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

[DangerSloane]

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.

And what is the fighting tiger fund? Idiot

 

[manicmagpie]

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.

I think it's more likely that the extra spending power helps insulate us against bad years rather than making flags magically appear. Collingwood hasn't missed the finals since 2005, and 2006 is the only year of that run in which we didn't win at least one final. During that time we've rebuilt the entire team (only 6 players that played in our losing final in 2006 are still on the list) while making the prelims 5 times.

 

[THRILLHO]

I think it's more likely that the extra spending power helps insulate us against bad years rather than making flags magically appear. Collingwood hasn't missed the finals since 2005, and 2006 is the only year of that run in which we didn't win at least one final. During that time we've rebuilt the entire team (only 6 players that played in our losing final in 2006 are still on the list) while making the prelims 5 times.

How do you explain Melbourne's ridiculous FD spend, then? They spent $2m more than WB and finished below them.

Large FD spends probably helps, but to what extent no-one knows as the time-frame simply hasn't been long enough to draw any reasonable conclusions from it. The AFL hasn't been professional for long enough yet. Difficult to ascertain whether Collingwood's GF wins is part of the cyclical nature of the AFL or whether it is derived from their spending. We need a 20 year timeframe to really see whether it affects clubs.

Altitude training probably helps, but just being in a team environment, in a new and different environment to Melbourne, getting away from the bubble, is just as beneficial as the altitude.

I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to drawing a link between FD spend and team results, especially when there's a draft and salary cap. I always point to what Glen Archer said. The weights weighed the same at the tin sheds at Arden St as they did at the plush Westpac Centre.

 

[Slax]

Spending in FD helps with recovery, training analysis and getting the best support staff. It makes sure that the players are better prepared when they walk onto the park to play, it doesn't help them suddenly find extra talent, but it might help find an extra 1% in some players.

 

[Tiger2709]

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.

Lets nor forget that this was raised over two years so much of it would be in last years report as well, but we also have spent a lot of it on ground improvements, the real area Richmond has benefited is in our assets they have gone by 3 mill this year, we have also used it to reduce debt by about 1.5 mill this year.

Reality is all clubs count money in different areas, in 2011 both Richmond and the Hawks had FD spends of only 2 mill compared to some clubs that were up around 15 - 20 mil so I would think it is more to do with how it is all added up.

 

[telsor]

How do you explain Melbourne's ridiculous FD spend, then? They spent $2m more than WB and finished below them.

Large FD spends probably helps, but to what extent no-one knows as the time-frame simply hasn't been long enough to draw any reasonable conclusions from it. The AFL hasn't been professional for long enough yet. Difficult to ascertain whether Collingwood's GF wins is part of the cyclical nature of the AFL or whether it is derived from their spending. We need a 20 year timeframe to really see whether it affects clubs.

Altitude training probably helps, but just being in a team environment, in a new and different environment to Melbourne, getting away from the bubble, is just as beneficial as the altitude.

I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to drawing a link between FD spend and team results, especially when there's a draft and salary cap. I always point to what Glen Archer said. The weights weighed the same at the tin sheds at Arden St as they did at the plush Westpac Centre.

The weights might be the same, but not all coaches ( assistant/development/etc ) are equal, and while some might work where they do for the challenge, or loyalty, I dare say the 6 who get paid $200K each are probably more effective than the 4 who get paid $150K.

How much does it matter? Hard to say for sure, but lets say that the average player on the 'well coached' team can/does put in at full ability for another 15 seconds each quarter and/or has 0.1% better disposal efficiency...It wont win you the game in itself, but it'll help.

 

[100action]

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

Money doesn't always guarantee success.

actually if you take out TPP payments (-$10m) then the figures are absurd, Collingwood spending twice as much as the likes of North and the Dogs.

 

[The_Wookie]

How do you explain Melbourne's ridiculous FD spend, then? They spent $2m more than WB and finished below them.

Large FD spends probably helps, but to what extent no-one knows as the time-frame simply hasn't been long enough to draw any reasonable conclusions from it. The AFL hasn't been professional for long enough yet. Difficult to ascertain whether Collingwood's GF wins is part of the cyclical nature of the AFL or whether it is derived from their spending. We need a 20 year timeframe to really see whether it affects clubs.

Altitude training probably helps, but just being in a team environment, in a new and different environment to Melbourne, getting away from the bubble, is just as beneficial as the altitude.

I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to drawing a link between FD spend and team results, especially when there's a draft and salary cap. I always point to what Glen Archer said. The weights weighed the same at the tin sheds at Arden St as they did at the plush Westpac Centre.

I vividly recall reading just how far behind the times the North facilities were in 1999 when they won the flag. Yet they managed two flags in the same decade (1990-1999) that West Coast and Adelaide did with less facilities and less support, while Hawthorn, Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon took 1 each.

