Gold Coast Suns AFL Funding - Return on value

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Ive gone down a rabbit hole I gotta admit here. Being self-employed and very easily distracted leads me to research stupid things. Yesterday I got sidetracked by Gold Coast and the funding the AFL gives them via distribution of income. In particular I was comparing 5 clubs. Gold Coast, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle and North

Since creation Gold Coast Suns has received about 520 million dollars in AFL grants + distribution of income. West Coast Eagles in that same time frame has received about 170 million and Fremantle about 220 mill. This is a 300-350 million dollar difference all up. Gold Coast have also received about 150 million dollars more then North Melbourne. As a example, if North had received the same funding as Gold Coast, they would be the richest sporting club in the AFL.

Now I know what people say. "We are trying to grow the game, participation is up so its worth it" and so on and so forth. In businesses like this you refer to each member as a customer acquisition cost. Its basically all that matters. The rest is just fluff. Its interested converted into nothing

Gold Coast received about 34.2 million dollars from the AFL to produce 23,000 members. This is a cost of 1,486 bucks per member. West Coast Eagles on the other hand received around 11.8 million (minus automatic WAFL redistribution) for 103,275 members at a cost of 114.25 per member. Fremantles is around 220 bucks per member themselves so track well.

The question is simple. Can the AFL afford to maintain 34 mill+ a year on a club whose return is the creation of 23,000 members? Unless each member Gold Coast has is contributing 1,500 bucks per year into the AFL income, the rest of us are taking a loss on this, a big one at that. One aspect to understand is this problem isnt getting better, its getting worse. Since 2016, AFLs need to increase Gold Coasts income is only getting bigger and bigger as we go on. Costs are growing faster then the own income they generate. They made 2.2 mill extra in revenue by themselves (so excluding AFL handouts) but costs grew by over 5 million dollars (so they short 2.8 mill in 2023)

At what point of this experiment is enough going to be enough? I think its past the point and with Tasmania coming onboard, the time has come to merge them/move them to Tasmania. The cost is too high to contnue on

 

[DJ Sammy]

Having an extra game a week is worth a lot more through TV rights than the cost of subsidising a couple of teams.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Having an extra game a week is worth a lot more through TV rights than the cost of subsidising a couple of teams.

That’s what I’m saying about merging . That won’t occur when Tasmania comes on board though. It creates a situation where this cost is not really offset by any real income generation anymore. This is why a discussion is required

13 years in and they are drifting further away from becoming a economically viable team as opppsed to closer to it. Add in the fact they won’t be contributing in the manner you described then the question 100 percent is to be asked now

Is the value still worth it ?

 

[Colonial]

It’s a multigenerational plan.

At this stage the Swans were in their 2nd bankruptcy and the Daily Telegraph was demanding a name and colours change.

Don’t be the NRL with zero patience, patience works.

 

[Borussia Teeth]

Who cares. I believe in Joe Hendry.

 

[btdg]

I think there are bigger questions around expansion.

The extra Queensland team helps nationalise the competition, ensuring there is (on average) a game in Queensland every week - as there will be in every state except Tassie.

As others have said, the Gold Coast is designed to be a multigenerational market. It's a growing area populated with a lot of transplants from other states. Many of those adults who have moved there still have their own footy team and have kept that candle afloat, but it is the next generation of kids coming through that will drive growth of the Suns. That's the kids of people who moved their, their mates who got dragged along to auskick, and over time the people who kids now playing the Suns via the academy etc.

Of course it needs on-field success to legitimise the project. That will be the time to judge - are they filling the stands when the bandwagon gets rolling, as it ultimately will?

In the meantime, $2.5m per year is a pretty minor sum for a league that generated over $1bn in revenue last year and for an organisation that had an operating surplus of $27m.

The other thing 18 teams has done IMO is make for a more interesting 18 team competition, with places in finals a lot more valuable. Each year it seems 2-3 legitimately good teams miss out (this year Freo and Collingwood, maybe even Essendon) and there's just a real story in getting to the top 8. The deeper league is throwing up bigger swings for teams across the season; cop some injuries and travel at the wrong time and you can find yourself losing 4-5 in a row, then swinging back heavily when things get easier (as all of Carlton, Geelong, Sydney, Brisbane, Hawthorn, even GWS and Port have experienced this season). Those storylines keep things interesting for everyone. Even Gold Coast themselves this year and their weird home/away record is an extra interesting plotline, as is the Hardwick situation, etc - they're an interesting team to play against even if they aren't dominant on field and that matters.

