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

[RandB]

MFC Annual Report

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/152153/default.aspx

Just under $18 mill spent on FD.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

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

Let me know when an umpire bonces a calculator in the centre square.

Far too many people have been indoctrinated with this fiscal crap.

There are countless tens of thousands of people that go running in mid summer in order to prepare for the game and they do it for nothing more than beer money and the love of the game.

The game survived 100 years without it. It would survive another 1000 years without it.

 

[Kwality]

Let me know when an umpire bonces a calculator in the centre square.

Far too many people have been indoctrinated with this fiscal crap. The game survived 100 years without it.

There have always been people running the clubs, it is just getting more scrutiny - you wont be missed.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

There have always been people running the clubs, it is just getting more scrutiny - you wont be missed.

We aren't going anywhere.

We'll just go and invent another 10 like you and rake in the bucks on the back of small minded small town mentality.

You're the western outpost of the VFL. Don't ever forget that.

 

[Kwality]

We aren't going anywhere.

We'll just go and invent another 10 like you and rake in the bucks on the back of small minded small town mentality.

You're the western outpost of the VFL. Don't ever forget that.

Its you, not North that wont be missed - Let me know when an umpire bonces a calculator in the centre square.

 

[The_Wookie]

Fun bit from the annual reports:

Information based entirely from annual reports and a quote from Gary March about membership revenue on the richmond website.
Note several clubs include gate reciepts with their membership and seating totals. These include Geelong, Brisbane, St Kilda.

 

[telsor]

Fun bit from the annual reports:

Information based entirely from annual reports and a quote from Gary March about membership revenue on the richmond website.
Note several clubs include gate reciepts with their membership and seating totals. These include Geelong, Brisbane, St Kilda.

Just to point out that the Richmond figure is for *net* revenue.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just to point out that the Richmond figure is for *net* revenue.

define net revenue there, because the comments from the the article on the richmond site dont say that, its defined as membership revenue. The annual report doesnt say anything about it being a net result.

"Record membership revenue of $5.305m representing 53,072 members"
Ref: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/151326/default.aspx

It should be noted that Richmond does not account for Membership revenue separately in its annual report.

 

[telsor]

define net revenue there, because the comments from the the article on the richmond site dont say that, its defined as membership revenue. The annual report doesnt say anything about it being a net result.

"Record membership revenue of $5.305m representing 53,072 members"
Ref: http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/151326/default.aspx

It should be noted that Richmond does not account for Membership revenue separately in its annual report.

Can't find the link, but I'm sure I read it somewhere...It also kinda makes sense seeing as the cheapest membership that counts for the totals (3 games) is $85, so we'd need something like 95% 3 game members for the math to work otherwise.

 

[The_Wookie]

Can't find the link, but I'm sure I read it somewhere...It also kinda makes sense seeing as the cheapest membership that counts for the totals (3 games) is $85, so we'd need something like 95% 3 game members for the math to work otherwise.

well that or several thousand non access members.

 

[telsor]

well that or several thousand non access members.

The 53k was the official AFL figure...i.e. they have some form of match access.

 

[The_Wookie]

The 53k was the official AFL figure...i.e. they have some form of match access.

The AFL figure includes non access members. Richmond supporters have also been at considerable pains to point this out all year.

The membership of AFL clubs comprised 650,562 club access members with match-day entry (compared to 650,373 in 2011) and 57,059 non-access members (compared to 49,311 in 2011).

ref: http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/co...ership-increases/story-fnelctok-1226466581212


Image below from: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2012-09-06/club-memberships-hit-700000-.default

 

[PieNSauce]

Let me know when an umpire bonces a calculator in the centre square.

Far too many people have been indoctrinated with this fiscal crap.

There are countless tens of thousands of people that go running in mid summer in order to prepare for the game and they do it for nothing more than beer money and the love of the game.

The game survived 100 years without it. It would survive another 1000 years without it.

In the latter part of the 1900's the failure of clubs to recognise the importance of good administration and fiscal responsibility was ultimately responsible for the extinction of one club and relocation of another. On top of that, a number of other clubs including my own were almost put to the wall. The suggestion that the incentive to improve should be discouraged is as ridiculous as it is fraught with danger. It's just too easy for clubs to expect hand outs rather than do the hard yards and grow the pie if you'll pardon the pun. I sympathise with the clubs which struggle to make ends meet but I fail to see how encouraging them to sit on their hands will fix anything and the reality is that it would likely have a negative affect on the entire competition. There are so many equalisation measures, both fiscal and practical in place already that there is a real risk of reducing the competition to nothing more than a travelling circus.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

In the latter part of the 1900's the failure of clubs to recognise the importance of good administration and fiscal responsibility was ultimately responsible for the extinction of one club and relocation of another.

Money was the cause of these issues in the first place.

On top of that, a number of other clubs including my own were almost put to the wall.

Financially, yes. I can't support the idea that Collingwood would have became extinct.

The suggestion that the incentive to improve should be discouraged is as ridiculous as it is fraught with danger.

A strict adherent to economic dogma would likely perceive things that way.