I think theres a percieved loss of prestige and pride if you dont have the revenue and footy spend that other clubs do, but realistically it shouldnt matter if you still put in the work. High altitude training hasnt won clubs more flags than clubs that didnt (see Collingwood 1 v Geelong 3). Having own reserve teams on the other hand can be reasonably handy (the Lion x3, Geelong x 3, Collingwood x1, Swans x1) as shown over the last 12 years.

 

[Tas]

actually if you take out TPP payments (-$10m) then the figures are absurd, Collingwood spending twice as much as the likes of North and the Dogs.

Dogs and us don't have a stand alone VFL side, which means we don't have to pay a license fee, don't have to hire coaches and staff for the club and hire for all the VFL only players. I do believe there is a financial contribution but it would be small compared to running your own side.

 

[100action]

Dogs and us don't have a stand alone VFL side, which means we don't have to pay a license fee, don't have to hire coaches and staff for the club and hire for all the VFL only players. I do believe there is a financial contribution but it would be small compared to running your own side.

IIRC it is about $500k to maintain a VFL side license, player payments and staff included. All this from an earlier article regarding our stand-alone in 2014.

 

[The_Wookie]

Lets nor forget that this was raised over two years so much of it would be in last years report as well, but we also have spent a lot of it on ground improvements, the real area Richmond has benefited is in our assets they have gone by 3 mill this year, we have also used it to reduce debt by about 1.5 mill this year.

Reality is all clubs count money in different areas, in 2011 both Richmond and the Hawks had FD spends of only 2 mill compared to some clubs that were up around 15 - 20 mil so I would think it is more to do with how it is all added up.

Theres no mention of funds collected in the 2011 report, even though it makes mention of contributions to the Jack Dyer Foundation. That said, I only have the concise report to hand not the full one. Its not in the treasurers report either. However the presidents report has the following

"We received approximately $2 million of the $3million pledged in 2011 and we hope that 2012 will result in at least another $2million of funds coming through the FTF, which will be used equally for debt reduction and increased football expenditure "

Quite what category that fell under - im inclined to believe it came in under sponsorship and marketing given that topped 17 million - im not sure.

 

[manicmagpie]

How do you explain Melbourne's ridiculous FD spend, then? They spent $2m more than WB and finished below them.

Large FD spends probably helps, but to what extent no-one knows as the time-frame simply hasn't been long enough to draw any reasonable conclusions from it. The AFL hasn't been professional for long enough yet. Difficult to ascertain whether Collingwood's GF wins is part of the cyclical nature of the AFL or whether it is derived from their spending. We need a 20 year timeframe to really see whether it affects clubs.

Altitude training probably helps, but just being in a team environment, in a new and different environment to Melbourne, getting away from the bubble, is just as beneficial as the altitude.

I'm a pretty big cynic when it comes to drawing a link between FD spend and team results, especially when there's a draft and salary cap. I always point to what Glen Archer said. The weights weighed the same at the tin sheds at Arden St as they did at the plush Westpac Centre.

I agree that it's (thankfully) not the be all and end all and the draft and salary cap will always limit the richest clubs. And you still have to use the money in the right way (hello, Melbourne). But that's why I suggest that the spend would have more effect on limiting our 'down' years rather than being responsible for our flag(s).

The theory being that the extra spend on recruiting and scouting helps us better identify 'hidden' talent which means that bottom 4 finishes are not needed to replenish the team; more money on development helps make that talent realise their full potential; more money on sports science helps them stay fitter and healthier or recover faster from injuries etc. All of which means that bottoming out is not necessary or inevitable. In theory, anyway. It's working ok at the moment.

However there is also a good case to say that the better facilities and sports science expertise at Collingwood meant that we recovered much better than St Kilda after the drawn GF. If that's the case then it has paid for itself many times over.

If you really think footy department spending doesn't make any difference would you be happy for North to cut a few million from their annual spend and thus pay off all your debt and shore up your finances for good?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I vividly recall reading just how far behind the times the North facilities were in 1999 when they won the flag. Yet they managed two flags in the same decade (1990-1999) that West Coast and Adelaide did with less facilities and less support, while Hawthorn, Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon took 1 each.

I think theres a percieved loss of prestige and pride if you dont have the revenue and footy spend that other clubs do, but realistically it shouldnt matter if you still put in the work. High altitude training hasnt won clubs more flags than clubs that didnt (see Collingwood 1 v Geelong 3). Having own reserve teams on the other hand can be reasonably handy (the Lion x3, Geelong x 3, Collingwood x1, Swans x1) as shown over the last 12 years.

I think things have changed a lot since the 90s. For a start, we don't have Pagan or Carey and we needed both to win those premierships. Even in that decade, you are talking two small club premierships compared to eight (arguably six, depending whether you put Hawthorn as big or mid-sized) big club premierships; that is a significant difference.

