Joe kelly tlkn sprt

[wombatgc]

Yeah nothing says above board more than 'based in Saudi Arabia'....could've been worse I suppose....based in the ' Caymen Islands'.
Did they take Reelfaat up to the Cross to teach him how to score. I hope someone like Kaupau took Reelfaat behind the sheds and gave him a cpl uppercuts for the 'rugby' tag!. Rugby League champion. Now get out to the coconut factory and do something about the taste of that putrid stuff. And get rid of the blob refeer man!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Interesting read and clearly refutes the suggestions by some (narks) on here that it was a token dodgy sponsorship !

Not you too Sheiky Boy it's spelt Mark not Nark!!

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I'm even considering a name change on ST, how does " Nark from Brisbane" sound everyone??

 

[Sheikheagle]

I'm even considering a name change on ST, how does " Nark from Brisbane" sound everyone??

Narky Mark from Bris Vegas I like it!

 

[Moops]

You get a tax write off for business expenses (effectively losses made). This effectively spreads the cost between the company and the gov't (on tax revenue they might otherwise earn).

So why would a company in this circumstance incur a cost (make a loss) to earn a tax write off for only part of that loss? I don't get the logic.

You don't even know what a write off is...

 

[bones]

You don't even know what a write off is...

Is this a tax write off?

 

[ManlyBacker]

As the Penns may see it:

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Is this a tax write off?
View attachment 2927

Once appreciated 100% - now 100% depreciated.

 

[MadMarcus]

Judging by the dummy spit rating from Clint, he thinks you're whining about the whining about the whining.

So Clint is whining about your whining about others' whining about the level of whining.

I suddenly feel like a glass of wine...

 

[MadMarcus]

I'm even considering a name change on ST, how does " Nark from Brisbane" sound everyone??

Would that make me MadNarkus?

 

[bob dylan]

One of my best song from the last 20 years, Its Not Nark Yet, But Its Getting There.

 

[Ralphie]

You get a tax write off for business expenses (effectively losses made). This effectively spreads the cost between the company and the gov't (on tax revenue they might otherwise earn).

So why would a company in this circumstance incur a cost (make a loss) to earn a tax write off for only part of that loss? I don't get the logic.

Spot on Rex, this term always makes me laugh. In Australia the Company tax rate is 30% so in order to save $30 in tax you need to spend $100. That means the net cost is $70, it doesn't mean you have saved $30 it means you have thrown away $70 that you would otherwise have had if you had just paid the $30 tax.

 

[Rex]

And what's any different to any other sponsor.

Nothing at all.

 

[Rex]

Massive over simplification.

+ Goodwill is paramount on a balance sheet (relating to brand awareness). Banks determine solvency in the event of potentially borrowing, allowing the company to grow & raise capital.
+ As Dan suggested, sponsorship is an instant expense, providing tax relief if required.
+ Brand awareness = more cash = reduction in inventory days, potentially decreasing payable in days, potentially improving supplier terms, potentially improving cash position. This leads to improved Net Cash After Operations (NCAO). That's what a Bank would determine loan approvals from (NOT profit, like most people would think).
+ Sponsorships can have an immediate affect on many different facets of a business (including negative in the club is seen in a negative light)

You also asked:
So why would a company in this circumstance incur a cost (make a loss) to earn a tax write off for only part of that loss? I don't get the logic.

+ The company isn't making a loss, they are claiming an expense to reduce tax payable, but receiving the benefits I have listed above, plus many more. If your making large profits, it makes all the sense in the world. I only listed SOME of the positive affects.

Massive overcomplication. Massive nonsense.

1. Goodwill - If there is an increase in goodwill it is because there is an increase in expected sales - and from that expected profit. So sales is the metric. No increase in expected sales, no increase in goodwill.

2. Sponsorship providing tax relief? Nonsense. Tax relief only reduces the cost by a proportion. The (proportionally reduced) cost remains - and this is a loss if there is not offsetting income i.e. sales. So increased sales is the metric.

3. "Brand awareness = more cash = reduction in inventory days"? Of course. But ONLY if there are increased sales. So increased sales is the metric. These things are impacts of increased sales.

4. "Sponsorships can have an immediate affect on many different facets of a business"? Apart from the impacts of increased/reduced sales, have you got something you want to say is an extra benefit?

5. Sponsorships are not a loss if sales don't increase to compensate for those costs? Really? Are you serious?

Try assuming that sales don't increase as a result of sponsorship and just try to justify the statements you've made. Unless you can (which you can't) that is proof that sales is the metric.

 

[Rex]

You don't even know what a write off is...

Sadly I do know.

 

[EaglesDontTweet]

Great, now I'm getting the hang of the metric can someone explain it to me in imperial.

 

[globaleagle]

Great, now I'm getting the hang of the metric can someone explain it to me in imperial.

You work hard to make an inch....the govt takes a yard!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

You don't even know what a write off is...

 

[Moops]

Hahaha...That's the one!

 

[Ryan]

Massive overcomplication. Massive nonsense.

1. Goodwill - If there is an increase in goodwill it is because there is an increase in expected sales - and from that expected profit. So sales is the metric. No increase in expected sales, no increase in goodwill.

2. Sponsorship providing tax relief? Nonsense. Tax relief only reduces the cost by a proportion. The (proportionally reduced) cost remains - and this is a loss if there is not offsetting income i.e. sales. So increased sales is the metric.

3. "Brand awareness = more cash = reduction in inventory days"? Of course. But ONLY if there are increased sales. So increased sales is the metric. These things are impacts of increased sales.

4. "Sponsorships can have an immediate affect on many different facets of a business"? Apart from the impacts of increased/reduced sales, have you got something you want to say is an extra benefit?

5. Sponsorships are not a loss if sales don't increase to compensate for those costs? Really? Are you serious?

Try assuming that sales don't increase as a result of sponsorship and just try to justify the statements you've made. Unless you can (which you can't) that is proof that sales is the metric.

I don't even know where to start with that. I could, but FMD it's just way too much effort to attempt to win a debate here Not brushing you, I'm just lazy.