This last few years has seen massive growth even amongst the big Melbourne clubs. Carlton have gone from cracking 50k members in 2017 for the first time to over 100k members in 2024. Richmond had 30k members when Gold Coast entered the league and are now perpetually around the 100k mark. Brisbane had around 25k when Gold Coast entered and are now generally 55k+. Even the Bulldogs have jumped from 30k to nearly 60k in the same time frame.

The question will never be just around looking at the Gold Coast Suns, on their own, and their profit/loss and on-field record. The key question is always going to be 'is the league, as a whole, in a good position right now' and the answer is unequivocably that it is.

 

[catters05]

Ive gone down a rabbit hole I gotta admit here. Being self-employed and very easily distracted leads me to research stupid things. Yesterday I got sidetracked by Gold Coast and the funding the AFL gives them via distribution of income. In particular I was comparing 5 clubs. Gold Coast, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle and North

Since creation Gold Coast Suns has received about 520 million dollars in AFL grants + distribution of income. West Coast Eagles in that same time frame has received about 170 million and Fremantle about 220 mill. This is a 300-350 million dollar difference all up. Gold Coast have also received about 150 million dollars more then North Melbourne. As a example, if North had received the same funding as Gold Coast, they would be the richest sporting club in the AFL.

Now I know what people say. "We are trying to grow the game, participation is up so its worth it" and so on and so forth. In businesses like this you refer to each member as a customer acquisition cost. Its basically all that matters. The rest is just fluff. Its interested converted into nothing

Gold Coast received about 34.2 million dollars from the AFL to produce 23,000 members. This is a cost of 1,486 bucks per member. West Coast Eagles on the other hand received around 11.8 million (minus automatic WAFL redistribution) for 103,275 members at a cost of 114.25 per member. Fremantles is around 220 bucks per member themselves so track well.

The question is simple. Can the AFL afford to maintain 34 mill+ a year on a club whose return is the creation of 23,000 members? Unless each member Gold Coast has is contributing 1,500 bucks per year into the AFL income, the rest of us are taking a loss on this, a big one at that. One aspect to understand is this problem isnt getting better, its getting worse. Since 2016, AFLs need to increase Gold Coasts income is only getting bigger and bigger as we go on. Costs are growing faster then the own income they generate. They made 2.2 mill extra in revenue by themselves (so excluding AFL handouts) but costs grew by over 5 million dollars (so they short 2.8 mill in 2023)

At what point of this experiment is enough going to be enough? I think it’s past the point and with Tasmania coming onboard, the time has come to merge them/move them to Tasmania. The cost is too high to contnue on

Once they hit finals, things will grow and come good. More patience required.

 

[Freomaniac]

It’s a multigenerational plan.

At this stage the Swans were in their 2nd bankruptcy and the Daily Telegraph was demanding a name and colours change.

Don’t be the NRL with zero patience, patience works.

I think the AFL are happy with your clubs return. Your club reached 30,000 members. So there is some support in western NSW.

GWS making and winning finals helps. Like 2016, GWS have a good chance of getting a flag in 2024.

I won't be upset if either NSW club won the flag. Even if that means GWS can brag about winning a flag before the dockers

 

[Colonial]

I think the AFL are happy with your clubs return. Your club reached 30,000 members. So there is some support in western NSW.

The support and growth is there. Covid really hurt, and cost us Cameron. Most of our members are 3 gamers.
Generational is the key word.

GWS making and winning finals helps. Like 2016, GWS have a good chance of getting a flag in 2024.

You had to bring up '16.....

I won't be upset if either NSW club won the flag. Even if that means GWS can brag about winning a flag before the dockers

Haha we will brag if we win, but doubt we take shots at Freo, wait I just remembered our social team.
May I apologise in advance should it happen.

 

[Freomaniac]

The support and growth is there. Covid really hurt, and cost us Cameron. Most of our members are 3 gamers.
Generational is the key word.

You had to bring up '16.....

Haha we will brag if we win, but doubt we take shots at Freo, wait I just remembered our social team.
May I apologise in advance should it happen.

I wont deny the growth is there. No issues that most of your members are 3 game members, better than no members.

Hate to Bring up 2016. It wouldnt of been right had your club won the flag in 2016. So to go from no finals experience to flag in 5 seasons would be unfair. It would be like the crows. They were in the AFL in 1991. They made a Prelim final in 1993. Would be weird if they won a flag in 1993.

