Economic downturn will sink boot in to clubs

[SweetLeftFoot]

Whilst Footscray are by no way out of the woods in terms of merger/relocation, they at least have some strategic importance for the AFL, something that North don't.

This old chestnut.

If the AFL really cared about 'geographic areas' in Melbourne, they'd have clubs that represented those areas.

If you look at the demographics of Melbourne, which places the centre at about keysborough, then every club is based in the western suburbs.

And if you knew anything about the demographics of Melbourne, you'd know there's a rapidly increasing market for North to tap in the CBD and the inner northern and western suburbs too.

 

[Rob]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

I guess unless you really understand the situation's, people are just going to try & sink the boots in, and thats probably fair enough.

Without Smorgon, and without Cambell Rose, the club was destined to be in the scrap heap, at the time when David took over with his "taskforce" at the end of season '96, it was all about survival for the club, whats the best for the club to try & finally dig itself out of a hole etc, and from the club has been, even that in itself was a huge thing to try & achieve.

Many people say, Footscray should have just folded blah blah blah, should have been kicked out blah blah blah like Fitzroy, but did Fitzroy REALLY fight like Footscray have done time & time again?, it was them who wanted to take us over, not merge, for them survival wasn't the key, but to try & strive without having to survive first, and look what happened!!!!

They tried the easy fast track option than really doing the bloody hard work.

We had our hands tied when WE HAD TO SIGN, was all about survival AGAIN, now, the club is probably in it's strongest positon since the 50's when Footscray topped the membership ladder in the VFL, higher than Collingwood etc.

The TD laughing? my word they are....NOW, but not back then, now we are finally starting to strive and not survive, finally the club is standing up, 20Mil re-development, the Edgewater development, membership numbers around the 31,000 mark consistantly [hopefully edge past 32,000 after a strong 2008].

For now, the club won't make money on the stadium deal, but has posted a trading profit 2 years in a row of over half a million, we make around a million on our two home interstate games.

The TD deal right now isn't going to be the survival of the club, those days are over, but just holding us back until that deal is finished, then the club can finally start making serious in roads.

Everytime i answered your questions Rob, well, i made your statements questions, you just came back with more crap, rather than acknowledging what i had to say, pretty easy that way isn't it, and just shows that you might know whats going on, but really, you don't champ.

Whatever you reckon mate. You just rattle off the usual excuses for your administration and imply that it isn't their fault.

You never had to sign anything - you have always got a choice. However what you're suggesting is that your club was in so much shit a few years ago that it would have been a huge risk not to sign up to the new deal. That's simply how the real world works. Like a person who's just lost their job and is forced to sell his house for less than what the mortage is because they bought in a boom, it's simply stiff shit. That's why you engage good people in senior positions - so they don't get into those positions in the first place.

You were desperate - you're always going to get screwed. Welcome to the real world.

And strongest position ever? That's pushing it a tad far given you're still reliant on a massive discretionary payment from the league.

 

[incubi]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Yet you haven't beaten us in years. You won't win a flag with that list, ours is far better positioned for a tilt.



They'd want to be committed to supporting you given how much you demand off them.

I notice its only because of North's pressure that you bludgers are going to get a decent stadium deal at the Dome.

As always, North innovates, other clubs benefit.

How is yours better positioned for the tilt? unhealthy reliance on Harvey to show any creative spark for your whole team? or the drink drivng forward? and dont say the spine thing, with lake and williams still relatively young up back, everitt always inproving and grant and boumann legit future forward prospects.

Interesting how you say you guys are the ones leading the way on the change when Smorgon is the head of the committee trying to fix the stadium situation. Also, according to Caroline Wilson the bulldogs are the club with the bussiness plan copied by 5 clubs including north melbourne.

 

[incubi]

This old chestnut.

If the AFL really cared about 'geographic areas' in Melbourne, they'd have clubs that represented those areas.

If you look at the demographics of Melbourne, which places the centre at about keysborough, then every club is based in the western suburbs.

