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

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Worst part of all is those sneaky Bulldogs hiding all their money away in assets.
Does anyone actually know what these are?

 

[The_Wookie]

Victorian clubs should have gate reciepts taxed. At the very least The 'Guaranteed MCG Blockbusters' - should be taxed or remove the guaranteed part from the fixture to ensure everyone gets a fair crack.

WA and SA clubs already support entire leagues. NSW and QLD are struggling -> new areas. If victorians want to convince the rest that there arent too many teams there, then they should be looking after themselves.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Victorian clubs should have gate reciepts taxed. At the very least The 'Guaranteed MCG Blockbusters' - should be taxed or remove the guaranteed part from the fixture to ensure everyone gets a fair crack.

WA and SA clubs already support entire leagues. NSW and QLD are struggling -> new areas. If victorians want to convince the rest that there arent too many teams there, then they should be looking after themselves.

Collingwood already does who else do you tax maybe Hawthorn, Essendon?
You can't tax Carlton or Richmond at the moment.

Not sure if Essendon and Hawthorn are being taxed extra already.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Just pool all the money and distribute it equally.

Problem solved.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Just pool all the money and distribute it equally.

Problem solved.

Then what incentive is there for clubs to grow if you end up with the same amount as money as everyone else no matter how you run your club .

 

[MarkT2]

Just pool all the money and distribute it equally.

Problem solved.

One of the dumbest suggestions since the USSR fell apart and China woke up.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

One of the dumbest suggestions since the USSR fell apart and China woke up.

Yep, the AFL is actually a nation state.

Milton Friedman has got nothing on you.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Then what incentive is there for clubs to grow if you end up with the same amount as money as everyone else no matter how you run your club .

The AFL should oversee all aspects of the games growth.

 

[MarkT2]

"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.

Propaganda? It's an aim.

 

[Galileo9]

Just pool all the money and distribute it equally.

Problem solved.

i have a better idea, a more realistic idea, an existing idea that has been proven to work:

kick out the poor clubs, have clubs only in places viable. problem solved.
.
.
.
.
or
get a billionaire owner who is willing to subsidise basketcases because he is a fan.

i am quiet willing for there to be less clubs in AFL and therefore less games per season.

 

[MarkT2]

Yep, the AFL is actually a nation state.

Milton Friedman has got nothing on you.

No incentive means no result. It is that simple. Why would I buy 4 Collingwood memberships for myself and my family if the money went to your club equally? Why woudl Collinwgood want me to buy them and send me a reminer to renew? Why would Eddie host the President's Club functions?

 

[The_Wookie]

Then what incentive is there for clubs to grow if you end up with the same amount as money as everyone else no matter how you run your club .

Its not as easy as that. The clubs that are out there financially at the moment are Collingwood and Hawthorn. Now one is the beneficiary of a years of selling 1/3rd of their season to Tasmania annd you cant begrudge that. The other is a huge beneficiary of - and im aware its a victim of its own success here - an uneven draw actively connived at by the games ruling body.

Oddly enough, I dont think a fair fixture would change collingwoods position - in fact I dont think most clubs would be any worse off - but it would immensely help clubs like north and the bulldogs to be able to get more games against the bigger clubs - as well as more time on the MCG.

 

[The_Wookie]

i have a better idea, a more realistic idea, an existing idea that has been proven to work:

kick out the poor clubs, have clubs only in places viable. problem solved.
.
.
.
.
or
get a billionaire owner who is willing to subsidise basketcases because he is a fan.

i am quiet willing for there to be less clubs in AFL and therefore less games per season.

ah west coast supporters. master trolls.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Its not as easy as that. The clubs that are out there financially at the moment are Collingwood and Hawthorn. Now one is the beneficiary of a years of selling 1/3rd of their season to Tasmania annd you cant begrudge that. The other is a huge beneficiary of - and im aware its a victim of its own success here - an uneven draw actively connived at by the games ruling body.

Oddly enough, I dont think a fair fixture would change collingwoods position - in fact I dont think most clubs would be any worse off - but it would immensely help clubs like north and the bulldogs to be able to get more games against the bigger clubs - as well as more time on the MCG.

That response was in reference of just pooling all the money.
Collingwood wouldn't be hurt by a fair fixture as our supporters will always show. But T.V rights would as would other clubs who are getting these fixtures but are not in the financial position to absorb the hit.

Anzac day will never change nor will the 14 games at the MCG which was part of the interstate finals debarcle being cleared up. Collingwood being in the top echelon of teams currently means they will play the better teams currently which means more airtime and more people coming through the gates. Collingwood is yet to play GWS and GC twice in a season which is unfair but understandable as well.

Is Collingwood playing 14 games at the M.C.G fair no, but was it worth the compromise to get home finals played interstate where they should have been.. yes
Sometimes for the benefit of others compromises have to be made.

 

[Galileo9]

ah west coast supporters. master trolls.

ahh basket club followers. master trolls.

