Annual Reports: Every Club's Profit/Loss Margin for 2012

[le dominateur]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

 

[MagpieJoel]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

Yet more than Carlcheat since he has had anything to do with it.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just have a question in regards to the 2.97 t.v rights money each team recieved. In your thread
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/afl-clubs-2012-annual-reports.981354/
In your thread a few clubs have exactly the same profit as operating profit, did these clubs spend exactly 2.97 million on other aspects? If so how can their operating profit/loss be exactly the same as the total profit if they have had 2.97 million given to them? Collingwood has 4.8 million in profit/loss catergory then 7.8 million in total profit shouldn't every club have exactly 2.97 million discrepancies unless paying off debt?

er no. Collingwood took a 2.97 million grant from the government and thats why theres a difference. Grants are typically not operating revenue, and most annual reports wont list them as such. AFL distributions seem to classed differently though, so this may apply to government and non AFL grants only. If a club booked no extra grants then the operating profit and consolidated profits will likely be the same.

 

[Quivorir]

jealous of what? who would want to support the team full of tossbags!

Really?

 

[manicmagpie]

er no. Collingwood took a 2.97 million grant from the government and thats why theres a difference. Grants are typically not operating revenue, and most annual reports wont list them as such. AFL distributions seem to classed differently though, so this may apply to government and non AFL grants only. If a club booked no extra grants then the operating profit and consolidated profits will likely be the same.

Was that 2.97 million a grant or media rights money? If you believe The Age, every club received this amount, which would beg the question of whether or not it was included in other clubs' operating profit.

Of course it's also quite possible The Age weren't right.

While the record result included what the club deemed an extraordinary item of $2.97 million from the AFL, this is money for media rights that all clubs receive. By not counting that one-off payment, the club still reported an astonishing operating profit of $4.86 million.

 

[jimmy35]

As long as any profit isn't achieved by scrimping on football department spending then its always a good thing.

Well done Pies.

 

[jimmy35]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

Talking about the future I think champ.

 

[Wooljay]

So much jealousy in one little thread.

Great work Eddie and the club, impressive as hell.

 

[Capitano_Cotch]

What a great effort by the Pies.
That is an enormous profit and really shows that having a good administration translates into on-field success.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

What a great effort by the Pies.
That is an enormous profit and really shows that having a good administration translates into on-field success.

Yeah, it's not as if years of arm chair scheduling and fixturing have contributed to this in any way.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

er no. Collingwood took a 2.97 million grant from the government and thats why theres a difference. Grants are typically not operating revenue, and most annual reports wont list them as such. AFL distributions seem to classed differently though, so this may apply to government and non AFL grants only. If a club booked no extra grants then the operating profit and consolidated profits will likely be the same.

The Age changed the quote from 2.97 million for the development of the Wespac Centre to, for the T.V rights money today.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/78m-jackpot-20121204-2atcf.html

Collingwood has also reported the 2.97 million dollars was from the t.v rights also.
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/152072/default.aspx

 

[Demonheart]

So much jealousy in one little thread.

Great work Eddie and the club, impressive as hell.

Yes, it is a wonderful effort by Collingwood who have transformed themselves since Eddie became President.

Now it is time for the AFL to have a rethink on the draw.

 

[Groupie_]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

Yep, even we have more flags than them in that timeframe.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The Age changed the quote from 2.97 million for the development of the Wespac Centre to, for the T.V rights money today.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/78m-jackpot-20121204-2atcf.html

Collingwood has also reported the 2.97 million dollars was from the t.v rights also.
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/152072/default.aspx

Would this be from the future fund money? All clubs got $3.5m from this (for 2012-16), with an extra $1m from the Pies for the Westpac Center works.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Would this be from the future fund money? All clubs got $3.5m from this (for 2012-16), with an extra $1m from the Pies for the Westpac Center works.

Well from both articles from the Age and the clubs, it seems pretty specific that it is 2.97 million from the media rights and each club gets that amount.
That is why i asked Wookie the question as i am sure this will bring him hours of pleasure trying to work out lol.

 

[manicmagpie]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

Yep, even we have more flags than them in that timeframe.

Cool, two people who failed basic reading comprehension.

 

[theflea]

Members Just received this letter from Eddie

the tigers didnt sell mcg games we sold etihad games that would normally be against interstate teams which wouldnt have made much on the gate.

 

[manicmagpie]

the tigers didnt sell mcg games we sold etihad games that would normally be against interstate teams which wouldnt have made much on the gate.

Eddie was referring to the years 2003-2005 when the MCG was under redevelopment. I've no idea if Richmond had an actual deal with Etihad to play more games there during those years. However you did play more home games against Vic clubs at Etihad in those 3 seasons than you have in the combined 10 seasons before and since.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Eddie was referring to the years 2003-2005 when the MCG was under redevelopment. I've no idea if Richmond had an actual deal with Etihad to play more games there during those years. However you did play more home games against Vic clubs at Etihad in those 3 seasons than you have in the combined 10 seasons before and since.

for us this was forced - club never has liked playing there because the members hate the joint (and we always draw smaller crowds there), but our crap recent history gives us SFA negotiating power when it comes to fixturing (although this is slowly improving). Apparently "no home games at Etihad" has been on our wish list for years, but we understand with the quotas its not gunna happen.

anyways, this is a side issue - top result by the Pies

 

[Two Eyes]

Essendon currently has a net asset position of $35.1m, and $12.2m in the bank

Yep, Essendon have had huge net asset position for ages. Seems to be growing still.

