It would be peak AFL if they can’t work out how to make a clock count down from 30 seconds on the scoreboard within two weeks.
The clubs should get the person holding the sign wear one of those advertising billboards.
AFL will of course fine the clubs… as per your last point.
Maybe it should be the club mascots holding the boards- highly visible and keep them involved in the game.
Particularly if the mascot has tiny arms, hours of hilarity could ensue.
Perhaps FCFC could drive the board around the boundary line in the hovercraft?
It would be great for the first 3 minutes until it broke down
My answer to that is simple and I’ve said it a few times - it’s because that’s how things currently are and applying measures what is/isn’t a NFP according to revenue will open it up to abuse by ideological influences.
You’re advocating for a change of their status as a punitive measure for doing well financially.
Doing well is a bit of an overstatement. They are generating revenues that many top 100 ASX listed companies would be happy with. I just think they are so far removed from the community aspect that their tax exempt status needs to be reviewed. As I said they are now in the entertainment industry competing for the punters bucks which not what a local sporting club is about.
So the short answer is that I think there needs to be a revenue test. If you generate a certain number of dollars you should be paying tax. If you set the threshold at say $100m you would not impact many if any of the other groups you’re concerned about taxing. Although some
may possibly argue that religious organisations and unions should also be taxed.
It’s the biggest oxymoron you can come across. A not-for-profit organisation whose driver is… MONEY!
Quick bit of web trawling pulled up theses NFPs with $100m in annual revenue in Australia, give or take
St Johns Ambulance, St Vincents Hospital, Red Cross, Salvation Army, World Vision, Fred Hollows Foundation, The Smith Family, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Cancer Council, Minda
We taxing them on revenue as well?
-edit- I have deliberately left out churches. On the face of it I feel like I should agree they get taxed like a company, but I do not support any kind of means testing applied to NFP status.
When you generate revenue over $100m and give your directors a $10m bonuses as a NFP while also increasing the costs of your product to the members, questions need to be asked
Applying the water cooler test - I think those entities would get a "fair enough, they are “charities / institutes of good.”
The AFL would get a WTF response.
It doesn’t mean the AFL can’t be allowed to claim community activities as a tax deduction, but its core business activities are a business and a very profitable one and that part should be taxed accordingly.
Reckon the AFL would struggle passing the water cooler test.
I take your point on the revenue. But the entities you have listed past the smell test as charities and therefore should be tax exempt. I don’t believe the AFL passes the smell test.
Maybe cut it another way. If a donation/payment to an organisation is tax deductible (ie qualifies as a genuine charity) then the entity can be tax exempt. I’m 100% confident that buying an AFL membership is never going to be tax deductible.
This. Nailed it.
Of course not, because you are purchasing a service (entry to home games), not giving money in good faith.
This water cooler/smell test concept is the issue I’m having with your viewpoint. I don’t think we’d be discussing tax as a punitive measure it if the AFL ended 2017/18 in deficit.
Personally I think the surplus is completely irrelevant. It’s the business that the AFL is in and the revenues that it’s generating that are important in why it shouldn’t be tax exempt.
Presumably they paid $455 GST on each of the signboards
Not if they claimed to be an educational institution.
Love to know how many of the last two are to organisations run by people on the commission or in the executive…
Wait no - you’re not suggesting the untouchable AFL executive and commission might be demonstrating poor governance are you???
Maybe, but mostly the idea of a ‘punitive measure’ is not aimed at the health of the AFL itself, it’s aimed at the broader community getting a share so the fat cats running the place don’t get to continue hoarding the benefit - would be my take
I certainly don’t want my views on NFPs to distract from my wider economic view of “kill the rich”