GWS winning a flag in 2017-19 would of made me tolerate that.

I dont care if GWS fans brag about the 2024 flag. To be fair we are due for a non Vic side to win it. Its an even season and GWS have as much of a chance just like Port and Sydney.

 

[MadMundy]

They've made some massive growth in grass roots football in the Gold Coast since the team was created, so they're obviously doing a great job of creating more lifeline fans of football over there.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

They've made some massive growth in grass roots football in the Gold Coast since the team was created, so they're obviously doing a great job of creating more lifeline fans of football over there.

Not enough to cover the financial investment. Not even close. The massive growth in grass roots isnt converting to money in any way. Its just a flat out money pit.

Patience works isnt really true at all when you are moving further away from your goal. Patience involved moving forward. When you are only moving backwards, patience isnt going to get you far. The club will only cost more and more money. This 34 mill by 2030 willend up at 50 mill. This is 100% best case scenario here also.

It also stems to a ideology of why doesnt this matterto anyone? The priority pick threads for Eagles has hundreds of posts and this very little . The sheer passion of pick 20 as opposed to 350 million dollars extra then other clubs is completely and utterly bizarre. If Eagles have a choice between pick 20 and AFL handing us 350 million dollars im taking the 350 million dollars. Pyke could give every single Eagles member a free membership for the next 5 years. Will help stomach the rebuild for sure...

The need for Gold Coast with Tasmania on board is greatly dimished. They were meant to be financially sustainable by now but have never been further away from it. When Tasmania comes on board and take a bigger slice of revenue while Gold Coasts also needs a huge increase, what happens then? Can AFL really afford to spend 20-25% of its revenue towards 2 clubs?

Gold Coast shouldnt disappear. The answer here is a merge. Doing this is financially sustainable. Spending a combined 20-25% of your revenue on 2 teams in Gold Coast/Tasmania isnt.

 

[catters05]

Not enough to cover the financial investment. Not even close. The massive growth in grass roots isnt converting to money in any way. Its just a flat out money pit.

Patience works isnt really true at all when you are moving further away from your goal. Patience involved moving forward. When you are only moving backwards, patience isnt going to get you far. The club will only cost more and more money. This 34 mill by 2030 willend up at 50 mill. This is 100% best case scenario here also.

It also stems to a ideology of why doesnt this matterto anyone? The priority pick threads for Eagles has hundreds of posts and this very little . The sheer passion of pick 20 as opposed to 350 million dollars extra then other clubs is completely and utterly bizarre. If Eagles have a choice between pick 20 and AFL handing us 350 million dollars im taking the 350 million dollars. Pyke could give every single Eagles member a free membership for the next 5 years. Will help stomach the rebuild for sure...

The need for Gold Coast with Tasmania on board is greatly dimished. They were meant to be financially sustainable by now but have never been further away from it. When Tasmania comes on board and take a bigger slice of revenue while Gold Coasts also needs a huge increase, what happens then? Can AFL really afford to spend 20-25% of its revenue towards 2 clubs?

Gold Coast shouldnt disappear. The answer here is a merge. Doing this is financially sustainable. Spending a combined 20-25% of your revenue on 2 teams in Gold Coast/Tasmania isnt.

It’s worth it for the the new wave of kids getting into Aussie rules in QLD. There is a lot of AFL positivity imo in QLD. Once these kids grow into adults, you capture their kids and then you have the market.

For the club itself, they will hopefully rebrand as they should have done a while ago, they will start making finals and standing on own two feet.

Canberra team comes in as 20th and you’ve got that extra game per week with Tasmania and the extra tv money deals for the national comp. GWS then 100% focuses on capturing that West Sydney market as I imagine Canberra and Tasmania if setup correctly won’t take too long to stand on own two feet.

Gold Coast and GWS markets were always going to be a challenge. The AFL is in for the long game.

 

[Colonial]

Not enough to cover the financial investment. Not even close. The massive growth in grass roots isnt converting to money in any way. Its just a flat out money pit.

Patience works isnt really true at all when you are moving further away from your goal. Patience involved moving forward. When you are only moving backwards, patience isnt going to get you far. The club will only cost more and more money. This 34 mill by 2030 willend up at 50 mill. This is 100% best case scenario here also.

It also stems to a ideology of why doesnt this matterto anyone? The priority pick threads for Eagles has hundreds of posts and this very little . The sheer passion of pick 20 as opposed to 350 million dollars extra then other clubs is completely and utterly bizarre. If Eagles have a choice between pick 20 and AFL handing us 350 million dollars im taking the 350 million dollars. Pyke could give every single Eagles member a free membership for the next 5 years. Will help stomach the rebuild for sure...

