More significantly its the growth area of the Tiges revenue, effectively the only growth area, the pokies & grog, not memberships (yeh, yeh, look at the increase in member numbers not dollars).
Resource 2015 Annual Reporting Season. -now complete.
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
More significantly its the growth area of the Tiges revenue, effectively the only growth area, the pokies & grog, not memberships (yeh, yeh, look at the increase in member numbers not dollars).
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #27
What most clubs dont have is TWO notes for AFL debts - the first is the guarantee that most clubs have, although no other club has it extended to $8 million - they almost universally max out below $5 million.
which is separate to the outstanding payables to the AFL, which is a further $8.8 million
The annual report shows trades and payables are out to over 11 million in liabilities, while the loan is drawn out to 5.5 million.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Most, if not all all clubs have them, every year. It's a common accounting thing.
Most have something to the effect of being dependent on the AFL continuing to pay dividends, guarantee debts and similar things.
Brisbane is a very different kettle of fish having significantly negative assets ($9M more liabilities than assets). St Kilda is the only other club in a similar boat (going on last year as they haven't reported yet, but they were ~$3M in the red).
Richmond not having such a comment is more due to different reporting practices generally (something I wish they'd change to be more comparable, but definitely not a new thing).
As for 'poor form', I was responding to someone else's comment...when you respond to a comment about one club, do you always include comparative remarks about the other 17 for balance and completeness?
telsor
Hall of Famer
You might want to look more closely...
BTW, are you now objecting to 'grog' as well as a revenue stream that shouldn't be accepted?
Poor form for not mentioning your club's take from that income source....
You might want to look more closely...
BTW, are you now objecting to 'grog' as well as a revenue stream that shouldn't be accepted?
Poor form for not mentioning your club's take from that income source....
My view is recorded in an earlier post in this thread:
You need to understand many clubs have a business model based around pokies ...
Missed the analysis of the burgeoning Tigers membership numbers not being reflected in the dollars, possibly due a concentration on Brisbane, nothing surprising there.
Last edited:
telsor
Hall of Famer
So? It's a legal means of adding to the income of a club, and that isn't likely to change any time soon and has been discussed ad-nauseum elsewhere.
I was questioning your addition of 'grog' in your pejorative comment and wondering if your moral judgement of income streams had extended to alcohol, and if so, if you were going to be so negative about your club (or indeed any other non-vic club) gaining money from it.
The way Richmond lumps different revenue areas together, it's hard to comment about specifics like that.
We made 700K more from 'sponsorship and marketing', which presumably includes membership, but if we made $1M more from members and 300K less from sponsors, or the other way around, or it's 50/50 in growth, I have no idea (we did pay ~200K more in 'membership expense', although that could mean almost anything). As I said, Richmond's reporting is sadly quite lacking in a number of areas. (IIRC, membership income last year was gained from another source).
That said, there has been a clear strategy for several years to boost the numbers, even if it doesn't fully reflect in total revenue. I'm not entirely sure of the reasoning behind it, but I think it's safe to say those within the club believe there is merit to it.
As for my 'concentration on Brisbane' I made one comment...In reply to someone else's....If that makes me concentrating on Brisbane, you clearly have a major fixation about Richmond.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Nothing general about the AFL guarantee requirement.
Why would we? We don't have one any more. Not sure we had such comments when we did either (feel free to check previous years reports if you like). That's not all that goes into the 'going concern' section however....Items like continuing to receive the dividend also tend to feature (unsurprising, considering it's a major part of most clubs income). The point is, it's usually a brief paragraph of boilerplate items which is more to do with the bean counters covering their asses than any real concern....For Brisbane, it's a long list of bullet points, which translated from accounting to English means they're in a fragile and precarious financial state where a significant number of things could push them over the edge.
that's the best you've got ?
From the Tigers Annual Report
2015 Highlights
• Record sponsorship revenue.
• Record corporate and coterie revenue.
• Record membership of 71,339.
http://way-cdn220-is-3.se.bptvpd.ngcdn.telstra.com/pd_afltigers0/concisefinancials2015.pdf
Record sponsorship, corporate & coterie revenue - record membership numbers - is Richmond the home of 3 match memberships?
2015 Highlights
• Record sponsorship revenue.
• Record corporate and coterie revenue.
• Record membership of 71,339.
http://way-cdn220-is-3.se.bptvpd.ngcdn.telstra.com/pd_afltigers0/concisefinancials2015.pdf
Record sponsorship, corporate & coterie revenue - record membership numbers - is Richmond the home of 3 match memberships?
telsor
Hall of Famer
What were you expecting?
