News Adelaide falling behind in Revenue

[Papa G]

Bob & Bill were the ones who agreed to this stadium deal in the first place. If you want to ridicule somebody, then ridicule them. Then again, it's most likely that they had the deal foisted upon them with very little in the way of options. There's not a lot you can do when the people who own the ground are the same people who own your license and appoint your board. Conflict of interest, anyone?

As for "banging on about something".. The AFC have never been one to air their dirty laundry in public. That's not to say that they weren't expressing their displeasure behind closed doors (I assume they were - I hope they were). Port Adelaide banged on about it and absolutely nothing changed, until Vlad got together with the SA government and started the ball rolling with the AO redevelopment. Only an idiot would actually believe that Port had anything to do with the process whatsoever. All they achieved was making noise for the sake of making noise.

Your board and you are a moderator and all but seriously?? A Public campaign by the Crows which highlighted how they were being reamed that garnered media support and then public support would have no doubt changed a lot of things and a lot quicker. Why do you think Politicians leak things? It appears that even if Trigg and Co were agitating for change behind closed doors, they weren't actually getting anywhere. Mark Haysman fell on his sword because after the SANFL appointed him he turned on them quickly because he publicly aired the "dirty laundry". If you don't think Port's issues and constant whinging were an impetus for change.... well, yeah, whatever.

 

[Allefgib]

Your board and you are a moderator and all but seriously?? A Public campaign by the Crows which highlighted how they were being reamed that garnered media support and then public support would have no doubt changed a lot of things and a lot quicker. Why do you think Politicians leak things? It appears that even if Trigg and Co were agitating for change behind closed doors, they weren't actually getting anywhere. Mark Haysman fell on his sword because after the SANFL appointed him he turned on them quickly because he publicly aired the "dirty laundry". If you don't think Port's issues and constant whinging were an impetus for change.... well, yeah, whatever.

Two things.

1. Triggy hates agitators.
2. Not a moderator.

 

[Messiah]

I actually blame VB and the merchandise dept. On the crows website they are selling framed 'leadership' prints for $495.00. They are a limited edition to 100 units, which would net us $49500 in revenue. My question is how many people would go out and purchase a 'signed, framed VB leadership poster'? I for one would never consider something such as this because it will never increase in value. If Danger or Sloane was captain and it were the same print I would have considered it. All the 18 clubs are releasing these but I wonder if say Richmond (Cotchin), or Gold Coast (Ablett) or Freo (Pavlich) would struggle to sell these prints? As much as VB is a wonderful leader etc he is not very marketable.

Also the crows merchandise is very limited, with the access they have to current and past players they should be able to make some serious revenue off memorabilia. Currently they have a signed 1997 anniversary guernsey, one Dangerfield print (which looks awesome) and a couple of signed prints (Tex & VB). Whether it be match worn apparel which is on the AFC auctions site or similar one of a kind items, maybe a Guernsey signed by the entire list each year released in limited numbers could net the club some serious revenue. The sales & marketing dept at the AFC releases minimal amounts of memorabilia pushing collectors like myself to places like ebay.

Here is an easy way to fix this. Sell framed prints of this and everyone will be happy.
$495, a complementary darts set and VB is doing his job for merchandising.

 

[Sanders]

Back in the early 1990s we had the monopoly. Our crowds regularly got over 45,000 to Football Park, which would have gone a long way towards making up the deficit from the corporates. No surprises that attendance has fallen away, particularly over the last 10-15 years, for a multitude of reasons, with the AFC's ability to earn revenue from game days falling accordingly.

Good point.

Seeing as the game overall has contracted nationally in that time what were people expecting.

 

[Geoffa32]

It is pretty hard to compare the Gross Revenue figure of AFL clubs. The revenue is collected in vastly different ways across most of the clubs.

Remember this is Gross Revenue. Which makes a big difference when looking at revenues generated from "matchday".

It is no surprise to see WCE, Freo and Geel near the top. They have near complete clean stadium deals. They collect ALL the revenues from their stadiums. WCE and Freo merely pay an annual rent to the controllers of Subiaco, the WAFC. Geelong has a similar deal with Kardinia Park and the local council Now if us and the Power had this deal you would expect our Gross Revenues to be up with these guys. Our Revenue from the stadium (AO or Footy Park) is Net after the SANFL/SMA take their cut and after other expenses. This wont change with move to AO.

Then we look at the big MCG tennants, (Coll/Hawthorn/Carlton/Richmon) no surprise they make up 3/4 of the top 4 revenue earners. The MCG stadium deals are quite good for the clubs that draw the big crowds. As is the Docklands deal for Essendon. Speaking of Docklands, it is no surprise to see that the other Docklands tennants are below us. The Stadium Deal at Docklands for clubs other than Essendon is on par with ours, ie shithouse. St Kilda have pointed to this for their woes in the past.

