2010 Annual General Meeting

[-CG-]

I attended the AGM earlier this evening at the Shed. There was a small crowd there, definitely smaller than last year, and again it compromised of mostly elderly folk.

I didn't hear about the meeting until another fan told me yesterday so I don't know whether it was on the down-low or whether members were notified and I missed this?

Anyway Rob Chapman opened and spoke briefly about the year gone by and thanked the SANFL.

I jotted down a couple of notes for the rest of the meeting and will share them below.

Craigy hit the stage next and also began by quickly going over the season.

- We're not far off matching it with the better sides. Craig mentioned our wins over Geelong and St.Kilda, and close encounters with Collingwood and the Bulldogs as examples.

- We won't fall into the trap of a development year in 2011.

- In terms of trading he was pleased that we didn't trade any of our players and that this demonstrates our culture.

- Next year he wants to be more diligent and innovative with coaching.

- Lastly he introduced the new draftees, minus the rookies, and pretty much said stuff we already know about them.

Next up to the podium was Steven Trigg.

- This year we'll post an $800,000 odd deficit however it should be a 'one off red number'.

- We spent approximately $500,000 in injury expenses.

- He's confident we will bounce back quickly.

- In terms of the playing group we have become a very young list quickly but it is 'bloody exciting'.

- He believes we can develop them quickly.

- He spoke about having great confidence in the recruiting and player development programs. For example we only selected two main draftees this year but that was in readiness, sighted a couple of years ago, in regards to the GC concessions. He said we had selected our rookies really well in preparation as shows in the three elevations a few months ago.

- Adelaide Oval was a hot topic of the night but Triggy didn't have much to add to the matter. He said not much has happened since the members meeting about it a couple of months ago. The league (AFL) and SANFL are currently working on things outside of the club's control. Currently our position is that we are largely satisfied with the proposal as long as we know where AAMI sits. We will still only move if we're significantly better off and we will get some more clarity on the topic well into next year.

- The club thinks they can do pre and post match activity in The Shed better. Next year we're going back to the old model of entry as that worked best.

- A number of dollar targets have been set for next year.

--- We'll be celebrating our 20th birthday in round one next year. This will be the focus of our 20 year celebrations. Our goal is to get 45,000 to that game, which if achieved will narrowly beat the corresponding attendance from 20 years ago.

--- We're going after 50,000 members again, 25,000 season ticket sales, and 90 per cent daily ticket sales.

--- Our fixture is pretty good, performance on field needs to be warranted, and hopefully we'll achieve an average attendance of at least 40,000 again.

- Finally, someone asked a question about whether we were taking steps to prevent GWS poaching any of our players, or something to that effect, and Triggy said that we're working on keeping Walker now.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Thanks for that CG, I did know about it, received an email about it and intended to go until I had an inch deep water pool under my pergola this arvo!

 

[KUNG FU]

Legendary work CG, as always.

Nothing much out of the ordinary, but what do we expect.

The one point that stands out to me is the injury expenses. In the scheme of things, it isn't that much, but still, a staggering bill.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Thanks CG.
Looking forward to that first 2011 game against the Hawks remember it well. Bone getting smashed by Dermie and us pantsing the eventual premiers, Eddy Hocking throwing the big dummy to the man on the mark, the real buzz the game had on Adelaide.

Half a mil injury bill....only a quarter of this next year...please-still too much. People can't say we don't do enough for rehab.

 

[Crow-mo]

500k injury bill doesnt mean anything without something to compare it too.

what was it other years, and what actually is it? treatment, wages, other?

 

[iamjason]

- We won't fall into the trap of a development year in 2011.

- Next year he wants to be more diligent and innovative with coaching.

Did he elaborate on these points? They seem pretty interesting.

In regards to development, I wonder -- is this just another way of saying we won't play youngsters simply to develop them, but rather, we'll keep our "you must earn your spot" philosophy?

As for the coaching, did he say what they're being more diligent and innovative with? Is it just the training, such as changing 3km time trials to 5 minute distance trials, or is it something else?

Good work btw, appreciate it

 

[amer]

500k injury bill doesnt mean anything without something to compare it too.

what was it other years, and what actually is it? treatment, wages, other?

Who cares.

 

[cmndstab]

- In terms of trading he was pleased that we didn't trade any of our players and that this demonstrates our culture.

Sounds like a bit of a sly backhand to Griffin to me

But really appreciate it CG Hope Craig succeeds in being more innovative with his coaching like he has proposed!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Craigy hit the stage next and also began by quickly going over the season.

