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

[Righteo]

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!

It's mostly the Vic teams and their fans that like to engage in those kinds of petty revenue/membership shitfights. I think teams like WC/Freo/Adelaide and their fans are pretty secure in the knowledge they are well off financially so posting the info publicly isn't made a big deal out of.

 

[Scotland]

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

The WAFC publish an annual financial report which includes the royalties received from West Coast and Fremantle, so it's not hard to work out the profit of Freo from that...

 

[Scotland]

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/

So the 'rich' spent $19.8m and the 'poor' spent $14.6m.

Not exactly Manchester City vs Wigan, is it?

 

[The_Wookie]

So the 'rich' spent $19.8m and the 'poor' spent $14.6m.

Not exactly Manchester City vs Wigan, is it?

Collingwood earn a lot of revenue but most of that is just turnover without being profit from its various arms and businesses. Same goes for most operations. There isnt a huge gap in core activity spend/earnings. Although its significant in the Australian sporting context.

 

[Dominance]

Wow good work Richmond. Surely we would be top 4 in membership revenue? Revenue is the true indicator of membership numbers. Just selling cheap meaningless memberships does not mean you're a big club.

 

[Scotland]

Collingwood earn a lot of revenue but most of that is just turnover without being profit from its various arms and businesses. Same goes for most operations. There isnt a huge gap in core activity spend/earnings. Although its significant in the Australian sporting context.

People are always crying 'cap footy dept spending'.

If we cap it at $20m what difference will it make? West Coast will still spend $19.8m and the clubs spending less will continue to spend less unless they can increase their revenue streams.

If we cap it at $15m West Coast will end up spending $15m and assuming our revenue streams don't mysteriously collapse will post a profit $4.8m higher than current levels... The higher our profit the more money that goes into WA footy, but otherwise it doesn't achieve a lot.

 

[maxmustard]

Pretty funny people actually bagging Collingwood for having money as if it guarantees premierships every year. I'm no pies lover but 2010 won flag, 2011 runner up, 2012 prelim.

 

[Kwality]

when we started the FTF the aim was for 6m. we have raised this figure over 2 years or so but funds are pledged and not all have been collected.

When are they likely to be collected - see notes attached to the financials when released ....

 

[The_Wookie]

When are they likely to be collected - see notes attached to the financials when released ....

If they havent been collected they cant count towards this years profit, Moderators on the board of the Richmond Football Club website have indicated the FTF funds are included. If they havent been then you cant claim it in the annual reports either, a pledge is not the same as income.

RFCMod Raymond•a day ago

The FTF monies are included in the revenue, so they directly relate to record profit.

 

[Prudster]

Does that mean that without the 6 million dollars of donations for the FTF, that Richmond have actually made a loss of about 3 million?

 

[The_Wookie]

Does that mean that without the 6 million dollars of donations for the FTF, that Richmond have actually made a loss of about 3 million?

Depends how much of it was actually collected by close of the financial year. It cannot be counted as revenue if it hasnt actually been paid and so cant be counted towards profit. If the tigers mod is correct then the funds have been collected and tallied into the revenue.

 

[Kwality]

Depends how much of it was actually collected by close of the financial year. It cannot be counted as revenue if it hasnt actually been paid and so cant be counted towards profit. If the tigers mod is correct then the funds have been collected and tallied into the revenue.

Reporting on a cash basis, you reckon, how was it handled in 2011 Wookie?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Does that mean that without the 6 million dollars of donations for the FTF, that Richmond have actually made a loss of about 3 million?

Over half of the 6 million was made last year in 2011, so no it would mean they roughly broke even.

 

[Prudster]

Depends how much of it was actually collected by close of the financial year. It cannot be counted as revenue if it hasnt actually been paid and so cant be counted towards profit. If the tigers mod is correct then the funds have been collected and tallied into the revenue.

So depending on how much has been paid, their profit is actually made up of a fair amount of donations? For example, if they have been paid 3 million, then they only broke even? Or am i reading that wrong?

