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

[greennick]

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.

So much wrong with this statement. We fund the WAFL as that is our duty to the football community, to support where football in this state came from, where we came from. It is why we are so successful. We reaped the benefits of our first 2 premierships from a strong WA football. We continue to reap the benefits when guys want to come back to WA. We have no issue with that.

However, the focus of the club is clearly on winning premierships. We're not out there investing in pubs or building pokie mansions. Supporting WA helps us win premierships, not the other way around (though there is mutual benefit for both).

On the stadium, we have no need for a 100k person stadium. It would be empty most of the time. The plan now is it will be 65k or so, more than a 50% increase, surely big enough?

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?

For someone who doesn't spend any time following financial statements, you seem to spend a lot of time reading and discussing financial statements. As you can probably tell, WC supporters don't spend much time reading our financials, as they're not even released.

 

[Madblue]

Great effort by the Pies off the field, shame for their supporters that they can't turn that into on field success. So many clubs with far less money winning flags must eat at Eddie

 

[The_Wookie]

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

Well there you go lol. That'll learn me to do stuff in the wee hours.

Most clubs list anything from the AFL under AFL revenue, I imagine most of them just treated it the same way they do ASD, Disequal funding, and prize money. Collingwood have chosen not to, which is probably a more honest reflection.

 

[Papa G]

So much wrong with this statement. We fund the WAFL as that is our duty to the football community, to support where football in this state came from, where we came from. It is why we are so successful. We reaped the benefits of our first 2 premierships from a strong WA football. We continue to reap the benefits when guys want to come back to WA. We have no issue with that.

However, the focus of the club is clearly on winning premierships. We're not out there investing in pubs or building pokie mansions. Supporting WA helps us win premierships, not the other way around (though there is mutual benefit for both).

You think it's a good idea that you bank roll the WAFL, yet every AFL club in the leaugue benefits from drafting West Australian youngsters, whilst being a part of the AFL means you also partly bank roll the Victorian TAC Cup and VFL? I don't think it's that fair at all. If you got exclusivity (along with Freo) to WA players it would be a mutually beneficial arrangement, but at the moment you are giving (to everyone) far more than you are taking. Your arguement stacks up with your 90's State teams, but the landscape is much differnt now.

 

[The_Wookie]

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.

Assets

Hawthorn - $50.8 million
Essendon - $42.4 million
Bulldogs - $41 million
Geelong - $39.9 million
Carlton - $30 million
Richmond - $27 million
Adelaide - $23.8 million (2011)
Collingwood - $23.1 million (2011)
Port - 17.7 million (2011)
North - $16.7 million (2011)
St Kilda - $15 million
Melbourne - 13.6 million (2011)
Brisbane - 12.6 million

Net Assets

Essendon - 35 million
Hawthorn - 26.3 million
Bulldogs - 23 million
Richmond - 19 million
Adelaide - 18.1 million (2011)
Carlton - 12.7 million
Collingwood - 10.9 million (2011)
Geelong - 9.9 million
Port - 8.3 million (2011)
North - 6.5 million (2011)
Melbourne - 6.3 million (2011)
St kilda - 5.6 million
Brisbane - (-3.1 million)

 

[Tas]

So much wrong with this statement. We fund the WAFL as that is our duty to the football community, to support where football in this state came from, where we came from. It is why we are so successful. We reaped the benefits of our first 2 premierships from a strong WA football. We continue to reap the benefits when guys want to come back to WA. We have no issue with that.

Given how much money the WAFC generates over the VFL you would think WA would provide significantly more AFL players to the competition than they do.

AFL Victoria's financial report for 2009 (don't ask me why 2010 and 2011 aren't on their website) generated $17,349,026. Of that revenue, $13,389,474 was spent on game development.

WAFC's 2011 financial report has $107,758,871 in revenue and of that development expenses of $4,947,289, so that 4.6% of revenue that trickles down to game development is worth the huge contribution Eagles and Dockers supporters make? I find it hard to believe supporters can honestly believe that.

However, the focus of the club is clearly on winning premierships. We're not out there investing in pubs or building pokie mansions. Supporting WA helps us win premierships, not the other way around (though there is mutual benefit for both).

Well, on-field success = more money. But how dedicated would they be if to win a premiership they could no longer continue to divert funds away from the Perth clubs? I haven't seen the SANFL this generous with Port Adelaide. They are pretty quick to give with one hand and to take with the other, but overall they continue to siphon a lot of money from their club.

On the stadium, we have no need for a 100k person stadium. It would be empty most of the time. The plan now is it will be 65k or so, more than a 50% increase, surely big enough?

How many members do you have and how many are on a waiting list for a membership and what is the growth rate in Perth? That should answer the question for you if the stadium will be adequate in size or not.

