Economic downturn will sink boot in to clubs

[RussellEbertHandball]

What does all that mean in idiot terms?

That the difference in revenue is only approx $5.5mil and not $8mil when you take out government grants for facility redevlopments as COOOONEY originally posted.

The cash flow figures from operating activites are for day to day normal operations ie seeing how much cash the business generates before spending on capital items (ie investing activites), repaying loans and borrowing money (financing activities)

The bulldogs generated the following cash from normal activities when adjusted for government grants.

2008 $2.155m - $2.555m = $0.400m net cash out flow
2007 $7.917m - $6.500m = $1.417m net cash in flow

The kangaroos generated the following cash when adjusting for government grants

2008 $6.272m - $5.500m = $0.772m net cash in flow
2007 $0.741m - $0.000m = $0.741m net cash in flow

So the bulldogs generate more revenue than the kangaroos but spend more as well. I'm not sure if more is being spent on football or more is being spent on trying to generate that extra income, or a bit of both.

Net of government grants, the bulldogs went from a inflow to an out flow between 2007 to 2008. The kangaroos were more stable and generated the same net cash in flow over the two years.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

So the bulldogs generate more revenue than the kangaroos but spend more as well. I'm not sure if more is being spent on football or more is being spent on trying to generate that extra income, or a bit of both.

So they generate more income but take more off the AFL?

How does that work?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Ask Andrew and David.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Ask Andrew and David.

Yeah, I'm sure I'd get a straight answer out of those two.

 

[Mario the Lothario]

That the difference in revenue is only approx $5.5mil and not $8mil when you take out government grants for facility redevlopments as COOOONEY originally posted.

The cash flow figures from operating activites are for day to day normal operations ie seeing how much cash the business generates before spending on capital items (ie investing activites), repaying loans and borrowing money (financing activities)

The bulldogs generated the following cash from normal activities when adjusted for government grants.

2008 $2.155m - $2.555m = $0.400m net cash out flow
2007 $7.917m - $6.500m = $1.417m net cash in flow

The kangaroos generated the following cash when adjusting for government grants

2008 $6.272m - $5.500m = $0.772m net cash in flow
2007 $0.741m - $0.000m = $0.741m net cash in flow

So the bulldogs generate more revenue than the kangaroos but spend more as well. I'm not sure if more is being spent on football or more is being spent on trying to generate that extra income, or a bit of both.

Net of government grants, the bulldogs went from a inflow to an out flow between 2007 to 2008. The kangaroos were more stable and generated the same net cash in flow over the two years.

Great explanation. Thank you.

 

[COOOONEY]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

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.

Good on the kanga's for getting such a "lucrative" deal from mazda
Any chance of knowing the amount for the ONE YR EXTENSION???

Saying that the doggies begged and scrambled for Mission Foods is far from the truth. 3 or so other clubs were also chasing their signiture incl Essendon. What does that tell you about our club, Mission valued our organisation and understood what we stand for. $4.5M over 3yrs was a good result in todays climate or any climate no doubt

Look at north for example, Mazda gave you a one yr extension correct? but you lost your other major backer vodafone after just one yr

The dogs arnt working towards taking no ASD in the short/medium term? the clubs strategic bussiness plan is second to none, you should ask the club to send you a copy....

Look their was a reason why north was on deaths door last yr and not the dogs......things dont change that much in 12months, brayshaw knows this and so should you.

Just stop pretending north are in a better position than the dogs, its taken us 5/6 yrs to build up our balance sheet and have numerous projects taking place and it will take the same amount of time for the roo's. If you think not then I hope brayshaw doesn't think the same

 

[COOOONEY]

So they generate more income but take more off the AFL?

How does that work?

As has been said we generate $5.5M more in revenue than the roo's but we also spend more...Typically when you have a higher income you invest more back into the organisation. Collingwood has revenue around $45-50M but only make $2-3M profits as they pump alot back into the club.

We only take $300,000 more off the ASD then north, you make out like its $3M, as for the reason why we take that little extra.. well as has been said ask Andrew

SweetLeftFoot lets just agree to disagree and hope both our clubs are striving forward in the future

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Look their was a reason why north was on deaths door last yr and not the dogs......things dont change that much in 12months, brayshaw knows this and so should you.

Yeah, you were on deaths door twice in the last few weeks mate when Smorgon was out begging to be allowed to rape your local community with pokies. He said it. Literally weeks ago. That's how tenous your hold is.

Look, I'll make this my last post on the subject because I like you guys and want you to survive, but really, you guys are kidding yourselves on a lot here.