The need for Gold Coast with Tasmania on board is greatly dimished. They were meant to be financially sustainable by now but have never been further away from it. When Tasmania comes on board and take a bigger slice of revenue while Gold Coasts also needs a huge increase, what happens then? Can AFL really afford to spend 20-25% of its revenue towards 2 clubs?

Gold Coast shouldnt disappear. The answer here is a merge. Doing this is financially sustainable. Spending a combined 20-25% of your revenue on 2 teams in Gold Coast/Tasmania isnt.

You would have wrapped up the Seans and Lions then.
Good thing you aren’t in charge.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

It’s worth it for the the new wave of kids getting into Aussie rules in QLD. There is a lot of AFL positivity imo in QLD. Once these kids grow into adults, you capture their kids and then you have the market.

For the club itself, they will hopefully rebrand as they should have done a while ago, they will start making finals and standing on own two feet.

Canberra team comes in as 20th and you’ve got that extra game per week with Tasmania and the extra tv money deals for the national comp. GWS then 100% focuses on capturing that West Sydney market as I imagine Canberra and Tasmania if setup correctly won’t take too long to stand on own two feet.

Gold Coast and GWS markets were always going to be a challenge. The AFL is in for the long game.

At my expense though. A big part of Eagles/Freo fans paying so much for membership isnt supply and demand. Its AFL not giving us a fair share of the AFL revenue meaning we need to pony up more. For all the talk of Eagles riches also, we are only 25% more wealthy then Brisbame Lions

Lions got 28 mill and Eagles got 11.8 mill.

The talk of the new wave of kids is hyperbole if it doesnt lead to members or anyone bothering to spend money on the game.

The long game has ended by now. A point in time you walk away from a bad investment. You dont just keep chucking money into the fire hoping the fire will extinguish. Life doesnt work that way im afraid. Unless Gold Coast can turn it around we cant keep burning money on "new kids" getting into AFL

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

You would have wrapped up the Seans and Lions then.
Good thing you aren’t in charge.

I researched that and tried to do the maths. Gold Coast getting about triple the support Brisbane/Sydney did People dont realise the difference in all of this

 

[Colonial]

I researched that and tried to do the maths. Gold Coast getting about triple the support Brisbane/Sydney did People dont realise the difference in all of this

They were both going belly up and were saved multiple times, its a different time now.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

They were both going belly up and were saved multiple times, its a different time now.

Gold Coast would have gone belly up every 6 months...

Different times cos Eagles/Freo/Adelaide/Port stood on their own 2 feet and AFL took money off them and gave it to Gold Coast. That is the difference for sure

 

[Colonial]

Gold Coast would have gone belly up every 6 months...

Different times cos Eagles/Freo/Adelaide/Port stood on their own 2 feet and AFL took money off them and gave it to Gold Coast. That is the difference for sure

As I said glad the AFL is running the organisation instead of you.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

As I said glad the AFL is running the organisation instead of you.

Not really giving me a reason as to why here. Logic doesnt make sense really

If AFL had to triple the money invested into Swans/Lions do you think it would have been smart for them to keep them around?

 

[SC_Power]

Ive gone down a rabbit hole I gotta admit here. Being self-employed and very easily distracted leads me to research stupid things. Yesterday I got sidetracked by Gold Coast and the funding the AFL gives them via distribution of income. In particular I was comparing 5 clubs. Gold Coast, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle and North

Since creation Gold Coast Suns has received about 520 million dollars in AFL grants + distribution of income. West Coast Eagles in that same time frame has received about 170 million and Fremantle about 220 mill. This is a 300-350 million dollar difference all up. Gold Coast have also received about 150 million dollars more then North Melbourne. As a example, if North had received the same funding as Gold Coast, they would be the richest sporting club in the AFL.

Now I know what people say. "We are trying to grow the game, participation is up so its worth it" and so on and so forth. In businesses like this you refer to each member as a customer acquisition cost. Its basically all that matters. The rest is just fluff. Its interested converted into nothing

Gold Coast received about 34.2 million dollars from the AFL to produce 23,000 members. This is a cost of 1,486 bucks per member. West Coast Eagles on the other hand received around 11.8 million (minus automatic WAFL redistribution) for 103,275 members at a cost of 114.25 per member. Fremantles is around 220 bucks per member themselves so track well.