- In terms of trading he was pleased that we didn't trade any of our players and that this demonstrates our culture.

Presumably trading Groom for McLeod and Wellman for Jarman were signs of a poor culture.

 

[cmndstab]

Presumably trading Groom for McLeod and Wellman for Jarman were signs of a poor culture.

I know you're speaking with tongue in cheek, but in the case of Groom he didn't want to leave (and even considered legal action when being informed he'd been traded), and McLeod did want to come. That's a double dose of good culture

I don't know the story of Wellman and Jarman well enough to comment If Wellman did want to leave, then that would be an indication something was wrong - and we just managed to turn that problem into a positive by securing Jars

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think Neil sees the positive culture from two angles. First, that the players like it here and don't want to leave. Second, that the club does not use its players as commodities. He sees it as loyalty to the club and loyalty from the club. Two way street.

The club trading Wellman and Groom were signs that we were once willing to spend money to make money but that mentality has clearly changed.

 

[Pietmans]

As far as the injury costs were concerned the way it has been reported is that they were over and above 'normal' costs.

That being the case we lost $900K and could expect that to reduce to around $400K with normal injury costs.

On top of that the loss was after paying some $800K to the SANFL for the licence fee and another $600K towards the northern grandstand.

As to the latter it upsets me no end that we are paying for a stand that is to be torn down if the Adelaide Oval thing goes ahead anyway. Does anyone know how long we are stuck with this payment?

No doubt we get some income from it through additional members but still, with all the concessions handed to Port you would think we would catch a break and that the SANFL would forgive that at least until the move to AO is decided.

So therefore the real position of the AFC say against Carlton's $2.2M profit is as follows?

Loss 2010 ($900K)

add back
abnormal injury costs $500K
grandstand payment $600K
SANFL licence fee $800K
depreciation ($20M @5%) $1000K

Underlying level of profit v Carlton $2,000,000

The way I see it we are still a powerhouse despite the crowds being down etc. The real killer even without stadium returns is paying out $1.4M to the SANFL plus another $1M in depreciation that we didn't have to do a few years back. (We need to remember that the depreciation doesn't actually get paid anywhere so it doesn't affect cash flow at all so in 'normal' year with injuries our loss of $400K would actually reflect a positive cash flow of $600K.)

 

[WALL-e]

Club threw the kitchen sink to get Griffen, Carl. He didn't want in.

Thanks for the info CG.

 

[Wood_Duck]

As far as the injury costs were concerned the way it has been reported is that they were over and above 'normal' costs.

That being the case we lost $900K and could expect that to reduce to around $400K with normal injury costs.

On top of that the loss was after paying some $800K to the SANFL for the licence fee and another $600K towards the northern grandstand.

As to the latter it upsets me no end that we are paying for a stand that is to be torn down if the Adelaide Oval thing goes ahead anyway. Does anyone know how long we are stuck with this payment?

No doubt we get some income from it through additional members but still, with all the concessions handed to Port you would think we would catch a break and that the SANFL would forgive that at least until the move to AO is decided.

So therefore the real position of the AFC say against Carlton's $2.2M profit is as follows?

Loss 2010 ($900K)

add back
abnormal injury costs $500K
grandstand payment $600K
SANFL licence fee $800K
depreciation ($20M @5%) $1000K

Underlying level of profit v Carlton $2,000,000

The way I see it we are still a powerhouse despite the crowds being down etc. The real killer even without stadium returns is paying out $1.4M to the SANFL plus another $1M in depreciation that we didn't have to do a few years back. (We need to remember that the depreciation doesn't actually get paid anywhere so it doesn't affect cash flow at all so in 'normal' year with injuries our loss of $400K would actually reflect a positive cash flow of $600K.)

Thats probably rose coloured glasses. We pay the SANFl licence fee every year, cant see how you can list that as an abnormal.

Depreciation is a fact of life. If you own large dpreciating assets you have to live with it, its not an abnormal. (a very strong case here for not owning large depreciating assets with neglible income stream)

Every club has issues with crap payments such as our grandstand payment. Its a bit tooo convenient that you ignore it to make your comparison.

In the end though a $900K loss for the year is actually not that bad. There was talk earlier in the year that we were looking at -$2000K.

Fact is our books wouldnt look too bad if not for that bloody new building that "we had to have".

 

[Mego Red]

I think Neil sees the positive culture from two angles. First, that the players like it here and don't want to leave. Second, that the club does not use its players as commodities. He sees it as loyalty to the club and loyalty from the club. Two way street.