Not as much as Melbourne to be fair.

 

[Rob]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

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.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said there. But i'd add a couple of things.

- You guys probably get shat on because you've been the most proactive in finding a new market and new supporters. Sydney (which took a lot of balls to do), Canberra, Gold Coast - all on a fairly serious basis. Joe Schmo sees that and assumes you're in deep financial shit. Melbourne and the Dogs have really only ever sold one off games (and not even to neutral territory) - they sold home games to Brisbane and Sydney respectively, and now they play 1 home game each in Canberra/Darwin - places that the AFL doesn't want a team. Most people don't know about things like how much money clubs draw off the AFL, but they know where clubs are playing and why. And North have sold more games so in the eyes of many they are in the firing line more, despite consistently drawing less from the CBF than the Dogs (which remains so). Playing all your home games in Melbourne may go some way towards rectifying this, but I wouldn't necessarily call that good management, because that's only happening because you've run out of places to sell home games to.

- While you're right that the AFL clubs don't technically operate in a free market amongst themselves, the AFL itself does. The rules of business don't suddenly disappear in regard to the decisions they make. They can't spend more than they have, and choosing to spend money on one thing means you can't spend it on other things. There is an opportunity cost for everything the AFL does - so when discussing the pros and cons of AFL spending, you need to take into account that cost. $1 million that pays for the day to day expenses of Club A is $1 million that isn't going to something that is arguably more beneficial for the long term health of the league and game. So if the AFL are actually fixing a recurring problem - then that's good. If they are only patching a hole for 1 year with millions of dollars, only for the same hole to appear the following year, then it has to be questioned as to whether the money could be better used.

 

[ManUtd]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

This should come as a boost to the AFL. English Premier League TV rights were divided between Sky (1.3 billion pounds roughly), Setanta (350 million pounds odd) and international TV rights (650 million pounds odd) + TV highlights at 175 million odd pounds.

For the period starting 2010-2013, Sky have just renewed their same package, matching their 1.3 billion pounds they paid for the previous rights. So the EPL is on course to match its 2.7 billion pound contract for 2010-2013.

I think this is a positive reflection on the AFL being able to negotiate its rights for a similar, or even slightly increased price on the deal they have now. I was cautiosuly watching to see how the EPL would do, considering the fact that Sky and Setanta are both subscription based services (and with the recession to be hitting UK harder than Australia). This bodes extremely well for the AFL

 

[Papa G]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

This should come as a boost to the AFL. English Premier League TV rights were divided between Sky (1.3 billion pounds roughly), Setanta (350 million pounds odd) and international TV rights (650 million pounds odd) + TV highlights at 175 million odd pounds.

For the period starting 2010-2013, Sky have just renewed their same package, matching their 1.3 billion pounds they paid for the previous rights. So the EPL is on course to match its 2.7 billion pound contract for 2010-2013.

I think this is a positive reflection on the AFL being able to negotiate its rights for a similar, or even slightly increased price. I was cautiosuly watching to see how the EPL would do, considering the fact that Sky and Setanta are both subscription based services (and with the recession to be hitting UK harder than Australia). This bodes extremely well for the AFL

It's a step backwards. Getting the same money in 2013 as you were getting in 2006 is definately going backwards. If you get the same money for the international rights it is going backwards for the reason above plus the fact the Pound has decreased hugely in value. The AFL doesn't have an international market so currency isn't all that important, but if the AFL gets $780 mill for the next rights, then things are going to get a hell of a lot tighter.

 

[ManUtd]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

It's a step backwards. Getting the same money in 2013 as you were getting in 2006 is definately going backwards. If you get the same money for the international rights it is going backwards for the reason above plus the fact the Pound has decreased hugely in value. The AFL doesn't have an international market so currency isn't all that important, but if the AFL gets $780 mill for the next rights, then things are going to get a hell of a lot tighter.

If you think getting the same amount from subscription based services in todays climate is going backwards you're not thinking clearly. Many were predicting that as a result of the impact that the economy will have on England, PayTV subscriptions would flounder, season tickets would plummet, pubs wouldn't commit to paying so much money for Sky subscription etc etc etc. And after all this, the main rights holder agrees to meet their previous commitment...its an incredible achievement.

Considering the AFL is perhaps in a better situation in that regard, the problem of meeting the 780 million may not be as problematic as first thought, going by what's happening in England.

Also, the Premier League is banking on the internatinoal rights being higher, and were hoping that they were going to balance out the domestic rights. But the domestic rights don't look like they will need balancing. So not sure what you're talking about there.

