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

[The_Answer3]

F****ng stadium deals...

Any info on the return for clubs from AO and if that will be any better?

Few other lads know much more about it. Hopefully they'll be able to help out on this.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It is like they're confusing EBIT (Operating Profit) with EBITDA...

Nah its spin. They boasted they built a $20mil centre but basic 20 year write off of buildings rule, means they will have depreciation hit of $1mil a year, so they want to distinguish that hit to the bottom line. But they are happy to show the new income stream from the new facility as normal income, which didn't exist before they built the new centre as they didn't have a social venue then.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

F****ng stadium deals...

Any info on the return for clubs from AO and if that will be any better?

Few other lads know much more about it. Hopefully they'll be able to help out on this.

They have modeled the deal but it wont be final until construction is near completion because if there are cost over runs neither the govt, SANFL or SACA will pay for them so the bells and whistles will have to be cut back and that could effect the final deal.

Bottom line is the govt has to step in and tell the SANFL to take a smaller piece of the pie.

 

[GarnerSmash]

They have modeled the deal but it wont be final until construction is near completion because if there are cost over runs neither the govt, SANFL or SACA will pay for them so the bells and whistles will have to be cut back and that could effect the final deal.

Bottom line is the govt has to step in and tell the SANFL to take a smaller piece of the pie.

Hopefully it is significantly better than what is currently in place. Clubs should be benefiting from people turning up to their games. To get 20-28k to a game and have to pay the stadium operators is bullshit. Fingers crossed for a low break even point, especially for Port.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Hopefully it is significantly better than what is currently in place. Clubs should be benefiting from people turning up to their games. To get 20-28k to a game and have to pay the stadium operators is bullshit. Fingers crossed for a low break even point, especially for Port.

When you have a BOOT - Build, own, operate, and transfer back stadium like Docklands then they have no choice but to screw the hirers as they have to hand the stadium over for $1, so they have a depreciating asset, and can't sell the stadium and make a capital gain.

However when its taxpayer $$$ funding the development the owners don't have to screw the hirers like the BOOT stadiums owners and they don't have get a commercial return.

If less than $60mil - 85% from govt grants from the 3 levels of government, with about 15% put up by both the AFL and GFC have turned Geelong into virtually a bullet proof club. The final $40mil development once again mainly funded by government will ensure they are bullet proof.

A $50mil govt guaranteed loan in the early 1990's and then 1/3 paid off by the govt in 2004, as well as an independent footy body who understand incentives, has made the WCE a bullet proof Goliath and that footy body after getting a boot up the date in 2001 from the AFL and restructuring itself and its attitude to Freo, have made Freo virtually bullet proof. And when they move to an $800mil new fully taxpayer funded stadium they will be better off, not worse or only marginally better off.

A $130mil stadium - 90% funded by 3 levels of government has meant the GC will be bullet proof once they get their crowds to average 25,000.

A $65mil redvelopment, 70% funded by the NSW govt, 20% by the AFL and the rest by the agricultural society means when the GWS get to averaging 25,000 they will be virtually bullet proof.

So here in SA, you have a hands off dopey government hand over $535,000,000 to two private sporting organisations and the 2 biggest drivers of the revenue, the AFL clubs, are marginally better off than the dud deal at Footy Park. Cricket are loving this, no debt anymore, and a shiny new stadium to drive revenue streams as hard as they can.

 

[TooFar]

It is astonishing how the Crows can only make that much. Big crowds, big membership, excellent season on field, NAB Cup and Prelim prize money, an adoring media, Chapman saying they have great corporate support...... it truely is astonishing. Why aren't the Crows up there with West Coast and Collingwood???? Are there any Crows supporters still out there that think SANFL ownership of their club is the way to go?

When did football clubs become profit making enterprises? Without knowing the total revenue and expenses you have no idea how the AFC compares to other clubs. However it is pretty clear that you are just one of the many typical Port Power whingers that can’t get on Bigfooty fast enough to post something negative about the Crows. You guys should worry about your own club a little more and work out how you can get more supporters…

 

[Papa G]

When did football clubs become profit making enterprises? Without knowing the total revenue and expenses you have no idea how the AFC compares to other clubs. However it is pretty clear that you are just one of the many typical Port Power whingers that can’t get on Bigfooty fast enough to post something negative about the Crows. You guys should worry about your own club a little more and work out how you can get more supporters…

Numbnuts, it's not being negative about the Crows, it's being negative about the SANFL and their ****ing treatment of "their" licenses. Oh I see you're a Bays supporter....carry on.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

When did football clubs become profit making enterprises?