The question is simple. Can the AFL afford to maintain 34 mill+ a year on a club whose return is the creation of 23,000 members? Unless each member Gold Coast has is contributing 1,500 bucks per year into the AFL income, the rest of us are taking a loss on this, a big one at that. One aspect to understand is this problem isnt getting better, its getting worse. Since 2016, AFLs need to increase Gold Coasts income is only getting bigger and bigger as we go on. Costs are growing faster then the own income they generate. They made 2.2 mill extra in revenue by themselves (so excluding AFL handouts) but costs grew by over 5 million dollars (so they short 2.8 mill in 2023)

At what point of this experiment is enough going to be enough? I think its past the point and with Tasmania coming onboard, the time has come to merge them/move them to Tasmania. The cost is too high to contnue on

The AFL will invest because it is fixated on growth and dominating if not monopolising the sporting micro and macro markets as much as possible. We’ve been saying it forever, but global sports can and will continue to lurk as threats. The Matildas impact in 12 months just pushing AFLW aside like a swatting a fly tells you that.

It’s (apparently) a non profit, so holding money does little, investing in infrastructure like grounds, investing to maximise the revenue streams such as tv rights and gambling will continue. Extra games means more of all of that. We will go to 22, and to 24, two conferences, etc etc. it’s all about how big, not how good because you have a captive audience with a uniquely national sport and a tribal fan base.

Minimal investment in state and grass roots, only enough to be able to hold those markets as a bulwark against anyone thinking of going all Super League on them.

Eventually I can see the senior Aussie Rules leagues start to dwindle, and we go down the NFL route where you play at school and through maybe uni, if you haven’t made it by 21 then go do something else unless it’s amateur league.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Ive gone down a rabbit hole I gotta admit here. Being self-employed and very easily distracted leads me to research stupid things. Yesterday I got sidetracked by Gold Coast and the funding the AFL gives them via distribution of income. In particular I was comparing 5 clubs. Gold Coast, Brisbane, West Coast, Fremantle and North

Since creation Gold Coast Suns has received about 520 million dollars in AFL grants + distribution of income. West Coast Eagles in that same time frame has received about 170 million and Fremantle about 220 mill. This is a 300-350 million dollar difference all up. Gold Coast have also received about 150 million dollars more then North Melbourne. As a example, if North had received the same funding as Gold Coast, they would be the richest sporting club in the AFL.

Now I know what people say. "We are trying to grow the game, participation is up so its worth it" and so on and so forth. In businesses like this you refer to each member as a customer acquisition cost. Its basically all that matters. The rest is just fluff. Its interested converted into nothing

Gold Coast received about 34.2 million dollars from the AFL to produce 23,000 members. This is a cost of 1,486 bucks per member. West Coast Eagles on the other hand received around 11.8 million (minus automatic WAFL redistribution) for 103,275 members at a cost of 114.25 per member. Fremantles is around 220 bucks per member themselves so track well.

The question is simple. Can the AFL afford to maintain 34 mill+ a year on a club whose return is the creation of 23,000 members? Unless each member Gold Coast has is contributing 1,500 bucks per year into the AFL income, the rest of us are taking a loss on this, a big one at that. One aspect to understand is this problem isnt getting better, its getting worse. Since 2016, AFLs need to increase Gold Coasts income is only getting bigger and bigger as we go on. Costs are growing faster then the own income they generate. They made 2.2 mill extra in revenue by themselves (so excluding AFL handouts) but costs grew by over 5 million dollars (so they short 2.8 mill in 2023)

At what point of this experiment is enough going to be enough? I think its past the point and with Tasmania coming onboard, the time has come to merge them/move them to Tasmania. The cost is too high to contnue on

It’s a not for profit business they need to spend the revenue.
But your right would it be a better sport to watch if that 34million went in to umpiring and rural and region pathways

 

[Tasmanian saint]

Having an extra game a week is worth a lot more through TV rights than the cost of subsidising a couple of teams.

It’s still cost the afl a massive amount if they had there time over again I think they would have pushed the Queensland and New South Wales governments for more funding to help set up and cover some costs . Look at deal they have managed to sign in Tasmania the club is costing them very little to set up and run moving forward

 

[Billy ray]

 

[TheEscapeClub]

The good thing with both GWS and GC is that they create that intrastate rivalry with Sydney and Brisbane, which is a real thing and accelerates the overall interest. I wouldn't imagine that it will ever get to Adelaide v Port levels but they're both real rivalries nonetheless.