 

[Fire]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

I think this is a positive reflection on the AFL being able to negotiate its rights for a similar, or even slightly increased price on the deal they have now. I was cautiosuly watching to see how the EPL would do, considering the fact that Sky and Setanta are both subscription based services (and with the recession to be hitting UK harder than Australia). This bodes extremely well for the AFL

You will probably find that a recession will suit subscription TV in the same way that it suits industries such as alcohol, gambling and video games.

If you get the sack, you gotta fill your days doing something. Cancelling your subscription would be one of the last things you do

It is the pay TV stations that are vulnerable. corporations look at ways to immediately cut expenditure in order to make up for the loss of revenue. Advertising is one of the first things cut when companies enter 'weatherboard' mode.

 

[ManUtd]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

Well, the Premier League last night concluded domestic TV rights, selling it for $3.96 billion AUD (for 3 seasons starting 2010). That is a 5% increase over the last deal - which in itself, is remarkable all things considering. The international rights are yet to be negotiated.

Good signs for the AFL I think

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

No, I think the changing financial circumstances may have changed their situation. Lot of people have lost a lot of money recently. For example, one of they key suspects for a white knight was former Merrill Lynch boss John Magowan. reckon he would have seen his net worth drop a fair bit.

But as I said, we never had the, so we aren't losing them.

On the memberships, you need to say more. Or more accurately, you need to think more, then say stuff.

Its Jan 13. Two months before even the first game, and many more months before the totals are decided.

Footscray and Melbourne (both lacking major sponsors) started their campaigns earlier than ours and with desperation. Ours isn't so desperate.

Also, they have a far bigger auto renewal than us. We are only just getting that going. But over the last month, we've outperformed them. And our machien is only just kicking into gear.

We'll get circa 32k this year, maybe a bit more. A top result. And we have a major sponsor, and we take less off the AFL, and we make higher profits.

When do you guys pay for your memebership then ?

West Coast we get our renewal notice/invoice in october early november.

I have always paid for it then and thats going back to the days when there wasn't a waiting list.

Why do Melbourne clubs take so long to pay especially renewals.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Re: Economic downturn will sink book in to clubs

When do you guys pay for your memebership then ?

West Coast we get our renewal notice/invoice in october early november.

I have always paid for it then and thats going back to the days when there wasn't a waiting list.

Why do Melbourne clubs take so long to pay especially renewals.

there is an incentive for reserved seat holders to renew before some date in january before which they can still gaurantee their same seats. we only have around 15,000 reserved seat holders IIRC.

i've traditionally just got a season ticket, buying it at the first game i go to. i'm a little lazy and that's the easiest way i've found. we tend to get a third of ours signing up in the first month or two of the season

 

[incubi]

And now we have proof the buldlgos are in a better position than Melbourne and North Melbourne

http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles...842726603.html

IT STARTED out as a run-of-the-mill AFL club meeting, one of hundreds league boss Andrew Demetriou has attended over the journey. And yet by the time an hour or two had passed, Demetriou knew he had witnessed a revelation, a remarkable story that had been unfolding for several years and was now complete.

It is a story, Demetriou admitted last week, he questioned would ever be written — that of the rebirth of the Western Bulldogs.

The club has faced extinction more than once over the past two decades, but has now — according to Demetriou — officially been removed from the endangered species list.

The meeting took place at the Whitten Oval three days ago and included a tour of the club's new facilities, community set-up and an honest appraisal of the Bulldogs' books.

President David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose and their team presented the AFL with everything they had achieved since the club's famous and — in football terms — revolutionary $8 million deal with the Federal Government, and threw in some ambitious plans for the future as well.

Demetriou admitted to The Sunday Age that his visit was no normal AFL club tour. The competition's CEO, who prides himself on reading the play better than anyone, said he left the Whitten Oval in a state of glorious disbelief.

"I was flabbergasted," said Demetriou. "They were a club which articulated a vision which was pooh-poohed by many people, including us. I remember being in meetings thinking they had no hope of ever getting more than 20,000 members and yet this year, they should get more than 30,000.

"In many ways, they now own the western suburbs of Melbourne. And their facility staggered me. What they've produced from a football perspective is a state-of-the-art facility which has moved them ahead of other clubs. The same goes for their community facilities."

The Bulldogs were a top-four club last season that produced a profit, albeit one that included a $1.7 million boost from the AFL's special assistance fund. Their aim is to sign 32,000 members this season; the current total stands at 21,000 — 2000 ahead of the same time last year.

