70 cents in every $1 North earn comes from the AFL

[dom_105]

According to Southern Cross News/SEN, the AFL are a source of 70c in every dollar that makes up North Melbourne's annual revenue.

Is that accurate? It seems like a unrealistic amount.

[AngelEyes]

It couldn't be could it?

Maybe 7c or 17c but surely not 70c!

[DarthTed]

According to Southern Cross News/SEN, the AFL are a source of 70c in every dollar that makes up North Melbourne's annual revenue.

Is that accurate? It seems like a unrealistic amount.


That's what Demetriou said. Is it true? Who knows, certainly wouldn't be the first time the AFL have produced figures to favour their position that weren't necessarily accurate.

[LancePicioane]

It's a skewed figure that includes direct and indirect revenue earnt through being part of the AFL. Stuff like TV rights revenue etc.
Most other clubs are close or over 50% in this regard.
Classic propaganda, that we'll probably get bashed for in the media...yay...

[greennick]

It's a skewed figure that includes direct and indirect revenue earnt through being part of the AFL. Stuff like TV rights revenue etc.
Most other clubs are close or over 50% in this regard.
Classic propaganda, that we'll probably get bashed for in the media...yay...
So what is North's budget then, as a rough amount?

Is it something like this (this is just a guess, so don't jump all over me if it is wrong):
10m - AFL (TV rights, CBF, etc)
4m - other sources

Is that it?

[giantroo]

He has certainly added some other sort of payments. If he has added any of the CBF or the GC money we get, he is the biggest prick of all time. He is worse than a Politician

[MarkT]

What a misleading stat. 100% of every dollar the AFL earns comes from the clubs playing footy. How about 16 clubs earn 100% of the revenue and pay annual levies to the AFL. Does that change this sort of deliberately misleading stat?

TV pays $150m per year to the AFL. The AFL pays some part of that to clubs each year through the annual dividend. The AFL takes gate money and distributes it to clubs. The AFL gets merchandising sales revenue. Who barracks for the AFL?

[RussellEbertHandball]

In 2006 the AFL distributed the following to North Melbourne

1. Base distributions - all clubs received $4,442,316

2. Other distribution of $2,853,799
This other includes
a) $300,000 from Waverly Park sale which all clubs received. The final $500k per club to be distributed in 2007 and 2008,
b) $1,400,000 Annual Special Distribution,
c) amounts paid for AFL internet rights agreements, ground buy-out agreements, distribution of AFL's signage rights at Telstra Dome and payments to develop the game around Australia,
d) AFL members club support,
e) Prize money and finals allowance.

Total direct payments were $7,296,115. So given that the Kangaroo's had revenue of approx $20mil in 2006 they didn't get close to 70% unless the AFL are including some pretty dodgey indirect revenue like game day revenue, memberships etc.

In 2007 the AFL gave the club a base distribution of $6.1mil and a further $3.6mil in additional distributions the AFL has publicly fully disclosed. The $1.4mil ASD is still there, $1.5mil was a one off capital grant to develop Arden Street, $400k as part of the Telstra Dome support which was part of 2(c) in 2006 and $300k to develop the Gold Coast which wasn’t there in 2006 but some amount would have been in 2006 to develop the Canberra market. So;
2 a) is the same,
2 b) is included in part of $3.6mil,
2 c) who knows what that will be worth but wouldn’t be a massive amount more than last year apart from the two items I mentioned above,
2 d) probably the same as last year approx 1,700 members x $100 per member,
2 e) would have gone up as made the finals but maybe only $400k.

So 70% of $20mil+ is a bit rich I think especially as it includes a one off capital grant to redevelop Arden Street and the way the AFL spin it they would imply it is ongoing, which it isn't fair. Next year North Melbourne will receive at least $2mil from both the state government and local council. Will the AFL exclude or include these amounts when they discuss North’s financials next year?

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.

[greennick]

What a misleading stat. 100% of every dollar the AFL earns comes from the clubs playing footy. Bow about 16 clubs earn 100% of the revenue and pay annual levies to the AFL. Does that change this sort of deliberately misleading stat?

TV pays $150m per year to the AFL. The AFL pays some part of that to clubs each year through the annual dividend. The AFL takes gate money and distributes it to clubs. The AFL gets merchandising sales revenue. Who barracks for the AFL?
The argument is not silly. It is simple really. Clubs such as Collingwood and West Coast contribute far more to the AFL's revenue through their cut of product, TV revenue, gate takings and so on. These clubs also get less money from the AFL as they have more revenue from their supporters and sponsors. Therefore these clubs have a much lower portion of their revenue from the AFL.