EDIT: Just read the post above

 

[Kwality]

Over half of the 6 million was made last year in 2011, so no it would mean they roughly broke even.

Baz, you dont know ... suck it up buttercup, but WHY, why dont you know, what are your mob doing?

roughly you reckon, how rough?

 

[Rob]

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

They publish them - they have to as they're a public company. But for some unknown reason they don't chuck it on their website, so you have to pay to get it from the ASIC database if you want a copy.

 

[telsor]

It's mostly the Vic teams and their fans that like to engage in those kinds of petty revenue/membership shitfights. I think teams like WC/Freo/Adelaide and their fans are pretty secure in the knowledge they are well off financially so posting the info publicly isn't made a big deal out of.

It's generally only the clubs who need to report to members that announce such things publically (they only need to announce to members, but that's effectively public).

Franchises only report to their owners, so the info that leaks tends to be much less detailed.

So you say Vic clubs, I say clubs that have members rather than ticket holders.

Supporters of franchises generally just enter such threads to troll, knowing they will never have the privilige of being informed about the club they nominally support's activities, let alone voting on them.

 

[Tas]

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/

I think how it is spent is critical. I am curious what some of the big spenders are doing that we don't do or couldn't afford. We went out and paid a lot of money to get Steve Saunders, who knocked back the big clubs before coming to us. I think there is diminishing returns, you get to a point where you have to spend a truck load of extra money to see any kind of benefit.

There would be a lot of clubs that spent more than us that should be asking what kind of value did they get from that spending. I think if we had more money to spend we might pay some of our staff more money, get a few more lackeys around the place. How much of an impact is that going to make though? I just think we don't waste as much money as other clubs.

Collingwood had that idiot running their VFL club and have peanuts like Mitch Harn as assistants. If that is what having a shitload of money gets you then give me destitution.

 

[Scotland]

Pretty funny people actually bagging Collingwood for having money as if it guarantees premierships every year. I'm no pies lover but 2010 won flag, 2011 runner up, 2012 prelim.

West Coast finished 2nd last, 6th last and last in a three year period.

Money doesn't always guarantee success.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

So the 'rich' spent $19.8m and the 'poor' spent $14.6m.

Not exactly Manchester City vs Wigan, is it?

Nor should it be.

 

[Kwality]

It's generally only the clubs who need to report to members that announce such things publically (they only need to announce to members, but that's effectively public).

Franchises only report to their owners, so the info that leaks tends to be much less detailed.

So you say Vic clubs, I say clubs that have members rather than ticket holders.

Supporters of franchises generally just enter such threads to troll, knowing they will never have the privilige of being informed about the club they nominally support's activities, let alone voting on them.

What world does this occur in?

 

[MarkT2]

It is not really that insightful to compare revenue or even profit numbers. The point of the revenue is to run a football club. That means spending money to win flags short and long term and accumulating money to ensure you can keep doing that.

Football department spend plus profit would be the best measure of current success and net assets would be a better measure of longer term success, being an accumulation of the results of prior profits and smart management of resources. Of course flags are the whole point and ignoring on field results is pretty pointless. If a club can win flags spending less money then in all likelihood they have a better run football department.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

It's mostly the Vic teams and their fans that like to engage in those kinds of petty revenue/membership shitfights. I think teams like WC/Freo/Adelaide and their fans are pretty secure in the knowledge they are well off financially so posting the info publicly isn't made a big deal out of.

Thanks for that mate, interesting to know. I always assumed/thought every club disclosed that kind of information to the public.

 

[theflea]

When are they likely to be collected - see notes attached to the financials when released ....

i have no idea. i think the debt would be expired within 1 or 2 years so within that time.

 

[theflea]

If they havent been collected they cant count towards this years profit, Moderators on the board of the Richmond Football Club website have indicated the FTF funds are included. If they havent been then you cant claim it in the annual reports either, a pledge is not the same as income.

i would say this means funds used at this time not all funds.