Recently, the club signed a $4.5 million three-year sponsorship agreement with Mission Foods, and Rose — described by Demetriou in somewhat affectionate terms as a "nutty professor" who continues to confound the AFL with his achievements — is budgeting for a small profit in 2009.No longer, said Demetriou, do the Bulldogs deserve to be bracketed in the category of the weaker clubs. Certainly any talk of mergers or relocation seems relegated to the club's history.

"Unfortunately, when you look at the industry they've been branded a weaker club," said Demetriou, "or a struggling club. They are not a weak football club.

"Had they received a decent stadium agreement from the time they relocated to the Docklands, they would have paid off their debt by now and been able to invest their money."

Demetriou compared the Bulldogs with the Brisbane Lions. The latter's average home attendance at the Gabba last season was about 27,000 and the club boasted 27,000 members. He put the Bulldogs' attendances and membership at about 30,000 apiece and yet the Lions yielded about $5 million more than the Victorian club that calls Etihad Stadium its home ground.

"That's nothing against the Lions," said Demetriou. "Their figures are good and they are a successful club, but the Bulldogs deserve to be the same."

Of course, there is the matter of the $4 million debt and the fact the club is forced to sell games interstate to make ends meet. Between May 30 and June 13 this year, the Bulldogs take on Sydney at Canberra's Manuka Oval — no home ground advantage there — and Port Adelaide at TIO Stadium in Darwin.

Smorgon and Rose told Demetriou their club did not want to sell games interstate beyond 2009. The AFL CEO promised the earliest possible response to what amounts to not only a club policy change but a sign the Bulldogs regard themselves worthy of a genuine tilt at becoming a powerful AFL club.

Their dreadful deal at the stadium whose name the AFL refuses to mention is holding them back, and so is their ongoing lack of success in September. Only one of the above is in their control; the other the AFL must fix and has prioritised at the top of the order.

The good news for the Bulldogs — and probably for all the Victorian clubs — is that when Demetriou finally saw the finished product of that club's lofty ambitions on Thursday, his resolve to fix the stadium problem, which the AFL took far too long to identify, was only strengthened all the more.

And dont discredit the journalist who wrote it, its a legit story with legit sources.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

A better position is a bit of stretch. Glad to see the Doggies doing well though and good to see Demetriou actually sounds like he means it on the stadium deal stuff.

 

[medusala]

And now we have proof the buldlgos are in a better position than Melbourne and North Melbourne

So who receives the most ASD cash then?

Proof indeed. Cast iron.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

So who receives the most ASD cash then?

Proof indeed. Cast iron.

Precisely. Good to see the Doggies doing well - even if they are entirely reliant on the AFL and screwing their own community via pokies.

What is even better is seeing Demetriou now actually supporting Melbourne clubs.

 

[medusala]

What is even better is seeing Demetriou now actually supporting Melbourne clubs.

He will be there offering a silk blindfold on the scaffold.

 

[incubi]

The Dogs only get more ASD because we have a better long term business plan, the clubs business plan has always been a major factor in how much ASD a club gets.
Also, all profits from our pokies will be going into the community wing of the club, doing work in the community and other charitable things, and while yes pokies still arent good, most other clubs use that money on their clusb and not the community.

 

[shintemaster]

The Dogs only get more ASD because we have a better long term business plan, the clubs business plan has always been a major factor in how much ASD a club gets.
Also, all profits from our pokies will be going into the community wing of the club, doing work in the community and other charitable things, and while yes pokies still arent good, most other clubs use that money on their clusb and not the community.

One might argue that getting more money is a better long term business plan. If a better long term plan was the basis for this money then I think you'd find plenty of other clubs getting cash.

 

[MightyHawks]

The Hawks made a profit of $4 million in 2009.

If we have a good season this year (top 4) then I would be happy with a $2million profit.

If we don't do as well then $1-1.5 is a possibility.

The economic screws will tighten during the year.

The clubs are lucky that memberships have been paid for already. Corporate dining and other such revenue is on the slide.

When the TV rights are up for renewal it's not the Pay TV side of things that the AFL will worry about. Look at the financial issues our free to air networks have. The league will do everything it can to maximise TV revenue. If we're still in downturn then they'll probably offer a 1-2 year extension to the current rights holders. Wait until things have picked up before the 5 year deal comes out...

We may see a 24 or 26 round season to keep networks happy... No NAB cup...

 

[Zvim]

The Dogs only get more ASD because we have a better long term business plan, the clubs business plan has always been a major factor in how much ASD a club gets.

lol what?