Basically, North is like Tasmania, contributing SFA to the GST revenue, but collecting more than their fair share of it back.

[MarkT]

The argument is not silly. It is simple really. Clubs such as Collingwood and West Coast contribute far more to the AFL's revenue through their cut of product, TV revenue, gate takings and so on. These clubs also get less money from the AFL as they have more revenue from their supporters and sponsors. Therefore these clubs have a much lower portion of their revenue from the AFL.
I understand this but the stat is put out there for a reason and it is misleading. Clearly Collingwood earn a far greater portion of revenue directly. They take in more from all sources, including pubs etc and spend a lot more in doing it. That is part of North’s issue but this stat is deliberately mischievous.

[moomba]

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.

As I understand it, the AFL gets all revenue from attendances and memberships from the Gold Coast game, so even that $400k a game is a bit misleading.

Thanks for the figures though, very revealing.

[LancePicioane]

In 2006 the AFL distributed the following to North Melbourne

1. Base distributions - all clubs received $4,442,316

2. Other distribution of $2,853,799
This other includes
a) $300,000 from Waverly Park sale which all clubs received. The final $500k per club to be distributed in 2007 and 2008,
b) $1,400,000 Annual Special Distribution,
c) amounts paid for AFL internet rights agreements, ground buy-out agreements, distribution of AFL's signage rights at Telstra Dome and payments to develop the game around Australia,
d) AFL members club support,
e) Prize money and finals allowance.

Total direct payments were $7,296,115. So given that the Kangaroo's had revenue of approx $20mil in 2006 they didn't get close to 70% unless the AFL are including some pretty dodgey indirect revenue like game day revenue, memberships etc.

In 2007 the AFL gave the club a base distribution of $6.1mil and a further $3.6mil in additional distributions the AFL has publicly fully disclosed. The $1.4mil ASD is still there, $1.5mil was a one off capital grant to develop Arden Street, $400k as part of the Telstra Dome support which was part of 2(c) in 2006 and $300k to develop the Gold Coast which wasn’t there in 2006 but some amount would have been in 2006 to develop the Canberra market. So;
2 a) is the same,
2 b) is included in part of $3.6mil,
2 c) who knows what that will be worth but wouldn’t be a massive amount more than last year apart from the two items I mentioned above,
2 d) probably the same as last year approx 1,700 members x $100 per member,
2 e) would have gone up as made the finals but maybe only $400k.

So 70% of $20mil+ is a bit rich I think especially as it includes a one off capital grant to redevelop Arden Street and the way the AFL spin it they would imply it is ongoing, which it isn't fair. Next year North Melbourne will receive at least $2mil from both the state government and local council. Will the AFL exclude or include these amounts when they discuss North’s financials next year?

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.

Thanks for clearing that up Russell.
Us rooboys appreciate it:thumbsu:

[The Zebra]

In 2006 the AFL distributed the following to North Melbourne

1. Base distributions - all clubs received $4,442,316

2. Other distribution of $2,853,799
This other includes
a) $300,000 from Waverly Park sale which all clubs received. The final $500k per club to be distributed in 2007 and 2008,
b) $1,400,000 Annual Special Distribution,
c) amounts paid for AFL internet rights agreements, ground buy-out agreements, distribution of AFL's signage rights at Telstra Dome and payments to develop the game around Australia,
d) AFL members club support,
e) Prize money and finals allowance.

Total direct payments were $7,296,115. So given that the Kangaroo's had revenue of approx $20mil in 2006 they didn't get close to 70% unless the AFL are including some pretty dodgey indirect revenue like game day revenue, memberships etc.

In 2007 the AFL gave the club a base distribution of $6.1mil and a further $3.6mil in additional distributions the AFL has publicly fully disclosed. The $1.4mil ASD is still there, $1.5mil was a one off capital grant to develop Arden Street, $400k as part of the Telstra Dome support which was part of 2(c) in 2006 and $300k to develop the Gold Coast which wasn’t there in 2006 but some amount would have been in 2006 to develop the Canberra market. So;
2 a) is the same,
2 b) is included in part of $3.6mil,
2 c) who knows what that will be worth but wouldn’t be a massive amount more than last year apart from the two items I mentioned above,
2 d) probably the same as last year approx 1,700 members x $100 per member,
2 e) would have gone up as made the finals but maybe only $400k.

