Commitment and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Repurchase Commitments In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions for sales generated from both the U.S. and Australia operating segments. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued expenses in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected. Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income. No units were repurchased during the three or nine months ended March 31, 2017. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to repurchase three units from the lender of two of its former dealers. Other than these repurchase commitments, the Company has not repurchased another unit from lenders since July 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of March 31, 2017 or June 30, 2016, respectively. Contingencies Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined. Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below under "Legal Proceedings," management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at March 31, 2017 (unaudited) or June 30, 2016 that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings On June 29, 2015, the Company filed suit against MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC, or "MasterCraft," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleged MasterCraft's infringement of a utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 8,578,873). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on August 14, 2017. On February 16, 2016, the Company filed a second suit against MasterCraft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges MasterCraft’s infringement of another utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 9,260,161). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on October 30, 2017. On May 18, 2016, MasterCraft filed two petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,578,873, the patent at issue in the first Tennessee lawsuit. On August 23, 2016, the Company filed its preliminary responses to the IPR petitions. On November 16, 2016, the PTO declined to institute IPR in response to either of the two petitions. On September 26, 2016, MasterCraft filed a request with the PTO for Ex Parte Reexamination of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 9,260,161, the patent at issue in the second Tennessee lawsuit. On November 18, 2016, the PTO granted that request for ex parte reexamination, and on February 16, 2017, the PTO issued a Non-Final Office Action. On April 17, 2017, the Company filed a Response to the Non-Final Office Action. On May 2, 2017, the Company and MasterCraft entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “MasterCraft Settlement Agreement”) to settle lawsuits filed by the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement by MasterCraft of two of the Company’s utility patents. Under the terms of the MasterCraft Settlement Agreement, MasterCraft will make a one-time payment of $2,500 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by MasterCraft using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation. On April 22, 2014, Marine Power Holding, LLC ("Marine Power"), a former supplier of engines to the Company, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages. On July 10, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the lawsuit filed by Marine Power. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Marine Power. The lawsuit proceeded to trial on August 8, 2016 and on August 18, 2016, a judgment was rendered by the jury against the Company in the litigation with Marine Power resulting in the Company taking a charge of $3,268 during the three months ended June, 30, 2016. The Company subsequently prevailed on post-judgment motions and, on December 15, 2016, the court amended the judgment in the lawsuit for monetary damages to $1,938. Accordingly, the Company reduced the amount accrued for possible loss in connection with the litigation to the amount in the amended judgment as it represents the best estimate of the Company's loss at this time. On December 23, 2016, Marine Power filed a notice of appeal contesting the court's decision to reduce the amount of the original judgment. The Company has appealed the amended judgment and other rulings of the court and intends to vigorously defend its rights as it relates to the lawsuit, as it continues to believe that Marine Power's case is without merit. On August 26, 2016, Wizard Lake Marine Inc. and Wizard Lake Marine (B.C.) Inc., collectively “Wizard Lake”, a former dealer of the Company’s, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada seeking monetary damages. The suit alleged breach of contract, wrongful termination, misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith, and intentional interference. Wizard Lake is asking for damages of $8,717. The Company denies any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Wizard Lake and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Commitments and Contingencies

Repurchase Commitments

In connection with its dealers’ wholesale floor-plan financing of boats, the Company has entered into repurchase agreements with various lending institutions for sales generated from both the U.S. and Australia operating segments. The reserve methodology used to record an estimated expense and loss reserve in each accounting period is based upon an analysis of likely repurchases based on current field inventory and likelihood of repurchase. Subsequent to the inception of the repurchase commitment, the Company evaluates the likelihood of repurchase and adjusts the estimated loss reserve and related statement of operations account accordingly. This potential loss reserve is presented in accrued expenses in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. If the Company were obligated to repurchase a significant number of units under any repurchase agreement, its business, operating results and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Repurchases and subsequent sales are recorded as a revenue transaction. The net difference between the original repurchase price and the resale price is recorded against the loss reserve and presented in cost of sales in the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations and comprehensive income. No units were repurchased during the three or nine months ended March 31, 2017. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the Company agreed to repurchase three units from the lender of two of its former dealers. Other than these repurchase commitments, the Company has not repurchased another unit from lenders since July 1, 2010. Accordingly, the Company did not carry a reserve for repurchases as of March 31, 2017 or June 30, 2016, respectively.