When the VFL charged $4mil for licence fees, so that would be 1986 for some or 1985 when they slugged Sydney licence owners $6.5mil.

Without knowing the total revenue and expenses you have no idea how the AFC compares to other clubs.

That's what this thread and the one on the AFL Commission board is all about. We have prior year accounts so its not going to be too different. What has the crows done so differently since 2011 that we have NO idea about??

However it is pretty clear that you are just one of the many typical Port Power whingers that can’t get on Bigfooty fast enough to post something negative about the Crows.

Pot, kettle, black! Crows supports are virginal white in this aspect are they? more like a dodgy priest around little boys.

Port Power do they play in the same comp as the Camry Crows, North Kangaroos, Gold Suns, Greater Giants, Saint Saints, West Eagles, Footscray??

You guys should worry about your own club a little more and work out how you can get more supporters…

Erh this is a fan forum. No-one here is running any club. This thread is about comparisons, bench marking, finding out who does what, when and how. I think you need to go and find another forum to spend your time on!

 

[TooFar]

Oh REH, you make it all too easy....

But seriously, a Club just has to break even or make a small profit. As long as the football department spend is comparable to other clubs, making large profits is not a requirement.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Oh REH, you make it all too easy....

But seriously, a Club just has to break even or make a small profit. As long as the football department spend is comparable to other clubs, making large profits is not a requirement.

I agree clubs making some money in the good years and banking it for the inevitable bad years is what clubs should be trying to achieve as they don't have to be these profit making machines like BHP. But market forces will say that there are those who will do well and those who do below average. Its only football socialism that stops the competition being made up of only 6 highly profitable clubs.

 

[Hill2Pav]

F****ng stadium deals...

Any info on the return for clubs from AO and if that will be any better?

An old article;

http://www.smh.com.au/business/grou...core-goals-others-behinds-20110929-1kzfp.html

It might be the biggest sporting business in Australia, but the Australian Football League seemingly produces remarkably varied financial fortunes for the grounds that host its matches.
Who would have thought you could lose money on the grand final? The Melbourne Cricket Club, which manages the fabled Melbourne Cricket Ground, lost $1.4 million on last year's replay of the clash between Collingwood and St Kilda.

Its rival, Etihad Stadium, might have hosted 48 AFL matches this year compared with the MCG's 47 but its operating company, Stadium Operations, is a perennial loser. In the past four financial years it has racked up more than $60 million of losses, and paid no dividends. Perhaps the Sydney Cricket Ground and ANZ Stadium, venues that respectively hosted only eight and three AFL matches this season, ought to be grateful they do not have more exposure to the AFL.

Next year the new Greater Western Sydney Giants will be playing out of the $60 million, purpose-built Skoda Stadium at the Sydney Showgrounds rather than ANZ Stadium. It will be intriguing to see what the NSW government makes on the deal.

Presumably Etihad's owners, a handful of funds managed by a Mirvac-Leighton Holdings joint venture that include National Australia Bank Group's staff super fund, and industry funds such as Retail Employees Superannuation Trust, Western Australia's Westscheme and South Australia's Statewide, are extracting a return somewhere along the line for the $330 million they paid Kerry Stokes's Seven Group to buy the stadium in 2006 .

Stadium Operations' accounts for calendar 2010, filed with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, have it losing $16.2 million. No doubt the owners are getting their return out of the $22.25 million in interest payments Stadium Operations made on its $180 million of debt owed to the Stadium Property Trust.

Still, when AFL boss Andrew Demetriou on Monday laid out the league's five-year blueprint for ''re-balancing'' distribution of its nearly $400 million a year in revenue, Insider's eye was caught by the league's reckoning that clubs based at Etihad are the most disadvantaged in his competition - i.e. the stadium is making money, but the clubs not so much. Aside from the murderous language, where the AFL said it would make ''disequal'' payments to the most affected clubs, the slide presentation released by the league had showed that Etihad and the MCG are the least lucrative grounds.