So 70% of $20mil+ is a bit rich I think especially as it includes a one off capital grant to redevelop Arden Street and the way the AFL spin it they would imply it is ongoing, which it isn't fair. Next year North Melbourne will receive at least $2mil from both the state government and local council. Will the AFL exclude or include these amounts when they discuss North’s financials next year?

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.

Great post.
It is totally misleading - especially given the $1.5 Million grant for redeveloment hasn't been received, and s you point out the othr $6 million receive from other areas for the redevlopment will not be included in this type of calculation.

Lying, manipulating scum.

[greennick]

In 2006 the AFL distributed the following to North Melbourne

1. Base distributions - all clubs received $4,442,316

2. Other distribution of $2,853,799
This other includes
a) $300,000 from Waverly Park sale which all clubs received. The final $500k per club to be distributed in 2007 and 2008,
b) $1,400,000 Annual Special Distribution,
c) amounts paid for AFL internet rights agreements, ground buy-out agreements, distribution of AFL's signage rights at Telstra Dome and payments to develop the game around Australia,
d) AFL members club support,
e) Prize money and finals allowance.

Total direct payments were $7,296,115. So given that the Kangaroo's had revenue of approx $20mil in 2006 they didn't get close to 70% unless the AFL are including some pretty dodgey indirect revenue like game day revenue, memberships etc.

In 2007 the AFL gave the club a base distribution of $6.1mil and a further $3.6mil in additional distributions the AFL has publicly fully disclosed. The $1.4mil ASD is still there, $1.5mil was a one off capital grant to develop Arden Street, $400k as part of the Telstra Dome support which was part of 2(c) in 2006 and $300k to develop the Gold Coast which wasn’t there in 2006 but some amount would have been in 2006 to develop the Canberra market. So;
2 a) is the same,
2 b) is included in part of $3.6mil,
2 c) who knows what that will be worth but wouldn’t be a massive amount more than last year apart from the two items I mentioned above,
2 d) probably the same as last year approx 1,700 members x $100 per member,
2 e) would have gone up as made the finals but maybe only $400k.

So 70% of $20mil+ is a bit rich I think especially as it includes a one off capital grant to redevelop Arden Street and the way the AFL spin it they would imply it is ongoing, which it isn't fair. Next year North Melbourne will receive at least $2mil from both the state government and local council. Will the AFL exclude or include these amounts when they discuss North’s financials next year?

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.
That is a bit rich. I dunno if the money from the members should be included, but I guess that is only 170k. I still can't see how they get to 70%, maybe someone stuffed the maths.

[greennick]

I understand this but the stat is put out there for a reason and it is misleading. Clearly Collingwood earn a far greater portion of revenue directly. They take in more from all sources, including pubs etc and spend a lot more in doing it. That is part of North’s issue but this stat is deliberately mischievous.
Agreed, it is deliberately mischevous, however there is still a point to it. Although, it is a useless stat without a comparison to all other clubs.

[Fire]

Agreed, it is deliberately mischevous, however there is still a point to it. Although, it is a useless stat without a comparison to all other clubs.

The only point is propaganda.

[ApplecrossWC]

Outrageous propaganda from Vlad.

[zero]

yep, sounded like bullshit to begin with, and REH seems to have confirmed it

[robaba]

The argument is not silly. It is simple really. Clubs such as Collingwood and West Coast contribute far more to the AFL's revenue through their cut of product, TV revenue, gate takings and so on. These clubs also get less money from the AFL as they have more revenue from their supporters and sponsors. Therefore these clubs have a much lower portion of their revenue from the AFL.

Basically, North is like Tasmania, contributing SFA to the GST revenue, but collecting more than their fair share of it back.

I wonder how much you would collect playing with yourself.
Is it possible for you to vaguely comprehend that a sporting contest needs more than one team on the field?

[zero]

but it does raise a worrying point, should the CBF, the waverley money and the 1.5 million from the GC games dries up or is drastically reduced... say the CBF is cut to half a mill, waverly cash ends and the roos go back to playing in canberra for alot less, then where is the shortfall going to be made up? if the club is already in moderate debt, and with the costs of running a football club increasing year on year...

even if the refocus back to melbourne brought in another 10k members, that still leaves a shortfall that would need to be made up by sponsorship dollar.