I don't follow your voodoo.

It's just too easy for clubs to expect hand outs rather than do the hard yards and grow the pie if you'll pardon the pun.

Spoken like a true economic dogmatist.

I sympathise with the clubs which struggle to make ends meet...

No. You don't.

...but I fail to see how encouraging them to sit on their hands will fix anything and the reality is that it would likely have a negative affect on the entire competition. There are so many equalisation measures, both fiscal and practical in place already that there is a real risk of reducing the competition to nothing more than a travelling circus.

Like so many others, you are brainwashed with economic dogma to the point where you can see nothing else.

Football is a sport with rules unaccompanied by sophisticated economic guidelines, and a leather ball.

 

[PieNSauce]

Money was the cause of these issues in the first place.



Financially, yes. I can't support the idea that Collingwood would have became extinct.



A strict adherent to economic dogma would likely perceive things that way.

I don't follow your voodoo.



Spoken like a true economic dogmatist.



No. You don't.



Like so many others, you are brainwashed with economic dogma to the point where you can see nothing else.

Football is a sport with rules unaccompanied by sophisticated economic guidelines, and a leather ball.

lol. If you're happy to put up nothing but your own uneducated assertions and idiotic insults without a shred of supporting argument then that's fine with me but don't presume to tell me how I feel or what I think. Fortunately, not many would follow your voodoo either!

The competition is what it is and I suspect that most people agree that fiscal responsibility is an unavoidable part of it. If you're happy to accept mediocrity then go join some amateur competition but I suspect you'll find there are similar imperatives there anyway.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You're brainwashed pal, and all the allusions to some kind of intellectual superiority will not change that fact.

You are totally incapable of thinking outside your narrow paradigm.

 

[theflea]

Can't find the link, but I'm sure I read it somewhere...It also kinda makes sense seeing as the cheapest membership that counts for the totals (3 games) is $85, so we'd need something like 95% 3 game members for the math to work otherwise.

rfc stig clarified that it was net revenue. as to what that means im not sure but maybe after monies payed to the afl/grounds etc.

 

[PieNSauce]

You're brainwashed pal, and all the allusions to some kind of intellectual superiority will not change that fact.

You are totally incapable of thinking outside your narrow paradigm.

Ha ha. Still got nothing worth saying I see. Never mind, when you come up with something approaching an intelligent response I'm sure we'll be more than happy to discuss it.

 

[The Prosecutor]

You're brainwashed pal, and all the allusions to some kind of intellectual superiority will not change that fact.

You are totally incapable of thinking outside your narrow paradigm.

 

[Slattery_20]

Fun bit from the annual reports:

Information based entirely from annual reports and a quote from Gary March about membership revenue on the richmond website.
Note several clubs include gate reciepts with their membership and seating totals. These include Geelong, Brisbane, St Kilda.

I'd expect ours to be towards the higher end per member, since our 'rank and file' membership now includes a reserved seat, which the club obviously makes a buck from.

I think they're bringing back the option to not have the reserved seat for 2013, so I expect it to drop back (per member) this year, but I think our number of memberships & total membership revenues will both increase.

 

[ManOfClay]

Potentially call of the year.

 

[telsor]

rfc stig clarified that it was net revenue. as to what that means im not sure but maybe after monies payed to the afl/grounds etc.

Thanks, knew I'd seen it somewhere.

 

[telsor]

I'd expect ours to be towards the higher end per member, since our 'rank and file' membership now includes a reserved seat, which the club obviously makes a buck from.

I think they're bringing back the option to not have the reserved seat for 2013, so I expect it to drop back (per member) this year, but I think our number of memberships & total membership revenues will both increase.

Yeah, it's no great surprise that Essendon and Carlton are a step above in that table...Both being teams based at Etihad and likely enough to sell out that they'd have a significant proportion of reserved seats (Ess being 100%). The ground limitations stop you having the absolute numbers, but it means you get more per member (similar to WCE).

 

[Slattery_20]

I'm reasonably surprised Carlton are up that high.
Didn't think they had any sort of risk of a sell-out (normally have that Hawthorn game that gets 50k+ at docklands) in 2012.


We have not gone near to packing Docklands for years. Just that there's a lot of seats that never go on sale, tied to memberships.

 

[MarkT2]

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.

I buy 4 memberships and they aren't the cheaper ones. The adult ones are Legends. I don't get any corporate anything out them. It would be cheaper for me to go and pay at the gate when I can go, which is not every week. Even when I do go my wife/kids don't always come along. I could literaly save more than $1,000 and see just as many live game. If the money wasn't going to Collingwood I wouldn't buy these membership - at at the very least not at the same level and not 4. It wouldn't be a membership, it would be an AFL contibution. Actually I very much doubt Legends memebrship would even exist.

I have been a football fan and Collingwood supporter all my life. I have no incentive to be a financial contributer of the AFL. They have Broadcast rights, caterring rights and a host of other ways to rasie funds. I can spend my money an whatever I want. I happen tio want to spend some of Collinwood. I definately do not want to spend any on Carlton.