 

[The_Wookie]

That response was in reference of just pooling all the money.
Collingwood wouldn't be hurt by a fair fixture as our supporters will always show. But T.V rights would as would other clubs who are getting these fixtures but are not in the financial position to absorb the hit.

Anzac day will never change nor will the 14 games at the MCG which was part of the interstate finals debarcle being cleared up. Collingwood being in the top echelon of teams currently means they will play the better teams currently which means more airtime and more people coming through the gates. Collingwood is yet to play GWS and GC twice in a season which is unfair but understandable as well.

Is Collingwood playing 14 games at the M.C.G fair no, but was it worth the compromise to get home finals played interstate where they should have been.. yes
Sometimes for the benefit of others compromises have to be made.

I dont doubt any of that, but people cant then turn around and have a go at the league for developing equalisation measures. As you said. Sometimes for the benefit of others compromises have to be made.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

I dont doubt any of that, but people cant then turn around and have a go at the league for developing equalisation measures. As you said. Sometimes for the benefit of others compromises have to be made.

I agree with that 100%

 

[Last of the Roys]

If anyone has the time it would be really interesting to see a comparison of football department spending across the different clubs that have released their reports.

The Brisbane Lions only spent $17.2m on our footy department in 2012.
http://www.lions.com.au/annual reports/tabid/5226/default.aspx

The recent articles in the Herald-Sun on Collingwood and Melbourne seemed to indicate that they spent about $21.2m and $18m respectively on their football departments (although I haven't seen the actual financial reports).

Obviously the Collingwood figure is inflated a little bit because they played in 3 finals - although I am not sure what that equates to in prize-money to players, etc. that would be included in the footy department spending.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

No incentive means no result. It is that simple. Why would I buy 4 Collingwood memberships for myself and my family if the money went to your club equally? Why woudl Collinwgood want me to buy them and send me a reminer to renew? Why would Eddie host the President's Club functions?

Mate, it's the greatest game in the world and requires bugger all incentive to get people on board (mind you, the rules committee are pushing their luck).

If you only purchase your club membership because it involves you in some corporate equation then I suggest that you aren't a footy supporter in the first place. Likewise, if your mentality is inclined to not buy a membership for your club because a portion of those funds go to support the entire competition that has placed your club where it is today, then again, I suggest you are not a football supporter but the follower of a brand. You should have picked a franchise club.

 

[telsor]

Victorian clubs should have gate reciepts taxed. At the very least The 'Guaranteed MCG Blockbusters' - should be taxed or remove the guaranteed part from the fixture to ensure everyone gets a fair crack.

WA and SA clubs already support entire leagues. NSW and QLD are struggling -> new areas. If victorians want to convince the rest that there arent too many teams there, then they should be looking after themselves.

Clearly with Port struggling, SA has too many clubs as well.

 

[MaddAdam]

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

Ridiculous notion.

 

[The_Wookie]

Clearly with Port struggling, SA has too many clubs as well.

Ports problems are in its ownership.

 

[PieNSauce]

The AFL should oversee all aspects of the games growth.

Yep, lets take all the competition out of the competition. What will we call it then, the AFL show I guess!

 

[The_Wookie]

If anyone has the time it would be really interesting to see a comparison of football department spending across the different clubs that have released their reports.

The Brisbane Lions only spent $17.2m on our footy department in 2012.
http://www.lions.com.au/annual reports/tabid/5226/default.aspx

The recent articles in the Herald-Sun on Collingwood and Melbourne seemed to indicate that they spent about $21.2m and $18m respectively on their football departments (although I haven't seen the actual financial reports).

Obviously the Collingwood figure is inflated a little bit because they played in 3 finals - although I am not sure what that equates to in prize-money to players, etc. that would be included in the footy department spending.

Football Department Spend

• Collingwood - $21,167,000*
• Carlton - $20,349,646
• Essendon - $19,200,704
• Geelong - $19,200,072
• St Kilda - $17,962,408
• Brisbane - $17,231,496
• Port Adelaide - $16,300,000*
• Western Bulldogs - $15,748,928
• Richmond - $3,915,909 (specifically cited)
• Hawthorn - $2,378,471 (Specifically cited

Theres a more serious discussion that involves these things going on over at
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/afl-clubs-2012-annual-reports.981354/

* indicates press report/club website and not annual report

 

[telsor]

Football Department Spend

• Collingwood - $21,167,000*
• Carlton - $20,349,646
• Essendon - $19,200,704
• Geelong - $19,200,072
• St Kilda - $17,962,408
• Brisbane - $17,231,496
• Port Adelaide - $16,300,000*
• Western Bulldogs - $15,748,928
• Richmond - $3,915,909 (specifically cited)
• Hawthorn - $2,378,471 (Specifically cited

Theres a more serious discussion that involves these things going on over at
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/afl-clubs-2012-annual-reports.981354/

* indicates press report/club website and not annual report

Anyone have any ideas what Richmond and Hawthorn (and possibly other clubs) exclude here?

I imagine player salaries are the largest element, but surely it would need to be more than that.