[jimmy_clement#8]

If you ever wanted proof that this is the AFL bullying a weaker opponent, then this is it. No, couldn't remove and let the Roos buckle themselves, had to resort to mind games. Poor form.

[Lidge]

.

Basically, North is like Tasmania, contributing SFA to the GST revenue, but collecting more than their fair share of it back.

Think again. North have played in 22 of the past 32 finals series.

How much extra revenue from ticket sales and TV $$ have North contributed to the AFL coffers from this area?

$$ from finals goes to the AFL, not collected as cash by the competing clubs, ditto with corporate match day revenues.

Just in that area alone we are well ahead of the CBF ledger.

Don't be a lemming and believe everything that the AFL Progapanda Department peddles through the mass media.

[Lidge]

If you ever wanted proof that this is the AFL bullying a weaker opponent, then this is it. No, couldn't remove and let the Roos buckle themselves, had to resort to mind games. Poor form.


We might be smaller, and but we aint weaker.

They picked on the wrong club. Stupid pricks - they'll all be eating shit sandwiches at AFL House by the end of next month.:D

[RussellEbertHandball]

According to Southern Cross News/SEN, the AFL are a source of 70c in every dollar that makes up North Melbourne's annual revenue.
Is that accurate? It seems like a unrealistic amount.

This is complete bullshit. I have posted proof that the AFL only distributed $7.2mil in 2006, and on the North board it confirmed that their income in 2006 was $21.5mil.

Now this is the article that I only read on the North board a few hours after I posted the AFL distribution details in the earlier post in this thread.

Roos get 70% of income from AFL
November 1, 2007 - 4:39PM

The AFL contributes 70 per cent of the Kangaroos' income which is still not enough for the club to survive in Melbourne, according to league boss Andrew Demetriou.

...................

"At the moment the AFL contributes $7 out of every $10 of net revenue that the Kangaroos are receiving," Demetriou told Southern Cross Radio.

"That's 70 per cent - and it's not enough..

That is some tricky bloody wording by Vlad. $7 out of $10 net revenue can mean anything given the way you want to manipulate the figures. It is factually correct, depending on what base you use.

And he knows the press and therefore the public will pick this up as 70% of gross income, which is wrong. I didn't read this when I saw the thread on the main board and that's why I looked up the 2006 AFL annual report which I have as well as the Next Generation 2007 to 2011 documents which detailed how the AFL will spend $1,400,000,000 of income it expects to earn between 2007 and 2011. I just knew that 70% of gross revenue was bullshit, but wanted to document the facts I had to prove it to others.

SEN have repeated this gross revenue myth in its news service several times tonight. I expect a few dills in the press to repeat the 70% gross revenue myth over the next few days.

[kelman]

It is factually correct, depending on what base you use.


can you expand on what you mean by this?

Thanks.

[Crow-mo]

In 2006 the AFL distributed the following to North Melbourne

1. Base distributions - all clubs received $4,442,316

2. Other distribution of $2,853,799
This other includes
a) $300,000 from Waverly Park sale which all clubs received. The final $500k per club to be distributed in 2007 and 2008,
b) $1,400,000 Annual Special Distribution,
c) amounts paid for AFL internet rights agreements, ground buy-out agreements, distribution of AFL's signage rights at Telstra Dome and payments to develop the game around Australia,
d) AFL members club support,
e) Prize money and finals allowance.

Total direct payments were $7,296,115. So given that the Kangaroo's had revenue of approx $20mil in 2006 they didn't get close to 70% unless the AFL are including some pretty dodgey indirect revenue like game day revenue, memberships etc.

In 2007 the AFL gave the club a base distribution of $6.1mil and a further $3.6mil in additional distributions the AFL has publicly fully disclosed. The $1.4mil ASD is still there, $1.5mil was a one off capital grant to develop Arden Street, $400k as part of the Telstra Dome support which was part of 2(c) in 2006 and $300k to develop the Gold Coast which wasn’t there in 2006 but some amount would have been in 2006 to develop the Canberra market. So;
2 a) is the same,
2 b) is included in part of $3.6mil,
2 c) who knows what that will be worth but wouldn’t be a massive amount more than last year apart from the two items I mentioned above,
2 d) probably the same as last year approx 1,700 members x $100 per member,
2 e) would have gone up as made the finals but maybe only $400k.

