annual plan would need to find more costs to cut, and projects to delay or scrap altogether. Council staff were also already seeking additional savings from within the organisation’s operating costs, on top of those already squeezed out in recent months. Details of new savings are expected to be presented to councillors in time for inclusion in the 2012-13 budget, on which councillors are due to deliberate next week.

      Councillors at Monday’s full council meeting will be asked to approve the transfer of DVML’s governance responsibilities to Dunedin City Holdings Ltd, the holding company responsible for the city’s council-controlled organisations.

      Read more

  38. Anonymous

    Oh, that old rascal ODT and its rugby. Always a bag of stadium joy with a sweetie or two on hand for its stadium councillors. The laughs we’ve had… brings tears to my eyes just thinking about all the times shared.

  39. Elizabeth

    ### ODT Online Fri, 23 Nov 2012
    DVML books $36,475 profit from ITM Cup
    By Chris Morris
    The company running Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium is celebrating a rare financial win after confirming a small profit from this year’s ITM Cup rugby season. Figures released to the Otago Daily Times showed Dunedin Venues Management Ltdbooked a profit of $36,475 after hosting six Otago ITM Cup home games, including a semifinal against Tasman on October 19. The company secured total revenue of $114,418 – including $74,066 in venue hire fees from the Otago Rugby Football Union – but faced costs totalling $77,943.
    The results came after a turbulent year, including revelations of a $3.2 million loss, and left DVML chief executive Darren Burden “reasonably happy” yesterday.
    Read more


    Comment at ODT Online:

    Submitted by MikeStk on Fri, 23/11/2012 – 7:27am.
    They don’t appear to be including their overhead – I wonder what the real numbers look like, when they include a fair share of the costs of DVML staff, security the other 6 days of the week, providing free marketing services to the ORFU, rates, insurance, grounds upkeep, maintenance, depreciation, rent to DVL, etc etc
    What’s really sad of course is that they feel they have to trumpet that they’ve found a way to actually make a profit on an actual event, even if they haven’t included all the real costs, is this the first time?

    • Elizabeth

      ODT reporter fails to ask the hard questions, AGAIN. Spin.

      ### ODT Online Sat, 24 Nov 2012
      DVML $750,000 profit from hosting rugby games
      By Chris Morris
      Dunedin Venues Management Ltd has revealed another healthy profit of more than $750,000 from hosting the All Blacks and Highlanders. The company running Forsyth Barr Stadium has confirmed it made a profit of $419,639 from seven Highlanders Super 15 matches at the venue this year. Another $353,616 was made from hosting the stadium’s first All Blacks test, against the Springboks on September 15, which attracted a sell-out crowd. That meant a combined profit of $773,255 for DVML from the top two tiers of rugby at the stadium.
      Read more


      Comment at ODT Online:

      What about overheads?
      Submitted by MikeStk on Sat, 24/11/2012 – 7:40am.
      So DVML made a profit of $750,000 on rugby but still lost millions on operations – they’re obviously not following normal business practices and doing what any other sane business would do and charging their overheads against their income from customers – Mr Davies’ and Mr Burden’s salaries still need to be paid for before there’s a profit, as does the costs of employees, insurance, rates, depreciation, publicity, electricity, grounds maintenance, taxes, removing seagull poop, and providing the ORFU with free marketing, the list goes on, and all of it costs real money that should be recovered as a part of normal operations.
      In the real world business doesn’t count a profit until all the bills have been paid and there’s still money left over.
      Let’s make it very plain – DVML needs to charge rugby enough money to cover it’s costs of providing the entire stadium service, that includes a reasonable portion of their fixed costs that aren’t just provided on the day – otherwise their operation is not sustainable.

      • Elizabeth

        {Relocated from another thread. Relevance. -Eds}

        Submitted on 2012/11/24 at 9:22 pm

        Apparently DVML made a “profit” of $0.75M.

        It is interesting how the Otago Daily Times can dismiss the term millions when it relates to tens and hundreds of millions for its love of rugby and stadiums. But at times like these suddenly three quarters of a million dollars is big.

        Its blind followers certainly believe the number is impressive based on the soppy stuff appearing under the story.

        Excluding the two hundred million of interest repayments, all this marketing number tells me is that it’s no longer my children’s children paying for it but my children’s children’s children and quite likely their children. All thanks to Jim Harland and Peter Chin with a group of sidekicks supporting the interests of a few Stakeholders.

        All of this financial burden because of professional rugby and a stadium. All of it just to build another stadium so Cousin Farry can get a little more piss in his bucket and the Edgars can blow steam from Queenstown.

        Yeah, zero point seven five million – there’s a reason for the clueless rugby followers to celebrate. Too bloody weak to admit they got screwed and too bloody desperate to face it – all they’ve got is a slither of ice that’s fallen off the iceberg.

  40. Jacko

    It would appear that they made more out of the food and beverages than the game. What does that tell you?
    When people are bored they eat more.

  41. Phil

    The comment above is exactly right. The only figures published are the costs for external purchased services. None of the costs that the stadium paid directly are given. There’s no mention of the huge lighting costs for starters, nor any costs for preparing and maintaining the pitch. There is also no mention of the indirect costs for the same time period. The sole source of Income during the ITM Cup was from the ITM Cup, so that income had to cover the wages bill as well. The fixed salaries bill was quoted as being $850k for 6 months which translates into $250k for the ITM Cup period. For the Super Rugby and Test Match period it would be another $400k of salary costs, which are missing from the follow-up article.

    It would be like me building a brand new house, doing all the work myself. I need a registered electrician to make the final connections, which she does for $1,000. I then sell the finished house for $300k. According to the DVML Big Bumper Book Of Accounting, I made a profit of $290k. Sweet.

  42. Calvin Oaten

    Bearing in mind that DVML has a consolidated deficit of ($6.470m) as at 30/6/12, I guess it’s OK to try and con the ‘rugby heads’ into believing revenue of $750,000 is a profit. The front row props among them wouldn’t know anything about expenses. As was officially published by the ODT, the loss was ($3.214m), conveniently ignoring the brought forward loss of ($2.720m). So it can plainly be seen that the ODT is determined to understate or overstate, according to the slant that they wish to promote. Not difficult to see where they stand on the stadium.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s