Resource 2017 Financial Results

[NoobPie]

Adelaide revenue was $54,954,790.

My mistake, don't know what I did there!

That narrows the gap significantly...basically means that if the Sydney clubs average 10% growth then we land on $1B

 

[NoobPie]

How much of that increase is from AFLW revenues and how much of that AFLW revenues comes from the AFL? Does the AFL cover 100% of the salary cap payment or closer to 80%+ like the men with its base distribution ie not the $1.2m extra TV monies and $800k equal distribution from TV monies?

I suspect some of the increase is certainly due to the AFLW the cost of which I'm pretty sure were substantially funded from the AFL - at least the level of the
salary cap but I'm pretty sure quite a bit more

Overall, I think a little under half of the revenue growth of the AFL clubs is attributable to increased distributions from the AFL courtesy of the TV rights step change

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I suspect some of the increase is certainly due to the AFLW the cost of which I'm pretty sure were substantially funded from the AFL - at least the level of the
salary cap but I'm pretty sure quite a bit more

Overall, I think a little under half of the revenue growth of the AFL clubs is attributable to increased distributions from the AFL courtesy of the TV rights step change

All the clubs got an extra $2.08m to cover the increase in salary cap from $10.37m to $12.45m. The question is which clubs got big increases from the AFL in the dis-equal distribution in the first year of the 2017-22 TV deal and which ones got big decreases over their 2016 amount. Guess we will know soon after AFL releases its annual report.

 

[NoobPie]

All the clubs got an extra $2.08m to cover the increase in salary cap from $10.37m to $12.45m. The question is which clubs got big increases from the AFL in the dis-equal distribution in the first year of the 2017-22 TV deal and which ones got big decreases over their 2016 amount. Guess we will know soon after AFL releases its annual report.

Yep, suspect we'll have to wait til then.

On reflection looking at those numbers, and given that revenue has increased by ~$90M, then it is quite possible that more than half of the growth is attributable to AFL distributions. The base increase amounts to about $37.5M which means you would only need an extra $7.5M for additional AFLW distributions (presuming they got some of it ahead of 2017) plus the net increase in what you've called "dis-equal" distributions (which I would suspect will be a non trivial positive number) to get to $45M

As you say, need to wait for the AFL annual report which will surely be not far off

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yep, suspect we'll have to wait til then.

On reflection looking at those numbers, and given that revenue has increased by ~$90M, then it is quite possible that more than half of the growth is attributable to AFL distributions. The base increase amounts to about $37.5M which means you would only need an extra $7.5M for additional AFLW distributions (presuming they got some of it ahead of 2017) plus the net increase in what you've called "dis-equal" distributions (which I would suspect will be a non trivial positive number) to get to $45M

As you say, need to wait for the AFL annual report which will surely be not far off

Mid March is usually when it comes out ie 10th-15th is usually the time frame. Dis-equal is the phrase used by the AFL for amounts paid over and above the equal distributions paid from the extra TV monies portion earned over the TV deal period.

 

[Kwality]

Apologies in advance Kwality , he doesn't like me doing this for some reason

..

analysis paralysis .... damn fine example !!

 

[robbieando]

My mistake, don't know what I did there!

That narrows the gap significantly...basically means that if the Sydney clubs average 10% growth then we land on $1B


View attachment 466583

Not going to happen our revenue was $50,953,582

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2018-02-23/pridham-outlines-successful-2017

Overall, the financial result for 2017 was a profit of $105,186 on revenue of $50,953,582 and net assets at year-end were $2,191,005, which Pridham said on balance was a good result.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[telsor]

Surely ZERO clubs are independent of the AFL. Without the league, what would they do?


From the Hawthorn financial report....

"Principal activities
The principal activities of the Club are to compete within the Australian Football League (“AFL”) ..."

 

[Le Grille]

Surely ZERO clubs are independent of the AFL. Without the league, what would they do?


From the Hawthorn financial report....

"Principal activities
The principal activities of the Club are to compete within the Australian Football League (“AFL”) ..."

In hawthorns case pokies

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Surely ZERO clubs are independent of the AFL. Without the league, what would they do?


From the Hawthorn financial report....

"Principal activities
The principal activities of the Club are to compete within the Australian Football League (“AFL”) ..."

If the AFL have given you a $5mil or $10m guarantee to your bankers to keep you a going concern, you aren't going to rock the boat and bag the AFL publicly, at CEO meetings with the league, at President meetings at the league etc.

 

[telsor]

If the AFL have given you a $5mil or $10m guarantee to your bankers to keep you a going concern, you aren't going to rock the boat and bag the AFL publicly, at CEO meetings with the league, at President meetings at the league etc.

This is true...and considering the commission needs a significant number of clubs to vote to over rule them, the number of clubs indebted to them (let alone those they outright own) does make them answerable to nobody in effect.

But it doesn't mean Kennett's comments aren't silly.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is true...and considering the commission needs a significant number of clubs to vote to over rule them, the number of clubs indebted to them (let alone those they outright own) does make them answerable to nobody in effect.

But it doesn't mean Kennett's comments aren't silly.

Kennett is an ex politician, so hyperbole is a standard prerequisite. But his basic point that only 4 or 5 clubs are strong enough "to fight city hall." is spot on.

 

[Kwality]

Surely ZERO clubs are independent of the AFL. Without the league, what would they do?


From the Hawthorn financial report....

"Principal activities
The principal activities of the Club are to compete within the Australian Football League (“AFL”) ..."

Put that thing between your ears into GO ..... soon pls.