For someone who doesn't spend any time following financial statements, you seem to spend a lot of time reading and discussing financial statements. As you can probably tell, WC supporters don't spend much time reading our financials, as they're not even released.

I said I do not cheer/support a set of financial statement, not that they do not interest me. Being financially viable is a means to an end.

 

[Richo83]

FD spending has to be capped. Can anyone inform me on what happened with Collingwood's pub deals?

 

[yibbida]

Why is Collingwood's player payments "slightly more than $11 million"?

(2013 Salary Cap is $9.13 million)

 

[telsor]

Why is Collingwood's player payments "slightly more than $11 million"?

(2013 Salary Cap is $9.13 million)

Firstly there is a marketing allowance above the cap.

Also, I imagine that they count things like payroll taxes, insurance and the like in here.

Assets

Hawthorn - $50.8 million
Essendon - $42.4 million
Bulldogs - $41 million
Geelong - $39.9 million
Carlton - $30 million
Richmond - $27 million
Adelaide - $23.8 million (2011)
Collingwood - $23.1 million (2011)
Port - 17.7 million (2011)
North - $16.7 million (2011)
St Kilda - $15 million
Melbourne - 13.6 million (2011)
Brisbane - 12.6 million

Net Assets

Essendon - 35 million
Hawthorn - 26.3 million
Bulldogs - 23 million
Richmond - 19 million
Adelaide - 18.1 million (2011)
Carlton - 12.7 million
Collingwood - 10.9 million (2011)
Geelong - 9.9 million
Port - 8.3 million (2011)
North - 6.5 million (2011)
Melbourne - 6.3 million (2011)
St kilda - 5.6 million
Brisbane - (-3.1 million)

I trust wookie's figures, but...

If the difference between 'assets' and 'net assets' is liabilities (ie, debt) then clubs are in significantly more debt than is generally believed.

Yes, I realise a lot of it would be things like trade creditors, but even so.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Why is Collingwood's player payments "slightly more than $11 million"?

(2013 Salary Cap is $9.13 million)

The AFL allows us to cheat the salary cap as long as we tell them about it. It's the lying that the AFL really can't stand, not exceeding the salary cap.

 

[The_Wookie]

Given how much money the WAFC generates over the VFL you would think WA would provide significantly more AFL players to the competition than they do.

AFL Victoria's financial report for 2009 (don't ask me why 2010 and 2011 aren't on their website) generated $17,349,026. Of that revenue, $13,389,474 was spent on game development.

WAFC's 2011 financial report has $107,758,871 in revenue and of that development expenses of $4,947,289, so that 4.6% of revenue that trickles down to game development is worth the huge contribution Eagles and Dockers supporters make? I find it hard to believe supporters can honestly believe that.


.

2010 is here http://cdn.vi.com.au/studio/8023-1_...oads/2010_AFL_Victoria_Annual_Full_Review.pdf

Total revenue: 17.867 million
Direct AFL Funding: 6 million

2011 is either non existent or harder to find, as AFL Victoria was wholly bought out by the AFL in march 2011.

 

[Leeda]

It is the future that is important. Gives everyone peace of mind and lets the supporters know that they are not being wasted. Congrats to the 'know it alls' at the club and to keep it up.

 

[manicmagpie]

The AFL allows us to cheat the salary cap as long as we tell them about it. It's the lying that the AFL really can't stand, not exceeding the salary cap.

And we would have got away with it too, if it hadn't been for that pesky yibbida kid.

 

[Old Spice]

Why is Collingwood's player payments "slightly more than $11 million"?

(2013 Salary Cap is $9.13 million)

Nothing gets past Columbo.

 

[theflea]

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.

yes we didnt want them the afl made us play there.

 

[Old Spice]

Great effort by the Pies off the field, shame for their supporters that they can't turn that into on field success. So many clubs with far less money winning flags must eat at Eddie

If lack of success eats up a Prez, it's amazing Stix isn't a head and a neck.

 

[Kwality]

Given how much money the WAFC generates over the VFL you would think WA would provide significantly more AFL players to the competition than they do.

AFL Victoria's financial report for 2009 (don't ask me why 2010 and 2011 aren't on their website) generated $17,349,026. Of that revenue, $13,389,474 was spent on game development.

WAFC's 2011 financial report has $107,758,871 in revenue and of that development expenses of $4,947,289, so that 4.6% of revenue that trickles down to game development is worth the huge contribution Eagles and Dockers supporters make? I find it hard to believe supporters can honestly believe that.



Well, on-field success = more money. But how dedicated would they be if to win a premiership they could no longer continue to divert funds away from the Perth clubs? I haven't seen the SANFL this generous with Port Adelaide. They are pretty quick to give with one hand and to take with the other, but overall they continue to siphon a lot of money from their club.



How many members do you have and how many are on a waiting list for a membership and what is the growth rate in Perth? That should answer the question for you if the stadium will be adequate in size or not.