So 70% of $20mil+ is a bit rich I think especially as it includes a one off capital grant to redevelop Arden Street and the way the AFL spin it they would imply it is ongoing, which it isn't fair. Next year North Melbourne will receive at least $2mil from both the state government and local council. Will the AFL exclude or include these amounts when they discuss North’s financials next year?

Fair enough that the AFL include $400k x 3 game revenue from the GC games.

I think the point is that they're not doing enough additionally skew that ratio.

[zero]

And he knows the press and therefore the public will pick this up as 70% of gross income, which is wrong.
what is the difference between gross income and net revenue?

[RussellEbertHandball]

what is the difference between gross income and net revenue?

Gross icome = sales income before costs.
Net income/revenue = sales income after costs.

I think the way the AFL use the phrase net revenue is to first add;
Marketing revenue + matchday revenue + merchandising revenue
then subtract from that;
Marketing expenses + matchday expenses + merchandising expenses+ administration expenses.

This gives you net football income. It may also include net income from social clubs activites but I'm not sure if the AFL do this.

The AFL then add their distributions to the get a "total" net football income. It then compares this income to the football operations expenses to see whether the income is sufficient to cover the core operating activity of the club.

The AFL means to say that for every $7 it gives North, North generates a further $3 net football income.

It however has deliberately put it out there, knowing that the media will report it that $7 out of every $10 the Kangaroos earn comes from the AFL, ie 70% of $21mil = $14.7mil. This is not the case.

I suspect that if you looked at all clubs probably 10 to 12 others would be in the range of $6.00 to $6.50. In 2006 I calculated that the Kangaroos recived $6.26 out of $10 of net income from the AFL. I put this in a post on the North board.

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think the point is that they're not doing enough additionally skew that ratio.

True, but the AFL have spun it in such a way knowing that it will be picked up by the press and footy public that the AFL provide 70% of North's total income stream. This is exactly how SEN were reporting it on their news service tonight. This is incorrect. No doubt North have to improve, but the AFL have to be honest about this and they should state the figures for all clubs.

See my post above this one re the calculation of this figure and why the AFL should benchmark this against all clubs publically.

[greennick]

Think again. North have played in 22 of the past 32 finals series.

How much extra revenue from ticket sales and TV $$ have North contributed to the AFL coffers from this area?

$$ from finals goes to the AFL, not collected as cash by the competing clubs, ditto with corporate match day revenues.

Just in that area alone we are well ahead of the CBF ledger.

Don't be a lemming and believe everything that the AFL Progapanda Department peddles through the mass media.
That is the shittest argument ever Lidge, I would have expected better from you. You normally present some well constructed and thought out answers, however this one is lacking to say the least.

Think about it for a minute. If North was not in the finals, does that mean their opponent would just get a bye? No, there would be another team there! Now, lets pretend the team which was 9th was, say, Richmond. How many people do you think would have gone to see Richmond play whoever rather than North play whoever? You finished 4th this year and Richmond dead last and they still got more people to games than you! I mean no offence when I say this, but the AFL would make more money with pretty much any other Melbourne team in the finals rather than North.

[moomba]

You finished 4th this year and Richmond dead last and they still got more people to games than you!

Remembering of course that on averages our three games in the Gold Coast "building the brand" cost us around 70k supporters, and that neither of the two lowest crowds for Melbourne based games involved North.

[greennick]

I wonder how much you would collect playing with yourself.
Is it possible for you to vaguely comprehend that a sporting contest needs more than one team on the field?
If North left, do you think the competition would cease next year? We would not be playing with ourselves! Is it possible for you to vaguely comprehend that if North disappeared the competition would move on and total AFL revenue (gate, TV and membership) would probably not be significantly affected.

[greennick]

Remembering of course that on averages our three games in the Gold Coast "building the brand" cost us around 70k supporters, and that neither of the two lowest crowds for Melbourne based games involved North.
Without that $1.2m you would have held more games in Melbourne and likely lost more money at the gate, so it is a moot point how many more you would have got to games as you could not afford it.

Regardless, Richmond would still have more people to a final involving them than you would if you finished in the same position, they simply have way more supporters.

[moomba]

Without that $1.2m you would have held more games in Melbourne and likely lost more money at the gate, so it is a moot point how many more you would have got to games as you could not afford it.

You're changing your arguments midstream. Are you bothered about attendances or are you bothered about match day revenue?