 

[telsor]

Put that thing between your ears into GO ..... soon pls.

Perhaps you could provide an example of what that's like...

No?

 

[Kwality]

Kennett is an ex politician, so hyperbole is a standard prerequisite. But his basic point that only 4 or 5 clubs are strong enough "to fight city hall." is spot on.

A point that goes missing on the vast majority of club members, when there club says it made a profit, why wouldn't they believe it?

One for you REH, was looking at the Bulldogs 2017 financials & it seemed the format of the Presidents Report changed to suggest the AFL guarantee is a right - bit like the way some clubs include donations/fundraising as normal income.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A point that goes missing on the vast majority of club members, when there club says it made a profit, why wouldn't they believe it?

One for you REH, was looking at the Bulldogs 2017 financials & it seemed the format of the Presidents Report changed changed to suggest the AFL guarantee is a right - bit like the way some clubs include donations/fundraising as normal income.

Will have a good look tonight and get back to you then K

 

[jatz14]

Financially independent of the AFL, financially dependent on pokies. Only Jeff could try to spin the moral high ground out if that.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

Surely ZERO clubs are independent of the AFL. Without the league, what would they do?


From the Hawthorn financial report....

"Principal activities
The principal activities of the Club are to compete within the Australian Football League (“AFL”) ..."

You're right, any current AFL club would become next to worthless if they moved to another league. But I think it's in the context of not needing to walk on eggshells when talking about the AFL because they can't really punish them financially if they disapprove.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A point that goes missing on the vast majority of club members, when there club says it made a profit, why wouldn't they believe it?

One for you REH, was looking at the Bulldogs 2017 financials & it seemed the format of the Presidents Report changed to suggest the AFL guarantee is a right - bit like the way some clubs include donations/fundraising as normal income.

K I didn't pick up anything in the first 12 pages of the Director's Report so I'm wondering if you are referring to Notes to the financial statements, 2(c) on page 19 of the Financial Report. If this is what you are referring to, its pretty normal thing to say and nothing strange to me. If it is something else, can you cut and paste it or tell me what page it is on.

NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (CONTINUED)
(c) Going concern
The Club had a positive operating cash flow of $1,746,091 during the 2017 year, net assets of $27,710,199
and a net current asset deficiency of $3,438,738. This deficiency has increased from 31 October 2016 by
$1,026,052 from $2,412,686.
The deficiency includes $1,953,967 income in advance relating to pre-paid 2018 memberships sold by 31
October 2017, of which $1,430,591 was received in cash subsequent to year end. Income in advance is a
service liability, and has no cash outflow impact.
The Directors have assessed the financial performance and financial position of the Club at 31 October
2017, together with the Club’s ongoing operating activities and anticipated future cash flows from operations,
committed and planned AFL distributions and financing arrangements. The Directors have concluded that
the going concern basis of accounting continues to be appropriate and that cash flows and financing
activities are expected to be available to the Club for the purposes of capital and operational investment in
the next 12 months.
Further, the Directors have based their conclusion of the going concern basis of accounting being
appropriate on the assumption of the continued financial support of the AFL and the assumption by Club
directors that the Club would continue to be considered one of the 18 Clubs in the AFL’s competition
strategy. These assumptions are true for every current AFL Club, and the AFL itself is a large financial
contributor to all 18 AFL Clubs through the distribution of competition wide revenues (for example the
television and other media rights receipts). All 18 Clubs operate on the assumption that they will continue to
receive financial distributions and that they will continue to maintain their license as one of the clubs in the
AFL’s ongoing competition strategy.
Should the going concern basis be found to no longer be appropriate, the recoverable amount of assets
shown in the Statement of Financial Position may be significantly less than the amounts disclosed, and the
extent of liabilities may differ significantly from those reflected in the Statement of Financial Position.

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[The_Wookie]

 

[Lagi]

2017 Interest Bearing Debt both current & non current reported so far by 15 clubs is as follows:

Adelaide $1,212,891
Brisbane $7,300,000
Carlton $6,367,329
Collingwood $1,600,000
Essendon $6,900,000
Fremantle $1,000,000
Geelong $4,190,245
Gold Coast $1,590,000

Hawthorn $9,245,000 Consolidated Accounts. Football club = zero.
Melbourne $4,128,800

Port Adelaide $6,261,495
Richmond $0.00
St Kilda $6,302,234
West Coast $0.00
Western Bulldogs $0.00

 

[jatz14]

2017 Interest Bearing Debt both current & non current reported so far by 15 clubs is as follows:

Adelaide $1,212,891
Brisbane $7,300,000
Carlton $6,367,329
Collingwood $1,600,000
Essendon $6,900,000
Fremantle $1,000,000
Geelong $4,190,245
Gold Coast $1,590,000

Hawthorn $9,245,000 Consolidated Accounts. Football club = zero.
Melbourne $4,128,800

Port Adelaide $6,261,495
Richmond $0.00
St Kilda $6,302,234
West Coast $0.00
Western Bulldogs $0.00

Given WC are currently building their new facilities, albeit with council assistance, net debt of 0 is really strong.

Freo's debt of $1m immediately after their new facilities opened is also a really strong position.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Given WC are currently building their new facilities, albeit with council assistance, net debt of 0 is really strong.

Freo's debt of $1m immediately after their new facilities opened is also a really strong position.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

They have had no debt for well over a decade. Thats what happens when you have average profits of $4m-$5m since 2005 and have 60m in the bank or short term investents before you start building new facilities.