I reckon they would be the richest club in those terms. I think the Hawks might be up there too.

The pies took a real beating with their pub deals. I reckon they wrote off something like 8mil over 2 years.

 

[Papa G]

It would be an interesting exercise to see what Collingwood produces after a couple of years of mid table mediocrity and a commercially terrible draw. Not bagging them for what they have achieved, they are a big club who have been consistently at the pointy end of the ladder for quite a few years and get preffential treatment as such, but it would be an interesting exercise none the less.

 

[DaVe86]

It would be an interesting exercise to see what Collingwood produces after a couple of years of mid table mediocrity and a commercially terrible draw. Not bagging them for what they have achieved, they are a big club who have been consistently at the pointy end of the ladder for quite a few years and get preffential treatment as such, but it would be an interesting exercise none the less.

It's about cashing in while you are doing well so you can survive the hard times.

Ultimately, we have been a successful side in terms of ladder position and finals results for a while now. The premierships may not have come...but your administration can't control what happens on GF day.

All your administration can do is provide the best possible environment to succeed. They can recruit the best coaches, recruiters, managers etc...and also provide fantastic facilities.

Ultimately we have played in 4 grand finals over the last decade (5 including the draw), 3 prelims and a few semi finals and qualifying finals.

We did hit rock bottom in 2005 and took a few years to rebuild, but the club remained pretty strong in terms of membership sales and attendances etc.

The age of our list also suggests we will be up there for at least another 5 years, however the lack of high draft picks over the last 3 years might see teams like GWS, GC, Melb and Richmond fly by us.

We are blessed with good fixturing in regards to TV rights and also travel...but on the flip side it does mean we typically play the best sides twice. I don't think anyone can argue that we've had the equal toughest draw of just about any side over the last 3 years in terms of who we play twice.

I have to give a big congratulations to the club and Eddie in particular for how successful the club has become since the dark days of 1999. We are in a strong position going forward...and it is good to know we have really capitalised on the strong performances of our side onfield.

 

[DaVe86]

Also, I think Collingwood gets a fair share of criticism in relation to the draw and lack of travel.

However, I think in our defence you have to note the following:

1. The MCG agreed to sacrifice games between interstate teams during finals on the proviso that more Collingwood games are played during the year. It was a deal struck. Congrats to the club for cashing in on the opportunity.

2. The AFL paid a huge amount for the TV rights. It is their decision to fixture Collingwood in prime time because they are entitled to a return on their investment. You cannot argue that North Melbourne games will generate a higher return than a Collingwood game. Until teams can prove that they generate an audience, Collingwood will remain in the prime slots.

3. Prime time games is not necessarily beneficial to the clubs success. It means having to play the good sides twice. It also means having to build the team up for every match knowing that all sides need a good showing against the Magpies due to the more attention on the game. I've noticed us fatigue in the last 2 years towards the end of the year. Perhaps this is a factor.

 

[Slattery_20]

"We also aim high, which is why we want to be the biggest and best sporting club in the country, and to be among the most successful on the world stage."

Nice propaganda fluff McChins, 2 flags in 54 years says otherwise.

Now try reading the whole sentence in one go.
It has a different meaning when you include the 'aim' and 'want to be'.
Like, for example, you 'want to be' able to read whole sentences, but you clearly can't, at present.

 

[Tas]

So? Clubs are involved in all kinds of business. The summation of those is in the financials and revenue from other operations is just as important as revenue from the AFL, really what difference does it make where the revenue is from? Anyone who can understand financial statements can pull them apart. You just need to have a good understanding of how they're built up. It is all in the notes.

It can get convoluted pretty quickly and will continue to do so the more clubs invest in non-core businesses. The revenue is usually easy to quantify, the extent of the expenses and liabilities not as much from the reports I have seen.

Looking at the Dogs financials, other than what is in the notes I don't think you would have the ability to determine the overall performance of each segment of the business or how the assets and liabilities are apportioned to the various segments. Without that information at hand it can be difficult to determine which segment of the business is performing well and which you need to ask the board some hard questions about.

Wait, what? Aren't all clubs a limited liability structure, so members aren't liable?

They are limited by guarantee, but you need to look at each club's constitution which sets out what members are obligated to contribute. Different clubs have different levels of guarantees. For example, the Essendon Football Club constitution says members are limited by a $20 guarantee in case the club hits the brick wall. Some clubs do not have any additional guarantee other than the cost of a membership.

Love it how you need to take dig. I wish we were such a great real club like North.

It is not having a dig. Some clubs, mostly interstate clubs, the members are little more than 'season ticket' holders who have no real rights or voice in terms of running the club.

For example, Crows, members are pissed off at the people who got caught but nobody is getting the boot and the members are powerless to make change, they would only feel obligated to do something if their members stopped buying memberships. People don't buy memberships as a vote of confidence, they buy them to get access to football games.

Most real clubs don't need to demonstrate to their members how not horrible they are at running their business, as they're not likely to go bankrupt if one or two bad things went their way.

That is the problem with real clubs, they are not a money making venture to fund state football, their sole purpose is to win premierships. Your club's sole purpose is to fund WAFL. It is why your state is deliberately building a new stadium which doesn't even meet current demand let alone have room for growth.

It is good for a real club to not be in any financial difficulties but the bar is being pushed up for what purpose? To pay players more money? To be quasi-profit making ventures? I don't follow financial statements, I follow a real club. That is having a dig, see the difference?