Of course we have to consider the gaming revenues that every Vic club, bar North Melbourne and Port Adelaide receive.. This also helps this Gross Revenue figure. We don't have this as per our licence agreement in that we can not hold a liquor or gaming licence. The one that covers the Westpac Centre is actually for the entity of Football Park and is held by the SANFL. This will change once the licence changes hands, and I am sure one of our Directors already has a plan in place to make the most of this potential revenue stream.


Looking at this years financials, email the club to get a copy if you want them, the biggest concern for me in regards to revenue is the $1.6m decrease in "Sponsorship and Fundraising" revenue from 2012 to 2013 (note 2). However with the move to AO this should bounce back.

 

[Geoffa32]

Your board and you are a moderator and all but seriously?? A Public campaign by the Crows which highlighted how they were being reamed that garnered media support and then public support would have no doubt changed a lot of things and a lot quicker. Why do you think Politicians leak things? It appears that even if Trigg and Co were agitating for change behind closed doors, they weren't actually getting anywhere. Mark Haysman fell on his sword because after the SANFL appointed him he turned on them quickly because he publicly aired the "dirty laundry". If you don't think Port's issues and constant whinging were an impetus for change.... well, yeah, whatever.

The impetus for change was the AFL making the SANFL accountable for Port's financial situation. Best thing the AFL has done for footy in our state for a long time. Not only did it make the SANFL appoint a competent CEO in Keith Thomas at Port, but it also bought the SANFL and SACA together to work out a deal to get AFL footy to Adelaide Oval.

I have my reservations as to how much better financially our clubs will be at AO, particulary if crowds don't stay above 40k long term. But the experience for us supporters who go every week at AO compared to Footy Park is a massive step up in terms of having a venue to go to and watch our clubs. From that perspective the move is the best thing for us supporters.

 

[1970crow]

There are two elements to the Westpac Centre. Firstly, they had to pay off the loan - which appears to be done now, given the "none" debt listing. Secondly, there is depreciation, which will continue for the life of the building. Depreciation is a funny money concept anyway and doesn't affect the operating budget. Having paid the loan in full, we should have a few extra million in the budget for future years, money which was previously going towards paying off the loan.

While I agree that the cleanliness of the AO remains to be seen, the AFC expect to make a lot more out of the corporate boxes than they could at Football Park. This much is known for certain.

As for your attempt to deride Trigg.. it's getting rather sad & stale. The club's position was that they wouldn't make a decision until they were shown the figures proving that we would be better off by making the move. Once the SMA produced those figures, showing that Adelaide would be better off to the tune of $3-5M per year (from memory), the AFC couldn't sign quick enough. By all means blame Trigg for things that are his fault - there's no shortage of them - but it's rather sad trying to make him look bad for doing the right thing by the AFC as he has here.

Any way you care to spin it, our stadium deal at Football Park was the worst in the entire AFL competition. Our hands were tied, leaving us several million dollars behind the 8-ball when it came to revenue generation. Our stadium deal at Adelaide Oval might not take us all the way to the front of the pack, but it will remove the handicap we've suffered for years.

Firstly, you claimed that paying off the loan affected our profit. That is simply wrong and the statement cannot be defended. Secondly, you claim that trigg wouldn't sign off on the move until he knew all the details. He doesn't and you cannot claim that he does. The SMA hasn't been bedded down so the stadium deal is not yet a known quantity. Which entity do you think will be foregoing these extra millions that we will be claiming as our own. And let's not forget the $million per year to buy back our license so we can be controlled by the afl or possibly even still the sanfl.

 

[Geoffa32]

Firstly, you claimed that paying off the loan affected our profit. That is simply wrong and the statement cannot be defended. Secondly, you claim that trigg wouldn't sign off on the move until he knew all the details. He doesn't and you cannot claim that he does. The SMA hasn't been bedded down so the stadium deal is not yet a known quantity. Which entity do you think will be foregoing these extra millions that we will be claiming as our own. And let's not forget the $million per year to buy back our license so we can be controlled by the afl or possibly even still the sanfl.

Yes it is.

Think about it logically

If the major details of the Stadium Deal have not been sorted out, how could the clubs price their memberships, sponsorships and corporate facilities appropriatley. The clubs need to know how much they will make at AO before getting these things in place (setting up the various membership/corporate packages) and selling this merchandise.

Two months out from the first game the Deal is know by both clubs. Just not made public, and probably never will be. I expect a token "signing" of deal to be played out before the first game, but the clubs know now.

 

[1970crow]

Yes it is.

Think about it logically

If the major details of the Stadium Deal have not been sorted out, how could the clubs price their memberships, sponsorships and corporate facilities appropriatley. The clubs need to know how much they will make at AO before getting these things in place (setting up the various membership/corporate packages) and selling this merchandise.

Two months out from the first game the Deal is know by both clubs. Just not made public, and probably never will be. I expect a token "signing" of deal to be played out before the first game, but the clubs know now.

That does make sense. But I thought as little as a couple months ago there was still doubt as to how the SMA would be set up in terms of the size and function of their workforce. If it has been agreed upon and we haven't heard how much better off we'll be, then I'd suggest it's not all good news. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise if the final agreement isn't in place yet.