'going concern' is a regular item for any entities with 'concerns'...
telsor
Hall of Famer
Perhaps it is...What's the problem with that?
Not all clubs have to make their money the same way.
BTW, 'coterie' is a form of high end membership, so obviously it's not just 3 gamers...
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #38
It IS a lot of 3 gamers or lesser memberships though. Member per revenue, richmond is one of the lowest in the league (pending this years results). However, they do have a high profit margin on net income from it.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Oh, I don't doubt there is a lot...As I said, I wont claim to know the strategy involved, but there clearly is one as we've been marketing this way for several years now.
I was just saying it wasn't all at the 'bottom end' of the market.
Essendon are a pretty bullet proof club. The amount of self inflicted shit that club has been through over the past 3 or so years, plus coming onto nearly 15 years of not getting close to a Grand final, to only lose $1.3 is a pretty good effort. Only West Coast and Collingwood could pull off that sort of result given the circumstances.
Wait. Richmond has a revenue of $47mil and Brisbane has a revenue of $51mil...
Doesn't compute. What numbers are missing here?
Doesn't compute. What numbers are missing here?
Big difference between revenue and profit. Brisbane's gaming revenue is about $8.7m more and they receive many millions more from the AFL.
Richmond don't state how much they get from the AFL however it would be way below what Brisbane receive ($15.5m).
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #43
The Collingwood Football Club today announced an operating profit before depreciation and amortisation of $1,880,927 for the financial year ending October 31, 2015.
Highlights of Collingwood’s 2015 financial year include:
*Operating profit before depreciation of $1,880,927
*Sale of Diamond Creek Tavern Lease realised a profit of $1,601,634
*Total profit before depreciation of $3,482,561
*Net operating profit of $848,076
*Total club revenue of $66,485,870
*Membership figure of 76,516 members
*Collingwood’s net asset position is $37,933,665
*Collingwood carries no debt as of October 31, 2015
*15th consecutive prof
Highlights of Collingwood’s 2015 financial year include:
*Operating profit before depreciation of $1,880,927
*Sale of Diamond Creek Tavern Lease realised a profit of $1,601,634
*Total profit before depreciation of $3,482,561
*Net operating profit of $848,076
*Total club revenue of $66,485,870
*Membership figure of 76,516 members
*Collingwood’s net asset position is $37,933,665
*Collingwood carries no debt as of October 31, 2015
*15th consecutive prof
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #44
Melbourne football club results
FOR the second successive year, since its major overhaul, the Melbourne Football Club has reported an operating profit of $562k for the financial year ended 31 October 2015, which is also a substantial improvement on the operating profit of $160k in 2014.
The total revenue of the Club grew by $2.4m to $44.5m, and enabled the Club to strategically reinvest in the business, particularly within the football department.
FOR the second successive year, since its major overhaul, the Melbourne Football Club has reported an operating profit of $562k for the financial year ended 31 October 2015, which is also a substantial improvement on the operating profit of $160k in 2014.
The total revenue of the Club grew by $2.4m to $44.5m, and enabled the Club to strategically reinvest in the business, particularly within the football department.
Melbourne reported operating profit looks more like a surplus due in full to increased AFL distribution - distribution up $1.2m, reported profit $562k after equalisation payments of $870k.
Melbourne fans might look beyond the PR.
Melbourne fans might look beyond the PR.
Last edited:
The positive is the ability to grow the 3 game members to 11 games on the back of onground success & with a good admin its deliverable.
Pies equalisation contribution:
“In a year in which we spent a further $18 million on the Glasshouse, our brilliant new community and function centre, and tipped almost $1.4 million into the AFL’s equalisation pot, we continued to stand on our own two feet.
“In a year in which we spent a further $18 million on the Glasshouse, our brilliant new community and function centre, and tipped almost $1.4 million into the AFL’s equalisation pot, we continued to stand on our own two feet.
The Darkman
Team Captain
I'm more interested in the smaller Victorian clubs in light of Gillom's (I think) comment that $45m is needed to run an AFL club. Last year North, Dogs, Saints, Suns & Giants total expenses were between $32m & $37m. I think even Richmond & Melbourne were in the early $40's for expenses.
Interested in how these clubs performed.
Interested in how these clubs performed.
Take out all the non football related expenses and it seems to be low $30m's. If Melbourne had $12m in non-football revenue then they've probably got at least $10m in non football expenses.
Essendon equalisation contribution $270k - do they profit from the FIXture & does the $270k reflect that benefit ?