And if you knew anything about the demographics of Melbourne, you'd know there's a rapidly increasing market for North to tap in the CBD and the inner northern and western suburbs too.

The AFL have actually made refenerence to the importance of the western suburbs though, especially seeing that its one of the 3 biggest growth areas in the country.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Interesting how you say you guys are the ones leading the way on the change when Smorgon is the head of the committee trying to fix the stadium situation. Also, according to Caroline Wilson the bulldogs are the club with the bussiness plan copied by 5 clubs including north melbourne.

Is the same Caroline Wilson that assured us North would be at the GC by now?

And given your own president has said you're entirely reliant on pokie blood money, and we've given our pokies up, I fail to see how we could be emulating your business plan.

Next.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

The AFL have actually made refenerence to the importance of the western suburbs though, especially seeing that its one of the 3 biggest growth areas in the country.

I don't disagree. Though how you represent the west by screwing its inhabitants over with pokies is unclear to me.

But Papa_G was spewing his usual anti-North crap about strategic importance.

I ask how having a struggling small club in Adelaide benefits footy.

The whole point of Port was they'd allegedly come in and pay their own way immediately. Now they're heading down to the likes of us.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Whilst Footscray are by no way out of the woods in terms of merger/relocation, they at least have some strategic importance for the AFL, something that North don't.

AFL football isn't played in the Western Suburbs anymore, it's played in the CBD. In fact, just down the road from the NMFC. The Western Bulldogs certainly don't have carte blanche as the AFL's multicultural vehicle. The multicultural life and learning centre is not being built in Footscray, it's being built in Arden Street, North Melbourne. You should think about that.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Whatever you reckon mate. You just rattle off the usual excuses for your administration and imply that it isn't their fault.

You never had to sign anything - you have always got a choice. However what you're suggesting is that your club was in so much shit a few years ago that it would have been a huge risk not to sign up to the new deal. That's simply how the real world works. Like a person who's just lost their job and is forced to sell his house for less than what the mortage is because they bought in a boom, it's simply stiff shit. That's why you engage good people in senior positions - so they don't get into those positions in the first place.

You were desperate - you're always going to get screwed. Welcome to the real world.

And strongest position ever? That's pushing it a tad far given you're still reliant on a massive discretionary payment from the league.

It's all right bagging the club for the the 2006-08 agreement 40k guaranteed match return for each home game and no doubt we would have been a bit better off sticking to the AFL negotiated user agreement. The question is how much? None of us know, as there is no doubt a strong commercial in confidence requirement for the tenant clubs. The AFL would be the only body that knows the true situation for all clubs. What we do know is that last year Carlton complained about only getting a 26k match return from a very healthy crowd of 38,675.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24437821-16143,00.html

No doubt there a few different variables (number of members attending, reserved seats sold etc) but it seems very doubtful that the Dogs would have been that much better off had they stuck to the AFL-TD user agreement.

The real problem for us and all tenant clubs (bar Essendon) are the poor returns at the stadium as a result of the AFL-TD user agreement. That's why Carlton and St Kilda are playing games on the Gold Coast and why the AFL is trying to negotiate a better deal at TD for the clubs.

Your constant attacks on the club's administration fail to recognise this reality.

On the face of it, the AFL-TD agreement seems a great deal for the AFL and therefore all of the 16 clubs. A payment of $30m in 2000 for full ownership of a stadium in the heart of Melbourne in 2025. The land itself would have been worth far more than that in 2000. The AFL has also agreed to play a minimum of 42 H&A games there per year. I strongly suspect that it is the tenant clubs who are bearing the brunt of all this and that therefore its only fair that clubs getting poor returns there receive additional compensation through the ASD (or whatever) as part of the AFL acquisition of the stadium that will strongly benefit all clubs financially from 2025.

