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

Remove this Banner Ad

Old Spice said:
Just to illustrate my point above about profit not really being the primary indicator of the health of a club, Collingwood's 2011 Annual Report showed us with a profit of 2.1 million.

The important facts are we generated 75.5 million in total revenue and income. This allowed us to spend 19.4 million on Football Expenses (dept). That's what you want ultimately, to have a massive revenue generated to spend on the footy dept, as much as possible while putting significant amounts into further money generation.

Having revenue generating streams that can pump money back into the footy dept. From our social club/gaming we spent 15.9 million and made 19.2, in marketing we spent 15.2 and made 22.1, in m/ship we spent 7 and made 16.4. Some of that largesse goes to the footy department, but a lot into generating more money.

That's where North needs to marshall their troops. Stay competitive in FD spending, but spend as much as you can in generating revenue so you don't have to keep going back to the well.
Click to expand...



So, to sum it up: Collingwood spent $20m on the football department, but couldn't win the flag.

I'm sure you're happy with your balance sheet though.
 
THRILLHO said:
So, to sum it up: Collingwood spent $20m on the football department, but couldn't win the flag.

I'm sure you're happy with your balance sheet though.
Click to expand...

More spending in football departments doesn't win you a flag.

It does improve your chances though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Old Spice said:
The big question is total revenue turnover. The higher the revenue the more you can pump into the football department, and perhaps more importantly long-term, the non-football dept revenue generating streams. When non-footy dept streams grow, they bring in a lot of revenue which is then siphoned into the footy department.
Click to expand...
That is not entirely true. It is more important the margin that is being earned on that revenue. So, net revenue (less cost of goods sold) is more important as this should exclude stuff like the cost of beer in the Collingwood pubs, the cost of stadium rental for west coast of the cost of items sold in any team's store.
 
Old Spice said:
Just to illustrate my point above about profit not really being the primary indicator of the health of a club, Collingwood's 2011 Annual Report showed us with a profit of 2.1 million.

The important facts are we generated 75.5 million in total revenue and income. This allowed us to spend 19.4 million on Football Expenses (dept). That's what you want ultimately, to have a massive revenue generated to spend on the footy dept, as much as possible while putting significant amounts into further money generation.

Having revenue generating streams that can pump money back into the footy dept. From our social club/gaming we spent 15.9 million and made 19.2, in marketing we spent 15.2 and made 22.1, in m/ship we spent 7 and made 16.4. Some of that largesse goes to the footy department, but a lot into generating more money.

That's where North needs to marshall their troops. Stay competitive in FD spending, but spend as much as you can in generating revenue so you don't have to keep going back to the well.
Click to expand...
Revenue is a worse indicator than profit. Profit at least shows us how much extra a club can spend. Revenue shows us nothing without costs.

When our comes down to it, all that matters is footy department spending plus profit. This is then the amount you spend on making for football team better and the extra amount you could have.
 
Old Spice said:
The big question is total revenue turnover. The higher the revenue the more you can pump into the football department, and perhaps more importantly long-term, the non-football dept revenue generating streams. When non-footy dept streams grow, they bring in a lot of revenue which is then siphoned into the footy department.
Click to expand...

Revenue is meaningless unless its making you money. If you own 100 pubs that bring in $1billion in revenue but costs you $1 billion to run, how does that help you spend anymore on your footy department?
 
LOL @ thinking that you'll get any information out of Fremantle. Have a look at the membership numbers. For whatever reason they don't publish the numbers so I doubt they'll publish the financial results either
 
afl08 said:
LOL @ thinking that you'll get any information out of Fremantle. Have a look at the membership numbers. For whatever reason they don't publish the numbers so I doubt they'll publish the financial results either
Click to expand...