Contingencies

Certain conditions may exist which could result in a loss, but which will only be resolved when future events occur. The Company, in consultation with its legal counsel, assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessments inherently involve an exercise of judgment. If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a loss has been incurred, the Company accrues for such contingent loss when it can be reasonably estimated. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable but reasonably estimable, or is probable but cannot be estimated, the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, is disclosed. If the assessment of a contingency deemed to be both probable and reasonably estimable involves a range of possible losses, the amount within the range that appears at the time to be a better estimate than any other amount within the range would be accrued. When no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount in the range is accrued even though the minimum amount in the range is not necessarily the amount of loss that will be ultimately determined.

Estimates of potential legal fees and other directly related costs associated with contingencies are not accrued but rather are expensed as incurred. Except as disclosed below under "Legal Proceedings," management does not believe there are any pending claims (asserted or unasserted) at March 31, 2017 (unaudited) or June 30, 2016 that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed suit against MasterCraft Boat Company, LLC, or "MasterCraft," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company's complaint alleged MasterCraft's infringement of a utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 8,578,873). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on August 14, 2017.

On February 16, 2016, the Company filed a second suit against MasterCraft in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. The Company’s complaint alleges MasterCraft’s infringement of another utility patent related to wake surfing technology (U.S. Patent No. 9,260,161). The Court had issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and other events in the litigation, leading up to a trial beginning on October 30, 2017.

On May 18, 2016, MasterCraft filed two petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or “PTO,” requesting institution of Inter Partes Review, or “IPR,” of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 8,578,873, the patent at issue in the first Tennessee lawsuit. On August 23, 2016, the Company filed its preliminary responses to the IPR petitions. On November 16, 2016, the PTO declined to institute IPR in response to either of the two petitions.

On September 26, 2016, MasterCraft filed a request with the PTO for Ex Parte Reexamination of the Company’s U.S. Pat. No. 9,260,161, the patent at issue in the second Tennessee lawsuit. On November 18, 2016, the PTO granted that request for ex parte reexamination, and on February 16, 2017, the PTO issued a Non-Final Office Action. On April 17, 2017, the Company filed a Response to the Non-Final Office Action.

On May 2, 2017, the Company and MasterCraft entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “MasterCraft Settlement Agreement”) to settle lawsuits filed by the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging infringement by MasterCraft of two of the Company’s utility patents. Under the terms of the MasterCraft Settlement Agreement, MasterCraft will make a one-time payment of $2,500 and entered into a license agreement for the payment of future royalties for boats sold by MasterCraft using the licensed technology. The parties agreed to dismiss all claims in the patent litigation.

On April 22, 2014, Marine Power Holding, LLC ("Marine Power"), a former supplier of engines to the Company, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee seeking monetary damages. On July 10, 2015, the Company filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the lawsuit filed by Marine Power. The Company denied any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Marine Power. The lawsuit proceeded to trial on August 8, 2016 and on August 18, 2016, a judgment was rendered by the jury against the Company in the litigation with Marine Power resulting in the Company taking a charge of $3,268 during the three months ended June, 30, 2016. The Company subsequently prevailed on post-judgment motions and, on December 15, 2016, the court amended the judgment in the lawsuit for monetary damages to $1,938. Accordingly, the Company reduced the amount accrued for possible loss in connection with the litigation to the amount in the amended judgment as it represents the best estimate of the Company's loss at this time. On December 23, 2016, Marine Power filed a notice of appeal contesting the court's decision to reduce the amount of the original judgment. The Company has appealed the amended judgment and other rulings of the court and intends to vigorously defend its rights as it relates to the lawsuit, as it continues to believe that Marine Power's case is without merit.

On August 26, 2016, Wizard Lake Marine Inc. and Wizard Lake Marine (B.C.) Inc., collectively “Wizard Lake”, a former dealer of the Company’s, initiated a lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada seeking monetary damages. The suit alleged breach of contract, wrongful termination, misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith, and intentional interference. Wizard Lake is asking for damages of $8,717. The Company denies any liability arising from the causes of action alleged by Wizard Lake and plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.