 

[Rob]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

It's all right bagging the club for the the 2006-08 agreement 40k guaranteed match return for each home game and no doubt we would have been a bit better off sticking to the AFL negotiated user agreement. The question is how much? None of us know, as there is no doubt a strong commercial in confidence requirement for the tenant clubs. The AFL would be the only body that knows the true situation for all clubs. What we do know is that last year Carlton complained about only getting a 26k match return from a very healthy crowd of 38,675.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24437821-16143,00.html

No doubt there a few different variables (number of members attending, reserved seats sold etc) but it seems very doubtful that the Dogs would have been that much better off had they stuck to the AFL-TD user agreement.

The real problem for us and all tenant clubs (bar Essendon) are the poor returns at the stadium as a result of the AFL-TD user agreement. That's why Carlton and St Kilda are playing games on the Gold Coast and why the AFL is trying to negotiate a better deal at TD for the clubs.

Your constant attacks on the club's administration fail to recognise this reality.

Good post - but AFAIC, it simply doesn't matter what the arrangement is - your club, headed by the same president you've got now, signed the deal (and trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). That same club, headed by the same president, renegotiated the deal (and once again, trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). You can't then turn around and complain about it, and even worse, blame someone else. And even worse than that, claim that you deserve compensation for it.

You can complain about your deal until the cows come home, but if your deal is shit, then blame the people that negotiated and agreed to it. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

 

[Hinkley29]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Good post - but AFAIC, it simply doesn't matter what the arrangement is - your club, headed by the same president you've got now, signed the deal (and trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). That same club, headed by the same president, renegotiated the deal (and once again, trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). You can't then turn around and complain about it, and even worse, blame someone else. And even worse than that, claim that you deserve compensation for it.

You can complain about your deal until the cows come home, but if your deal is shit, then blame the people that negotiated and agreed to it. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

This is an honest question, I am interested in your answer:

Why do you care about this so much? Every time a thread is started about clubs who are supposedly in trouble from a financial perspective, you can be guaranteed that Rob will be in it, trumpeting his views about how some Melbourne based club is a leech on the competition and should "stand on their own feet", regardless of the individual circumstances of the club involved.

Now, it is fine to be of that opinion, that is your perogative. But I am just curious about why, as a Freo supporter, you care so much about this topic to continually post about it. Why is it so important to you?

Is it a Vic vs WA thing? Is it a typical WA inferiority complex thing? I just can't understand why a Freo supporter would care so much about a topic that is of little relevance to their club.

As I said at the start, this is a serious question, and I am not taking the piss. I am just curious is all. Please enlighten me.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Amateur pschology: because Freo are so crap he needs to feel superior in some aspect of footy and the finances is it.

 

[Poptart]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Whatever you reckon mate. You just rattle off the usual excuses for your administration and imply that it isn't their fault.

You never had to sign anything - you have always got a choice. However what you're suggesting is that your club was in so much shit a few years ago that it would have been a huge risk not to sign up to the new deal. That's simply how the real world works. Like a person who's just lost their job and is forced to sell his house for less than what the mortage is because they bought in a boom, it's simply stiff shit. That's why you engage good people in senior positions - so they don't get into those positions in the first place.

You were desperate - you're always going to get screwed. Welcome to the real world.

And strongest position ever? That's pushing it a tad far given you're still reliant on a massive discretionary payment from the league.

I'm not making excuses what so ever, just the facts, i know, i was there in 89 for the fightback, i have been there since the 70's, i know exactly the position MY club is in, and where it has come from, i have financial reports from past seasons.

There was a position at the club in the 70's & early 80's where's the club simply had to sell off it's key players to stay afloat [Dempsey, Templeton, Quinlan, Wilson, Round], the club has always been the battler, on & off the field.

Everything you just wrote, thats true, we all know that, no more than us Footscray members, it was our choice to tread water with the currrent stadium deal, in our diabolical position, we simply had no choice, it was either that, or go bust, we chose the survival mode, and now, we have made serious in roads, we are no longer surviving.