Probably not worth publishing.
 
peejay said:
So really north relied on donations from fans and really will not end up anywhere near the profit hawthorn and Richmond made. But I am sure JB will put a spin on it.
Click to expand...
We won't have the same sort of profit of the two clubs whose fans on this site keep getting into shitfights over which belongs in the so-called "big 4"? I'm shocked. The idea that a small club might produce a smaller profit than a large club is so amazingly damning.
In case you can't tell, I am being sarcastic.
 
afl08 said:
LOL @ thinking that you'll get any information out of Fremantle. Have a look at the membership numbers. For whatever reason they don't publish the numbers so I doubt they'll publish the financial results either
Click to expand...

Why's that mate? Any ideas? I would have thought a club would want to reveal that kind of information to members, sponsors, business partners etc. Very strange!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

saintgary said:
Why is a profit even important for AFL clubs?
Click to expand...
A profit, or at least breaking even over time, is. A large profit isn't really that important, it just provdes a buffer against some bad years or some decisions going sour.
A large revenue base allows for spending on the football department, surely more important for a so-called "not for profit organisation" which all clubs claim to be for tax purposes.
 
Just for the record, richmond get 500K for the cairns game, Hawthorn 4 games at tassie and 2 for north in hobart.
these will obviously contribute to the total profit for these 3 clubs. possibly norths total profit??
 
THRILLHO said:
So, to sum it up: Collingwood spent $20m on the football department, but couldn't win the flag.

I'm sure you're happy with your balance sheet though.
Click to expand...
It's also the reason why we seem to go deep into finals every year whereas less important clubs like Nth Melbourne need to play the bottom sides twice in order to make the 8 and then get humiliated in one of the most pathetic finals displays in recent history
 
forwardflanker said:
It's also the reason why we seem to go deep into finals every year whereas less important clubs like Nth Melbourne need to play the bottom sides twice in order to make the 8 and then get humiliated in one of the most pathetic finals displays in recent history
Click to expand...


Spin it anyway you want.

Highest football department spend in the AFL, didn't win the premiership, finished fourth, lost to some pleb club without two red cents to rub together called North Melbourne.

But yeah... Wooo! Profit!
 
THRILLHO said:
Spin it anyway you want.

Highest football department spend in the AFL, didn't win the premiership, finished fourth, lost to some pleb club without two red cents to rub together called North Melbourne.

But yeah... Wooo! Profit!
Click to expand...

regardless of expenditure i think both north and pies dont have much right to chest pump re 2012.
 
THRILLHO said:
Spin it anyway you want.

Highest football department spend in the AFL, didn't win the premiership, finished fourth, lost to some pleb club without two red cents to rub together called North Melbourne.

But yeah... Wooo! Profit!
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it but West Coast outspent Collingwood in football department spending - which is a good effort given they have no reserves side.

  • West Coast – $19,800,000
  • Collingwood – $19,412,167
  • Geelong – $18,821,742
  • Essendon – $18,510,078
  • Carlton – $17,831,197
  • Melbourne – $16,309,582
  • St Kilda – $16,974,040
  • Brisbane – $16,061,596
  • Port Adelaide – $15,682,596
  • North Melbourne – $15,280,850
  • Western Bulldogs – $14,694,994
ref: http://footybusiness.wordpress.com/attendances-2/2011-afl-season/afl-clubs/
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

samFFC
Analysis Sydney and close losses - UPDATE ROUND 21 - Sydney big losses, Freo and close losses...
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
samFFC
samFFC
S
Independent doctors at every match
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
282
Views
6K
Sainter1873
S
CursoryMercenary
Opinion Why do Geelong get the final round fixture in Geelong every season (since the mid 2000's) ?
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
Chief
News Injury List AFL 2024 - Updated every few days.
2 3 4
Replies
90
Views
7K
Chief
Chief
Cleric
Opinion Is it time for the AFL to allow clubs a marquee player outside the cap?
2
Replies
32
Views
495
Morbidly_Obese
Morbidly_Obese
Bunk Moreland
Toast 400 club
Replies
18
Views
699
threesixpio
threesixpio
A
Which player from another club do you like or feel good for?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
1K
Brad Goodman
Brad Goodman

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top