''Home'' clubs at the MCG, Richmond and Melbourne, get only 41 per cent of match revenue. At Etihad it falls to 36 per cent for the likes of St Kilda, North Melbourne Kangaroos and the Western Bulldogs. Geelong, by contrast, trousers 90 per cent of the gate at its home ground and, at what used to be known as Subiaco Oval but is now Perth-based stockbroker Patersons' stadium, West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers pocket 77 per cent of the takings. In Adelaide's AAMI Stadium, local clubs get 51 per cent of the takings.

Much of the difference is that the two main Melbourne grounds do not have the same partisan memberships, so that the base cost for renting either the MCG or Etihad is a higher hurdle to clear for the lower-ranked clubs because they do not draw sufficient crowds. You might think that the MCG offers better returns than Etihad because it can seat more people - its capacity of a little more than 100,000 people is about double that of the other stadium - but the average crowds at Etihad at 32,000 are a higher percentage of capacity than the MCG's 53,000 average.

On the AFL's figures this week, a team entitled to the gate takings at the MCG could expect to get, roughly, $100,000 more than when it played at Etihad assuming a constant crowd size, even though both venues struck an agreement with the league two years ago to add an extra $100,000 a match to club payments in exchange for the venues getting extended and enlarged match contracts. Worse than that, the AFL numbers seem to suggest that without that additional $100,000 a home club at Etihad would be losing money until it drew a crowd of almost 40,000.

The MCC's chief executive, Stephen Gough, said he could not understand why that gap seemed so large, either. Etihad's spokesman Bill Lane said that unlike the MCG, the stadium did not receive any government funding, and had to charge a higher rental to get an adequate return for investors. He also noted that where scoreboard advertising revenue at the MCG went to the MCC, at Etihad it went to the AFL.
Gough has a few extras too, like per capita payments when AFL crowds topped 2.1 million in a full year. They were running at close to $2 million a year with crowds above 3 million the past two seasons.
The MCC does have one major advantage over the SCG - it has more than 100,000 members (and twice that on the waiting list) who each year tip a collective $40 million into its coffers for the privilege. The SCG has only 18,000 members, whose roughly $16 million in fees do not even begin to cover operating costs.
That members' money pretty much covers operating costs for the MCG, excluding the interest burden on its redevelopments, so money from football, cricket and other events becomes cream - which in the latest year translated into an $11.5 million profit .

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/grounds-and-revenue-some-afl-clubs-score-goals-others-behinds-20110929-1kzfp.html#ixzz2F0IkBVKZ

 

[theflea]

will the sanfl sell AAMI park when they go the AO? could be a windfall?

 

[*PAF]

Astonishing- and don't forget the prizemoney for bringing home the NAB Cup. Minus the 300K for the salary cap / draft tampering breaches and it's a loss of almost $200K.

The SANFL leeches are working it perfectly, kudos

Plus the extra "equivalent of $1M from the SANFL" that the AFL negotiated for them.

45K plus members, 37K average at the gate, Uber sponsorship but if you take the extra $1M and the prizemoney away they would have lost money even excluding depreciation. FFS!!

 

[Kwality]

Port will be ok. Just hang tough for another year until they can get to Adelaide Oval. They've had a fine offseason, good coach and drafted/ traded very well
Financially, the problem club is Brisbane. They're in some strife

Port will be ok. Just hang tough for another year until they can get to Adelaide Oval. They've had a fine offseason, good coach and drafted/ traded very well
Financially, the problem club is Brisbane. They're in some strife

BLIND FAITH in Adelaide Oval - why is that?

 

[Kwality]

Under what accounting rules is depreciation not included in operating profit? There is nothing abnormal about it.

Accelerated, accelerated depreciation is probably the answer.

WAFC (2011) accelerated depreciation on assets at Subi with a potential relocation to ... hello hello !

Good practice for mine #7.

 

[Old Spice]

I agree clubs making some money in the good years and banking it for the inevitable bad years is what clubs should be trying to achieve as they don't have to be these profit making machines like BHP. But market forces will say that there are those who will do well and those who do below average. Its only football socialism that stops the competition being made up of only 6 highly profitable clubs.

That's true, but it also benefits the top clubs because we also need a vibrant competition.

Need to find away to assist the revenue side of the poorer clubs - there's no two ways about it.

 

[UpTheGuts]

BLIND FAITH in Adelaide Oval - why is that?