Go and speak to Cam Rose like i have done rather than just making up crap, and get back to me, first you say, it's bad management to sign off on ordinary deals, then you just posted that "it would have been a huge risk not to sign" and "thats how the real world works", your contradicting yourself something shocking, this is hilarious.

You don't have to give me a life lesson in the real world, myself personally have purchased a home and lost my job a fortnight later, i know what it's like to scrap & fight & survive, i wonder how the club would have been had they not engaged good people like Smorgon & Rose to the club, almost dead & buried in 89, and absolute rabble in 96, still struggling in the early 00's to 2009, the 20 mil re-development of the club, the Edgewater development which will also inject in MILLIONS of dollars, the moneys made from the 2 interstate games, and a 40% rise in membership numbers in the past 5 or 6 seasons.

We never had to sign anything?, well, to survive - YES WE DID!

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Amateur pschology: because Freo are so crap he needs to feel superior in some aspect of footy and the finances is it.

That's probably the reason, or it's some silly parochial thing.

 

[Poptart]

And now we get the big stadium deal whinge from Footscray.

I remember when you signed that deal and Smorgon was gloating about what a good arrangement it was because you'd never lose money on a game again.

And you do get a good draw: why in God's name do you deserve all those Friday night games?

This would be the same Friday night market that North broke and developed.

And now you are going to get a better stadium deal on the back of North's hard work.

This is why we are, and always will be, in a better position than the Bulldogs.

We do stuff, we innovate, we develop things. Footscray just stands around waiting for the handout.

Hence why they've only got one flag and don't look like winning another any time soon.

In your opinion, do you think the arrangement at the time was a smart move from Footscray to not lose money on home games?

And do you honestly believe that Footscray just "stands around" waiting for handouts?

 

[Prince Imperial]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Good post - but AFAIC, it simply doesn't matter what the arrangement is - your club, headed by the same president you've got now, signed the deal (and trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). That same club, headed by the same president, renegotiated the deal (and once again, trumpeted how great it was going to be for the club). You can't then turn around and complain about it, and even worse, blame someone else. And even worse than that, claim that you deserve compensation for it.

You can complain about your deal until the cows come home, but if your deal is shit, then blame the people that negotiated and agreed to it. I can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

The club has only ever had one "deal"; that in 2006-08 which fixed the level of match returns (we had previously been writing out cheques on many occasions). Before that it was on the standard AFL-TD user agreement. TD never had any incentive or reason to offer us a "deal" given this agreement which guaranteed them a certain number of AFL games.

Whether you think we deserve compensation or not does not matter one iota. The AFL has all the facts and have decided that the poor stadium returns under the AFL-TD User Agreement is a key reason for funding under the ASD. If they achieve a better outcome for tenant clubs then I'm sure there will be some reduction in funding under the scheme.

 

[strategy]

I stated this last year especially about the Dees but was laughed at .Now who is laughing ?
Only the strong will survive and some Victorian based AFL clubs MUST merge or SINK.

 

[Papa G]

This old chestnut.

If the AFL really cared about 'geographic areas' in Melbourne, they'd have clubs that represented those areas.

If you look at the demographics of Melbourne, which places the centre at about keysborough, then every club is based in the western suburbs.

And if you knew anything about the demographics of Melbourne, you'd know there's a rapidly increasing market for North to tap in the CBD and the inner northern and western suburbs too.

Ah the North West Passage - now more accessible due to climate change?

 

[COOOONEY]

Sweetleftfoot I dont have an issue with North being in Melb, but I do with you continuely saying North are in a better position to survive than the doggies

According to both clubs Financial Reports you seem to be mistaken

Total Revenue for both clubs ending 31st Oct 2008:

Western Bulldogs: $31,485,000

North Melb: $23,368,000

You see the dogs have revenue streams other than purely from football
The kanga's do not. In todays climate these revenue lines are essential to being in a "better Position" than your competitors as you put it.