Regardless, Richmond would still have more people to a final involving them than you would if you finished in the same position, they simply have way more supporters.

But they weren't good enough to make it. Would you prefer that the finals were made up only of the most popular clubs or do you still consider Aussie Rules a sport where the best teams get the most success?

Hell, we may as well give Southport the next 20 premierships right now, after all they have 60,000 pokie players.

[greennick]

You're changing your arguments midstream. Are you bothered about attendances or are you bothered about match day revenue?

Not really changing my argument. North in Melbourne is about attendences, match day revenue, TV viewership and AFL revenue. North in the GC has a greater good.

But they weren't good enough to make it. Would you prefer that the finals were made up only of the most popular clubs or do you still consider Aussie Rules a sport where the best teams get the most success?

Hell, we may as well give Southport the next 20 premierships right now, after all they have 60,000 pokie players.
I agree, I was merely saying that to rebut Lidge's proposition that North made the AFL money by being in the finals when other Melbourne teams likely would have made more. You can't look at finals in absolute terms as it is all relative to what the teams that would take your place would do.

This is my last post tonight. I swear. :)

[Father Jack]

Think again. North have played in 22 of the past 32 finals series.

How much extra revenue from ticket sales and TV $$ have North contributed to the AFL coffers from this area?

$$ from finals goes to the AFL, not collected as cash by the competing clubs, ditto with corporate match day revenues.

Just in that area alone we are well ahead of the CBF ledger.

Don't be a lemming and believe everything that the AFL Progapanda Department peddles through the mass media.

I still don't understand the finals logic ... are you saying that they don't go ahead if North don't make them, or that the get greater revenue from North making them then, say, St Kilda or Richmond?

[jacko57]

According to Southern Cross News/SEN, the AFL are a source of 70c in every dollar that makes up North Melbourne's annual revenue.

Is that accurate? It seems like a unrealistic amount.
He said 70% of net revenue, obviously hoping that compliant/lazy journos & most casual observers would take it to be 70% of total revenue & think : wow, what a mess, the Roos HAVE to move..........

North may have financial issues ; Demetriou is morally bankrupt.

[Porthos]

So its official now, they think all of football's money is really theirs.

This is the real reason for `audience maximing' and so on...not to earn money for clubs, but to earn the most possible money for the AFL.

The league administration clearly has too much power.

[robaba]

If North left, do you think the competition would cease next year? We would not be playing with ourselves! Is it possible for you to vaguely comprehend that if North disappeared the competition would move on and total AFL revenue (gate, TV and membership) would probably not be significantly affected.

If revenue is all you're interested in - go and sit in the stock exchange and watch the screens.

[MarkT]

SEN have repeated this gross revenue myth in its news service several times tonight. I expect a few dills in the press to repeat the 70% gross revenue myth over the next few days.Really, can you imagine if such a claim was made about Collingwood that it would go 15 minutes without the facts being aggressively outlined by Eddie, firstly in person in the outlet that it was first released, then by press release generally and then personally by Eddie on every outlet possible? Why aren’t North people bashing doors down?

[MarkT]

So its official now, they think all of football's money is really theirs.

This is the real reason for `audience maximing' and so on...not to earn money for clubs, but to earn the most possible money for the AFL.

The league administration clearly has too much power.Been on this tram for a long time. Glad to gather a few passengers. Only the clubs themselves can change anything and all of them have their won sweatheart deals to protect.

[MarkT]

Net income/revenue = sales income after costs.I am willing to bet that if asked AD couldn’t tell you how they got it. Really, if your numbers are accurate, which I have no reason to doubt, then I can’t fathom how the 70% could be arrived at. Net revenue when you make a loss? Gross less direct costs? Doubt it. North don’t have many indirect costs (at least that would be my guess). I reckon someone plucked it making a few errors along the way.

[moomba]

Why aren’t North people bashing doors down?


I can only think of two things, the most palatable is that the AFL have them over a barrel in terms of our board needing to keep the league sweet to protect our entitlements.

[MarkT]

I can only think of two things, the most palatable is that the AFL have them over a barrel in terms of our board needing to keep the league sweet to protect our entitlements.I don’t know what the deal is. I guess North supporters need to challenge the likes of SEN on what they quote as fact and ask (don’t expect and answer) why they think AD quote, or worse, make up such stats?

Frankly if the board are scared to upset the AFL they are the wrong board. Forget the battle for the moment, you can’t win the war without blood.