To be honest I'm just passing what a club official told me last night. Not Port
I'm not an expert on the numbers, although Brisbane's do look very sick an saying they are in strife isn't exactly earth shattering news

 

[Kwality]

To be honest I'm just passing what a club official told me last night. Not Port
I'm not an expert on the numbers, although Brisbane's do look very sick an saying they are in strife isn't exactly earth shattering news

What club is that official from Gutsa, is he a doorman or a bootstudder, i.e would he know - I ask cos I reckon Adelaide Oval wont save SA footy.

 

[*PAF]

What club is that official from Gutsa, is he a doorman or a bootstudder, i.e would he know - I ask cos I reckon Adelaide Oval wont save SA footy.

Last year (2011) we got 29,340 spectators at AO and lost money on the game.

They did mention one off costs, such as gold plated goal posts, but you would think that nearly 30,000 would cover a handful of one off costs for a venue that caters for that many spectators year after year.
The devil will be in the detail.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Accelerated, accelerated depreciation is probably the answer.

WAFC (2011) accelerated depreciation on assets at Subi with a potential relocation to ... hello hello !

Good practice for mine #7.

How is $20mil building asset depreciated over 20 years = $1mil/yr, an accelerated depreciation issue? 5% is pretty standard. It's a bit of spin.

Also given a move to AO the asset might not be on Adelaide's in 2029 books when it hits the 20 year mark.

 

[The_Wookie]

Collingwoods Annual Report has been released. Tables updated.

As I did last year, Ill be tallying them up as I go along. Anyone who wants to pass along Adelaide, Sydney or WA club reports is more than welcome.

Membership:

• Hawthorn - 60,841 (8,731 Tasmania)
• Richmond - 53,072
• Essendon - 47,708
• Carlton - 45,800
• Geelong - 40,200
• Melbourne - 35,000
• Western Bulldogs - "more than 30,000"

Revenue:

• Collingwood - $69,249,166
• Essendon - $65,431,425
• Hawthorn - $57,277,620
• Geelong - $48,957,150
• Carlton - $46,637,015 (up $6 million on 2011)
• Brisbane - $43,859,151
• Melbourne - $39,517,200
• Richmond - $37,640,767
• Port Adelaide - $36,649,694
• Western Bulldogs - $32,777,251
• St Kilda - $30,846,816

Sponsorship, Marketing

• Richmond - $19,323,900
• Collingwood - $19,120,714 (includes merchandise)
• Essendon - $15,920,153
• Geelong - $15,696,889
• Hawthorn - $15,083,689
• Carlton - $12,524,669
• Brisbane - $11,700,040
• Melbourne - $8,219,263
• St Kilda - $6,714,163
• Port Adelaide - Not specified

Membership, reserved seating

• Collingwood - $16,229,531
• Essendon - $9,367,066
• Hawthorn - $9,028,307
• Carlton - $8,953,054
• St Kilda - $7,353,883
• Melbourne - $5,619,605
• Richmond - $5,050,000 (membership only)
• Western Bulldogs - $5,027,548 (membership only)
• Port Adelaide - Not specified

Gate reciepts

• Melbourne - $4,305,292
• Hawthorn - $4,018,101 ("matchday income")
• Carlton - $3,426,953
• Western Bulldogs - $1,374,525 ("match returns and gate receipts")
• Essendon - $726,504 (This is not a misprint)
• Richmond - Not specified
• St Kilda - included in AFL revenue
• Port Adelaide - Not specified
• Geelong includes Gate reciepts with membership: $11,536,630
• Brisbane includes Gate recipets with membership: $6,127,764

Total Profit/Loss:

• Essendon - $12,345,536
• Collingwood - $7,835,080
• Richmond - $3,017,742
• Hawthorn - $1,288,810
• Adelaide - $$122,434*
• Melbourne - $19,485
• Western Bulldogs - (136,679)
• St Kilda - ($436,818)
• Carlton - ($639,799)
• Geelong - ($996,000)
• Brisbane - ($2,200,013)
• Port Adelaide - ($2,117,071)

Operating Profit/Loss

• Collingwood - $4,860,000*
• Richmond - $3,017,742
• North Melbourne - $1,193,080*
• Hawthorn - $1,288,810
• Adelaide - $1,214,039*
• St Kilda - $631,135
• Essendon - $401,429
• Geelong - $322,000
• Western Bulldogs - ($136,679)
• Carlton - ($683,799)
• Brisbane - ($2,513,262)
• Port Adelaide - ($4,120,000)