The dogs will also be taking in additional Revenue yearly to the tune of $1,000,000-$1,500,000 from the completed Whitten Oval due early next yr and also the proposed EdgeWater Hotel $1,000,000+ yr in profits to the bottom line.

As for the ASD the doggies recieve $300,000 more than north, but maybe the AFL see the western bulldogs football club are making massive inroads to becoming self sufficient. The only thing that is holding us back as an organisation is the TD Agreement(forget for a minute whos fault it is) and once we and North for that matter recieve a fair/better deal, the ASD will not be needed

 

[Mario the Lothario]

As for the ASD the doggies recieve $300,000 more than north, but maybe the AFL see the western bulldogs football club are making massive inroads to becoming self sufficient.

What? Care to expand?

The only thing that is holding us back as an organisation is the TD Agreement(forget for a minute whos fault it is) and once we and North for that matter recieve a fair/better deal, the ASD will not be needed

You're not Robinson Crusoe, if both our clubs could get stadium deals like those Sydney and Brisbane get, we would never need CBF ever again.

 

[Rob]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

This is an honest question, I am interested in your answer:

Why do you care about this so much? Every time a thread is started about clubs who are supposedly in trouble from a financial perspective, you can be guaranteed that Rob will be in it, trumpeting his views about how some Melbourne based club is a leech on the competition and should "stand on their own feet", regardless of the individual circumstances of the club involved.

Now, it is fine to be of that opinion, that is your perogative. But I am just curious about why, as a Freo supporter, you care so much about this topic to continually post about it. Why is it so important to you?

Is it a Vic vs WA thing? Is it a typical WA inferiority complex thing? I just can't understand why a Freo supporter would care so much about a topic that is of little relevance to their club.

As I said at the start, this is a serious question, and I am not taking the piss. I am just curious is all. Please enlighten me.

Alright, fair question.

I take a great interest in the development of the game and league (which has nothing to do with which team I support). That being the case, I care about the activities of the AFL - being the self proclaimed custodian of the game. This obviously includes how they spend their money. The AFL bank account isn't a bottomless pit - if they choose to spend money on one thing then it's obviously money they can't spend on other things.

That being the case, It worries me that you've got a few clubs that are simply delaying the inevitable - and what makes that bad is that they're chewing up millions of dollars a year doing so that could be far better used in securing the longer term future of the clubs and the game. You spend a million dollars propping up a club's balance sheet for 1 year - when in all likelihood that club will need abother million the year after, another million the year after that, etc etc infinitum.
And the AFL will not always be in a position to make those payments every year. 10 years ago they weren't, and in another 5 years they may not be again. In which case, all those clubs that need handouts to survive go arse up anyway, and the league is in the shit because they neglected both football development and growing the supporter base of the game by forking out tens of millions on simply delaying an event by a few years. And even worse, it may drag additional clubs down because those tens of millions distributed to other clubs could be the difference between going broke and staying afloat. Probably not something that would directly affect my club, but middle of the road clubs like St Kilda, Richmond and Port that traditionally don't make monster profits - add a million bucks to their balance sheet and it's going to make a huge difference. In less affluent times, it may be the difference between survival and not.

So relating that back to what I generally rant about on this forum, it shits me when people try and suggest they deserve compensation for standard business dealings that will never change. Small clubs have less bargaining power - that will always be the case. Brilliant management and progressive thinking can get you out of it. IMO, North have had the latter but not the former, and the Dogs and Melbourne have had neither (particularly Melbourne). If you think you are going to be on the end of handouts every year for all eternity because of this supposed disadvantage, you're going to get a hell of a shock when the AFL needs to rapidly cut back on expenditure, because CBF payments (or whatever they're called this year) are going to be one of the first on the list to go. And then, we can all sit back and wonder how much better the $20-odd million that's already been spent could have been used on securing the long term futures of these clubs instead of just funding the day to day expenses, while at the same time ignoring the massive creature in the corner of the room that looks strangely like a full sized elephant.

