TECHNICAL
In this article, Andrew Turnbull BSc (Hons) examines how the use of further financial management and analysis skills show that a turfgrass manager is aware of how proposed purchases affect the organisation as a whole, not just their world of the golf course or sports ground
management board, typically as a part of the budgeting process. The manager and the board will probably have more capital proposals than they have cash to fund them, so some methods are required for choosing the most appropriate ones, whether machinery, course improvements or clubhouse investment.
P
Some typical capital investment decisions facing the enterprise from time to time include:
1. Replace or repair/keep? As equipment or facilities become nearly “used up” the decision must be made about whether to repair them and use them longer or replace them with new items. Generally, the older these items are, the more costly the ongoing maintenance.
2. Purchase capital item A or B? When buying a new machine, the enterprise usually has a choice among different brands, sizes, performance characteristics etc. Whilst much of the decision can be based on technical differences, a major consideration has to be the economic differences between competing proposals.
3. Lease or buy? Sports facilities often have the option to either buy equipment or lease it. Differences in the economics of the two options should be considered.
4. Do it yourself or hire it out? Much maintenance and construction work can either be done by in-house staff or by outside contractors. Economic differences often can be the deciding factor.
These capital investment decisions occur occasionally throughout the year, rather than as daily operating decisions. Ideally, the manager anticipates these major changes and carefully plans for them.
Investment Appraisal Methods
There are several different methods of investment appraisal, however the three main ones are:
1. Payback 2. Annual return 3. Net Present Value
When evaluating investment appraisal methods, it should be remembered that all methods rely on the accuracy of predicted net cash flows over the project lifetime, where net cash flow is the difference
art of a turfgrass manager’s role is to propose one or more capital expenditure projects that would benefit the facility. These projects will then be proposed to the
between the cash received and cash paid during the defined lifetime period. For example, installation of a drainage system should enable a golf course to be open for more days, bringing in extra revenue. When replacing old machinery, the cash received is the savings on maintenance and repair costs. We shall look at how to use the three investment appraisal methods by examining three options a golf club has for spending £40,000 available for improvements. The Course Manager would like to:
1. Making course alterations 2. Upgrade the irrigation system 3. Install drainage
Each of these options are costing the club money through repair bills and loss of income. However, only one option can be chosen due to the cash restrictions.
1. Payback
Payback is a method that aims to estimate how long it will take for a project to start generating an income. It looks at the value of the initial investment compared to the projected net cash flow.
Having calculated the payback period, it may be of interest to calculate the surplus cash generated during the project lifetime, after recouping the initial investment. This surplus cash could be from income generated, e.g. from the purchase of golf buggies; or savings on costs, e.g. when replacing old machinery.
Example 1 - making course alterations to reduce maintenance time and costs
Calculations from a forecasted maintenance schedule analysis show that, if an initial investment of £40,000 is made for Project A, the following net cash flows (savings in maintenance costs) will be generated: Year 1
2 3 4 5
Net Cash Flow 9,000 9,500 10,500 10,500 12,000
The above figures are calculated by estimating the reduction in maintenance costs compared to keeping the course as it is. To calculate the payback period of the
£40,000 investment, total the net cash flow figures over consecutive years until the full investment is recouped (see table 1). With this example the investment is fully recouped in just over 4 years, resulting in a total net cash flow, after payback, of £11,500 for the 5-year project.
PC December/January 2020 125
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