I said I do not cheer/support a set of financial statement, not that they do not interest me. Being financially viable is a means to an end.

You are an 18 carat DILL.

Here is a clue: too many teams in Melbourne e.g How many members do you have and how many are on a waiting list for a membership and what is the growth rate in Perth?

 

[greennick]

Given how much money the WAFC generates over the VFL you would think WA would provide significantly more AFL players to the competition than they do.

AFL Victoria's financial report for 2009 (don't ask me why 2010 and 2011 aren't on their website) generated $17,349,026. Of that revenue, $13,389,474 was spent on game development.

WAFC's 2011 financial report has $107,758,871 in revenue and of that development expenses of $4,947,289, so that 4.6% of revenue that trickles down to game development is worth the huge contribution Eagles and Dockers supporters make? I find it hard to believe supporters can honestly believe that.

So, we contributed somewhere around $3m to development of the game here and the Dockers about $2m, about $3m and $2m more than North contributes to development of the game in Victoria. Further, our expenditure on development is in line with Victoria's on a per capita basis, but you're claiming it is a negative thing?

Well, on-field success = more money. But how dedicated would they be if to win a premiership they could no longer continue to divert funds away from the Perth clubs? I haven't seen the SANFL this generous with Port Adelaide. They are pretty quick to give with one hand and to take with the other, but overall they continue to siphon a lot of money from their club.

You do realise West Coast has its own board, run for its own interests? Further, the Eagles and Dockers are owned by the WAFC, not the WAFL. If the Eagles and Dockers cared so much more about the WAFL, we wouldn't be pissing them all off now by effectively taking over 2 of the teams. We care about the development of the game here (have agreed to contribute more next year on specific development measures) and support a strong WAFL (fund each club to the tune of a bit more than the WAFL salary cap), however not at the expense of our chances of winning.

How many members do you have and how many are on a waiting list for a membership and what is the growth rate in Perth? That should answer the question for you if the stadium will be adequate in size or not.

You do realise it is the state government that is stumping up the cash for this? So, it isn't just about us. Why would the state government want to spend an extra $200m+ on a stadium that will only be full two to three times a year? What a terrible investment. If construction was free, I'm sure we'd be stoked to have an 80k seat stadium, but there is no magic wand to make that happen.

 

[Kwality]

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.

I battle to understand why the AFL provide for those who are dudded ($s) by the FIXture, yet those who benefit keep the gains ($s) - my team benefit from an extra game v Freo each year & I dont see why the AFL couldnt grab a share to meet the cost of the subsidies.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

I battle to understand why the AFL provide for those who are dudded ($s) by the FIXture, yet those who benefit keep the gains ($s) - my team benefit from an extra game v Freo each year & I dont see why the AFL couldnt grab a share to meet the cost of the subsidies.

I understand the reasoning but where do you stop, do you hit sponserships as well? What about ground costs and returns? Membership revenue?

 

[DaVe86]

I struggle to see why so many fans are saying "it's a shame it doesn't translate into premierships" ...or something along those lines.

We did win a flag only 2 seasons ago, made the GF the year after and a prelim this year....where we lost to one of the AFL's other big powerhouses...who lost to a side with $1M more in the salary cap.

So I think it is pretty evident that the strong administration and profits are translating into on-field success. And we would still be one of the premiership favourites for next season.

Perhaps we haven't built the dynasty we were hoping for after 2010, but we have built a base for continued on-field success. Ultimately thats the best an administration can do. It still comes down to the players at the end of the day.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I understand the reasoning but where do you stop, do you hit sponserships as well? What about ground costs and returns? Membership revenue?

Agree with this - and this is why im in favour of the AFL using its TV dollars to equalize things.

taxing sponsorships just hurts clubs hard work

membership tax would be messy given the mix of 3 game, 11 game, reserved seats, and coterie packages

ground tax is also biased, as it would tax SFA against the clubs who have virtually no general admin sales (i.e. WCE and Geelong)

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You are an 18 carat DILL.

Here is a clue: too many teams in Melbourne e.g How many members do you have and how many are on a waiting list for a membership and what is the growth rate in Perth?

Not according to the supporters or the AFL, and that's all that really matters.

Best you concern yourself with matters inside the goldfish bowl.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Agree with this - and this is why im in favour of the AFL using its TV dollars to equalize things.

taxing sponsorships just hurts clubs hard work

membership tax would be messy given the mix of 3 game, 11 game, reserved seats, and coterie packages

ground tax is also biased, as it would tax SFA against the clubs who have virtually no general admin sales (i.e. WCE and Geelong)

Also like you reference to the Foo fighters concert should other clubs get a portion of this due to the fact nobody else has that option which is unfair?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Also like you reference to the Foo fighters concert should other clubs get a portion of this due to the fact nobody else has that option which is unfair?

yep it just gets too messy.