Hope that answers your question.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

According to both clubs Financial Reports you seem to be mistaken

Total Revenue for both clubs ending 31st Oct 2008:

Western Bulldogs: $31,485,000

North Melb: $23,368,000

Your not comparing apples with apples. From the annual reports

Western Bulldogs
____________________________Note __2008$ _______2007$
Revenue from Operating Activities 3(a) 28,833,013 27,722,863
Revenue from Non Operating Activities 3(b) 2,652,630 6,775,096
Total Revenue_______________________ 31,485,643 34,497,959

Note 3 (b) Revenue from Non Operating Activities
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants and Interest (note 2(w)) 2,555,738 6,500,000
Interest in relation to Redevelopment Monies________________ _96,892 275,096
Total Revenue from Non Operating Activities_______________ 2,652,630 6,775,096

North Melbourne

Notes CONSOLIDATED PARENT____________ 2008$ _____2007$
Revenue from operating activities____ 3(a) 23,368,630 21,469,431
Revenue from non-operating activities 3(b)_ 5,150,000 -

____________________________________________ 2008$ ___2007$
NOTE 3 (b) Revenue from non-operating activities:
Arden Street redevelopment funding______________ 5,150,000 -

So whilst there is a gap between the two clubs its not as big as you portray. Anyway net cash flow form normal activites is more important than total revenue as a club wants more high net margin income than just revenue.

From the Cash Flow statements
Bulldogs
_____________________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Total cash from operating activities 24(b) 2,155,599 7,917,723
included in above is
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants_____ 2,555,738 6,500,000

North Melbourne
_________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Net operating cash flows (18) 6,272,894 741,431
included in above is
Receipt of government grants 5,500,000 -

 

[Mario the Lothario]

Your not comparing apples with apples. From the annual reports

Western Bulldogs
____________________________Note __2008$ _______2007$
Revenue from Operating Activities 3(a) 28,833,013 27,722,863
Revenue from Non Operating Activities 3(b) 2,652,630 6,775,096
Total Revenue_______________________ 31,485,643 34,497,959

Note 3 (b) Revenue from Non Operating Activities
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants and Interest (note 2(w)) 2,555,738 6,500,000
Interest in relation to Redevelopment Monies________________ _96,892 275,096
Total Revenue from Non Operating Activities_______________ 2,652,630 6,775,096

North Melbourne

Notes CONSOLIDATED PARENT____________ 2008$ _____2007$
Revenue from operating activities____ 3(a) 23,368,630 21,469,431
Revenue from non-operating activities 3(b)_ 5,150,000 -

____________________________________________ 2008$ ___2007$
NOTE 3 (b) Revenue from non-operating activities:
Arden Street redevelopment funding______________ 5,150,000 -

So whilst there is a gap between the two clubs its not as big as you portray. Anyway net cash flow form normal activites is more important than total revenue as a club wants more high net margin income than just revenue.

From the Cash Flow statements
Bulldogs
_____________________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Total cash from operating activities 24(b) 2,155,599 7,917,723
included in above is
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants_____ 2,555,738 6,500,000

North Melbourne
_________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Net operating cash flows (18) 6,272,894 741,431
included in above is
Receipt of government grants 5,500,000 -

What does all that mean in idiot terms?

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

In your opinion, do you think the arrangement at the time was a smart move from Footscray to not lose money on home games?

Evidently not otherwise you wouldn't be whinging about it now.

And do you honestly believe that Footscray just "stands around" waiting for handouts?

Compared to North, who have developed so mahy innovations, yes.