Merchandise Income:

• Essendon - $3,226,302
• Hawthorn - $2,700,000
• Geelong - $2,699,798
• Carlton - $1,902,671
• Western Bulldogs - $1,268,765 (labelled "consumer products")
• St Kilda - $1,121,857
• Brisbane - $1,004,273
• Melbourne - $634,384
• Richmond - not specified
• Port Adelaide - Not specified
• Collingwood - specifically included with sponsorship and marketing

Football Department Spend

• Collingwood - $21,167,238
• Carlton - $20,349,646
• Essendon - $19,200,704
• Geelong - $19,200,072
• Melbourne - $17,983,567
• St Kilda - $17,962,408
• Port Adelaide - $17,430,245
• Brisbane - $17,231,496
• Western Bulldogs - $15,748,928
• Richmond - $3,915,909 (specifically cited)
• Hawthorn - $2,378,471 (Specifically cited)

Debt Repaid -

• Richmond - $1,500,000
• North Melbourne - $1,000,000*
• Carlton - $750,000
• Western Bulldogs - $594,000*

Grants (non AFL)

• Essendon - $10,100,000 (ASF, Federal Gov)
• Carlton - $321,220 (ASF)
• Western Bulldogs - $755,413
• Port Adelaide - $2,000,000 (SANFL)

AFL Income - Distributions (includes 2012 base grant of $7.956 million to all clubs)
Note: this may include prize money, ASD and future fund grants.

• Richmond - $14,046,030 ("Football income")
• Collingwood - $13,208,949
• St Kilda - $13,115,339 (includes Gate reciepts)
• Melbourne - $10,796,875
• Brisbane - $10,400,161
• Western Bulldogs - $10,326,872
• Hawthorn - $9,138,376
• Carlton - $9,056,876
• Port Adelaide - $7,996,876
• Essendon - $7,956,876
• Geelong - $7,606,364

Net Assets

• Essendon - $35,059,757
• Hawthorn - $26,364,619
• Western Bulldogs - $23,227,514
• Richmond - $19,065,807
• Adelaide - $18,740,000*
• Collingwood - $18,691,856
• Carlton - $12,709,584
• Geelong - $9,957,144
• Port Adelaide - $6,721,225
• Melbourne - $6,375,056
• St Kilda - $5,633,566
• Brisbane - (3,131,072)

Reference:

• Brisbane Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Carlton Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Collingwood Football Club Annual Report
• Essendon Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Geelong Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Hawthorn Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Melbourne Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Port Adelaide Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Richmond Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• St KIlda Football Club 2012 Annual Report
• Western Bulldogs 2012 Annual Report

Additional References - * information will be contained here.

• Adelaide back in the black
• Lions record Massive loss
• Another million for North
• Loss caps dog of a year (Western Bulldogs)
• PAFC Financial Result (Port Adelaide)

Footnote:
* Club media release, not annual report.

 

[The_Wookie]

Sydney Swans Limited today announced a 2012 financial year profit of $207,007 after taking into account non-cash expenses of $391,633.

It is the Club’s second successive profit, after losses in 2009 and 2010.

http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2012-12-18/swans-2012-financial-results

 

[Mr Eagle]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/16049961/wa-footys-10-million-cash-cows/

Fremantle's financial result came off a turnover of $42.77 million, an increase of $3.1 million, with a profit of $376,245.
West Coast's contribution came from a turnover of $55 million, up $5 million. It is understood the Eagles expect to declare a profit of about $3 million.

That's after WAFC contributions of $4.6m (from Freo) and $5.6m (from WCE).

 

[The_Wookie]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/a/-/afl/16049961/wa-footys-10-million-cash-cows/

Fremantle's financial result came off a turnover of $42.77 million, an increase of $3.1 million, with a profit of $376,245.
West Coast's contribution came from a turnover of $55 million, up $5 million. It is understood the Eagles expect to declare a profit of about $3 million.

That's after WAFC contributions of $4.6m (from Freo) and $5.6m (from WCE).

thanks very much mate. OP will be updated tonight.

 

[Belnakor]

As part of that investment the Dockers had increased football department spending by $2.6 million last year to $20.89 million.

Interesting bit, so Freo is presumably 3rd behind Collingwood and WCE for footy department spend