This is conjecture, but most opinions on here are. A lot of things were still new and at the time it was possible to do things smarter. Some of the smaller clubs, in a financial sense, possibly did that while some of the larger clubs perhaps relied a bit too much on money bringing success. The large clubs have since adopted and adapted what the smaller clubs did, used their resources to improve on that, and have the resources to also do them better through increased access to sports sciences and medical care.
It seems more difficult now to be ahead of the game through cunning, meaning it is more difficult to make up that gap in spend. Its not impossible, yet, but seems significantly harder for smaller clubs to get that success.

 

[Effes]

The Carlton Football Club’s disappointing 2012 season was reflected in the financial figures released today with the Club announcing a Financial Net Loss of $683,799.

 

[Synth]

No mention of club revenue...

No point.

Profit/Loss figures by themselves are pointless.

 

[The_Wookie]

Now tracking annual report releases in the commission forum. Not news releases. So far Richmond, Carlton and Hawthorn reports are available.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/afl-clubs-2012-annual-reports.981354/

 

[Tiger2709]

No mention of club revenue...

No point.

Profit/Loss figures by themselves are pointless.

Carltons revenue was 46,637,015
http://www.carltonfc.com.au/Portals/0/blues_docs/2012Stataccounts.pdf

 

[Old Spice]

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.

Lordy.

So if club A spends 14 million on a footy department and club B spends 19 million, but club A shows a profit of 3 million and club B 2 million, club A is in a better position?

No, what matters is generating a massive revenue turnover that is pumped back into further revenue streams and footy department spending.

 

[The_Wookie]

essendon can theoretically announce a 12 million dollar profit on $65 million revenue...although 10 million is government grants.
19 million footy department spend.

Essendon Football Club 2012 Annual Report

 

[Old Spice]

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!

That's pretty solid. So I assume we would have been better off working on the smell of an oily rag than having 19 million on the footy dept? I'd also point out North should do the same. Get your head out of your clacker. As my original posts (and historic posts) should make clear, I'm not into North being pulverized, but in securing their own financial future so they aren't always having to go cap in hand to the AFL for their survival. But you take it as you like my defensive friend.

 

[Old Spice]

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.

Haha, yeah.

2011

social club/gaming: spent 15.9 million and made 19.2,
marketing: spent 15.2 and made 22.1,
membership: spent 7 and made 16.4

You just keep telling yourself that.

 

[Old Spice]

So if footy department spending makes no difference, would those prosecuting that case be happy to peg their footy department spending? I mean, if it makes no difference. Just lift some bolders, why even bother with hyperbaric chambers and all the mod-con-jobs.

Everyone knows this Spartan argument is total bollocks. The question becomes for a serious fan, how do we boost our revenue streams so we maintain parity with other clubs and give ourselves the best chance. A lot of North supporters here seem to prefer the idea of dignified penury rather than getting real.

 

[greennick]

Lordy.

So if club A spends 14 million on a footy department and club B spends 19 million, but club A shows a profit of 3 million and club B 2 million, club A is in a better position?

No, what matters is generating a massive revenue turnover that is pumped back into further revenue streams and footy department spending.

???

In the quote you had of mine I said club B would be better off under such a scenario, as what really matters is footy department spending plus profit. That is the amount you spend on winning games plus an indication of how much extra you can spend in the future.

You think a club with $100m in revenue from other ventures, but $99m in costs for them is better off than a club that earns $50m with $20m in costs. That is just stupid. You can't use that revenue to invest in anything if it is being used to pay the cost of goods sold used to generate it. I wouldn't think that is too hard to understand.

Headline revenue is useless without considering the costs required to generate it. Anybody with a basic knowledge of how to run a business would know that.

 

[greennick]

So if footy department spending makes no difference, would those prosecuting that case be happy to peg their footy department spending? I mean, if it makes no difference. Just lift some bolders, why even bother with hyperbaric chambers and all the mod-con-jobs.

Everyone knows this Spartan argument is total bollocks. The question becomes for a serious fan, how do we boost our revenue streams so we maintain parity with other clubs and give ourselves the best chance. A lot of North supporters here seem to prefer the idea of dignified penury rather than getting real.

Again with the revenue. You can earn $1b revenue from additional non-footy revenue streams, but if you're spending $1b in costs, it isn't going to be helping your footy department one iota.

 

[Kwality]

Haha, yeah.

2011

social club/gaming: spent 15.9 million and made 19.2,
marketing: spent 15.2 and made 22.1,
membership: spent 7 and made 16.4

You just keep telling yourself that.

Wot u say Spicy, thats gobblygook - made 19.2 mil on social club/gaming you claim, surely thats how much they turned over, not the profit. Lots of pensions to make that, how much was the profit?