 

[COOOONEY]

Your not comparing apples with apples. From the annual reports

Western Bulldogs
____________________________Note __2008$ _______2007$
Revenue from Operating Activities 3(a) 28,833,013 27,722,863
Revenue from Non Operating Activities 3(b) 2,652,630 6,775,096
Total Revenue_______________________ 31,485,643 34,497,959

Note 3 (b) Revenue from Non Operating Activities
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants and Interest (note 2(w)) 2,555,738 6,500,000
Interest in relation to Redevelopment Monies________________ _96,892 275,096
Total Revenue from Non Operating Activities_______________ 2,652,630 6,775,096

North Melbourne

Notes CONSOLIDATED PARENT____________ 2008$ _____2007$
Revenue from operating activities____ 3(a) 23,368,630 21,469,431
Revenue from non-operating activities 3(b)_ 5,150,000 -

____________________________________________ 2008$ ___2007$
NOTE 3 (b) Revenue from non-operating activities:
Arden Street redevelopment funding______________ 5,150,000 -

So whilst there is a gap between the two clubs its not as big as you portray. Anyway net cash flow form normal activites is more important than total revenue as a club wants more high net margin income than just revenue.

From the Cash Flow statements
Bulldogs
_____________________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Total cash from operating activities 24(b) 2,155,599 7,917,723
included in above is
Whitten Oval Redevelopment Grants_____ 2,555,738 6,500,000

North Melbourne
_________________________ 2008$ ____2007$
Net operating cash flows (18) 6,272,894 741,431
included in above is
Receipt of government grants 5,500,000 -

Thanks for that (WO grant deducted), adjusted total below

Total Revenue for both clubs ending 31st Oct 2008:

Western Bulldogs: $28,833,000

North Melb: $23,368,000

Our Net Assets grew to $9.5M IN 2008 up $1.8M on 2007

The club is working to strengthen its Net cash flow from Normal Activities as I have mentioned

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Small clubs have less bargaining power - that will always be the case. Brilliant management and progressive thinking can get you out of it. IMO, North have had the latter but not the former, and the Dogs and Melbourne have had neither (particularly Melbourne). If you think you are going to be on the end of handouts every year for all eternity because of this supposed disadvantage, you're going to get a hell of a shock when the AFL needs to rapidly cut back on expenditure, because CBF payments (or whatever they're called this year) are going to be one of the first on the list to go. And then, we can all sit back and wonder how much better the $20-odd million that's already been spent could have been used on securing the long term futures of these clubs instead of just funding the day to day expenses, while at the same time ignoring the massive creature in the corner of the room that looks strangely like a full sized elephant.

Hope that answers your question.

Rob: given we now have the management to go with the thinking then you can see why we get frustrated.

Arocca and Brayshaw have said we don't want be getting any handouts within 5 years. If we had a decent stadium deal, we wouldn't need any. I know your arguments about why small clubs have such deals and in the context of free market logic they make sense.

But the AFL is not and never will be a free market. Its a closed market where the AFL itself sets the rules. Thus the AFL should step in and do right be the clubs on crap deal.

We at North get frustrated when people lump us with the others for the following reasons:

* We take less from the AFL than either Melbourne or the Dogs and are working towards taking none in the short/medium term. Melbourne openly say they'll need money indefinetly to survive.

* We have ceaselessly innovated for decades and brought much value to the comp and other clubs via things like Friday night footy, playing games interstate, various marketing innovations other clubs have copied.

* While other clubs/observers may not see it, North are actually an attractive commercial property. Everyone else is stuck in this idiotic Caroline Wilsonesque cliche of North, serious types can see we have a good story to be associated with.

We tied up our long term sponsor Mazda on a lucrative deal a few months ago. Footscray had to beg and scramble to get an unknown tortilla maker on less than what we got and Melbourne still have nothing. What does that tell you about which club the market rates most highly?

As Brayshaw said yesterday regarding getting a naming rights sponsor for the redevloped Arden Street (something that kciks off next week, another plus for us), the North Melbourne story is very compelling. And especially in tough economic times, there's a lot to be said for being associated with a club widely regarded as being small but spirited, tough, brave, able to make the most out of what its got.

The key for us to promote that positive image, not the strugglers in crisis crap that always gets bandied around by the simple minded.