The club trading Wellman and Groom were signs that we were once willing to spend money to make money but that mentality has clearly changed.

I don't know why I'm starting to read negatives into everything that's being said by our club, or why I'm frustrated someone didn't get up and ask some hard questions about how our football department spend compares with other clubs - but the fact that everyone was completely comfortable in their position at the club and didn't want to leave isn't always great. They probably know their paycheck would be smaller if they crossed the border and were paid their worth.

 

[Pietmans]

Thats probably rose coloured glasses. We pay the SANFl licence fee every year, cant see how you can list that as an abnormal.

Depreciation is a fact of life. If you own large dpreciating assets you have to live with it, its not an abnormal. (a very strong case here for not owning large depreciating assets with neglible income stream)

Every club has issues with crap payments such as our grandstand payment. Its a bit tooo convenient that you ignore it to make your comparison.

In the end though a $900K loss for the year is actually not that bad. There was talk earlier in the year that we were looking at -$2000K.

Fact is our books wouldnt look too bad if not for that bloody new building that "we had to have".

Probably didn't make my point properly.

Carlton have a much better stadium deal than us and don't pay $600K towards the grandstands.

Depreciation is almost a non factor - if/when we replace the new facility it will be on the same basis as we built it - ie govt grants and only $3M out of $21M out of our own (borrowed) funds.

We are a powerhouse club by AFL standards if only we weren't hobbled by our ownership by the SANFL.

 

[Crow-mo]

Who cares.

maybe the people who were discussing it?

just a thought

 

[Vader]

Probably didn't make my point properly.

Carlton have a much better stadium deal than us and don't pay $600K towards the grandstands.

Depreciation is almost a non factor - if/when we replace the new facility it will be on the same basis as we built it - ie govt grants and only $3M out of $21M out of our own (borrowed) funds.

We are a powerhouse club by AFL standards if only we weren't hobbled by our ownership by the SANFL.

Are Carlton still paying off the Legends stand? I'm sure they would be including depreciation on it in their bottom line.

 

[-CG-]

500k injury bill doesnt mean anything without something to compare it too.

what was it other years, and what actually is it? treatment, wages, other?

No idea. Trigg didn't elaborate.

Did he elaborate on these points? They seem pretty interesting.

In regards to development, I wonder -- is this just another way of saying we won't play youngsters simply to develop them, but rather, we'll keep our "you must earn your spot" philosophy?

As for the coaching, did he say what they're being more diligent and innovative with? Is it just the training, such as changing 3km time trials to 5 minute distance trials, or is it something else?

Craig also didn't elaborate. Now thinking about it those would've been good questions to ask Everyone just asked about Adelaide Oval.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Depreciation is almost a non factor - if/when we replace the new facility it will be on the same basis as we built it - ie govt grants and only $3M out of $21M out of our own (borrowed) funds.

We got approx $7m in grants, we paid for the rest. We borrowed $2m the rest came from the bank account.

 

[Vader]

The Advertiser have an article on the AGM as well.

The article states that the AFC budgeted $200k for injury payments, but ended up paying almost $500k - 150% more than originally budgeted.

It also states that our football department expenditure is "mid-pack", whatever that means. It didn't quantify that comment.

 

[WALL-e]

You'd say we would have had 150% more than usual injuries though so that sounds like an accurate budget.

I'd like to see a break down of that "mid pack" spending.

 

[Pietmans]

Initially I was surprised by your responses to my post because I thought I knew the position pretty well.

Then I reflected for a moment and remembered where I had received that information............

No doubt after that reflection that both Vader and Wood_Duck would be right.

My fault for posting without having first hand information.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Initially I was surprised by your responses to my post because I thought I knew the position pretty well.

Then I reflected for a moment and remembered where I had received that information............

No doubt after that reflection that both Vader and Wood_Duck would be right.

My fault for posting without having first hand information.

I have the full 2009 audited financials in front of me if it helps. Please point out which bit the club and its auditors have gotten wrong.

 

[Geoffa32]

I have the full 2009 audited financials in front of me if it helps. Please point out which bit the club and its auditors have gotten wrong.

A reader of bay13??

People seem to be fixated on the financial loss of a football club, but it is kind of meaningless in isolation.

If we post a loss, but generate an asset, and can afford everything the organisation wants/needs to be better I dont see a problem. We are moving to Adelaide Oval soon. With the bags of money that will bring, our position at the moment is temporary anyway. Affording us to build the next facility when this one is old.

The club has no shareholders so what real good is a profit anyway. Just makes for a good headline. As long we are not insolvent and all needs are met, play on.