 

[Geoffa32]

That does make sense. But I thought as little as a couple months ago there was still doubt as to how the SMA would be set up in terms of the size and function of their workforce. If it has been agreed upon and we haven't heard how much better off we'll be, then I'd suggest it's not all good news. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise if the final agreement isn't in place yet.

One thing I noticed at the cricket in the Southern Stand was the amount of match day staff there. A lot more than there is at Footy Park. More catering, security and cleaning staff. A guy cleaned the bar table (I spilt a beer) when we left to go to our seats. That never happened at Footy Park. And it appears they will be a lot more stringent in checking tickets with staff at each entry point to the seats. Can't recall the last time any staff member asked to see my ticket at Footy Park to make sure I was in the right area.

I would suggest that would hold true for the Footy season as well.


More staff is part of being a "World Class Stadium"?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

How do West Coast have gaming revenue? I thought pokies were only allowed in Casinos in Western Australia.

Regardless, why the hell don't we have gaming revenue?

My understanding was it was in the license we wouldn't compete with the SANFL gaming venues ?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It is pretty hard to compare the Gross Revenue figure of AFL clubs. The revenue is collected in vastly different ways across most of the clubs.

Remember this is Gross Revenue. Which makes a big difference when looking at revenues generated from "matchday".

It is no surprise to see WCE, Freo and Geel near the top. They have near complete clean stadium deals. They collect ALL the revenues from their stadiums. WCE and Freo merely pay an annual rent to the controllers of Subiaco, the WAFC. Geelong has a similar deal with Kardinia Park and the local council Now if us and the Power had this deal you would expect our Gross Revenues to be up with these guys. Our Revenue from the stadium (AO or Footy Park) is Net after the SANFL/SMA take their cut and after other expenses. This wont change with move to AO.

Then we look at the big MCG tennants, (Coll/Hawthorn/Carlton/Richmon) no surprise they make up 3/4 of the top 4 revenue earners. The MCG stadium deals are quite good for the clubs that draw the big crowds. As is the Docklands deal for Essendon. Speaking of Docklands, it is no surprise to see that the other Docklands tennants are below us. The Stadium Deal at Docklands for clubs other than Essendon is on par with ours, ie shithouse. St Kilda have pointed to this for their woes in the past.

Of course we have to consider the gaming revenues that every Vic club, bar North Melbourne and Port Adelaide receive.. This also helps this Gross Revenue figure. We don't have this as per our licence agreement in that we can not hold a liquor or gaming licence. The one that covers the Westpac Centre is actually for the entity of Football Park and is held by the SANFL. This will change once the licence changes hands, and I am sure one of our Directors already has a plan in place to make the most of this potential revenue stream.


Looking at this years financials, email the club to get a copy if you want them, the biggest concern for me in regards to revenue is the $1.6m decrease in "Sponsorship and Fundraising" revenue from 2012 to 2013 (note 2). However with the move to AO this should bounce back.

where we're some of our sponsorship $'s channeled elsewhere

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The most concerning thing is that we have gone from a big club which had consistently large surpluses to a middle of the road club financially. Given we are the dominant club in sa with still a sizeable membership this is a poor performance off field.

 

[Sanders]

Looking at this years financials, email the club to get a copy if you want them, the biggest concern for me in regards to revenue is the $1.6m decrease in "Sponsorship and Fundraising" revenue from 2012 to 2013 (note 2). However with the move to AO this should bounce back.

Hang on I thought we were told our sponsors were united in solidarity with us, and were signing on in droves to support stephen and the club through these hard times?

 

[Crowked]

Does revenue include AFL handouts?

Seems there are some clubs with much higher revenue than I expected in that list. Not just Port.

 

[Huntercrow]

Our supporter base needs to look beyond state borders and the club must drop that parochial "Team for all South Australians" slogan! This relic from the past hints of exclusivity and implies that non South Australian supporters are not welcome.

We need to be more involved in the non traditional states where there would be many people new to AFL looking for a team to support but not necessarily interested in the Swans or GWS. Take Newcastle for instance, not many Novacastrians would feel an affinity for any team based in Sydney. Same would go for Queensland areas who are not directly represented by either Brisbane or Gold Coast.

There could be huge potential for revenue streams out of these areas for any team that was willing to invest time and money directly into promoting the Afl brand under their own banner. Several AFL clubs do this now in the black diamond league by way of sponsoring the local teams (but the crows are not one of them). The AFC have sponsored teams in The Sydney league in the distant past but I believe this no longer occurs due to our rare appearances and low profile in NSW.

Our parochial attitudes would be holding us back in terms of the AFL pie so we need to move more into interstate markets and promote the AFC brand as the alternative to their homegrown variety.

I don't believe the club could expect revenue to increase out of SA alone. The local market would be pretty saturated as it is. But the non traditional states would have much greater potential for growth. But they must act soon or be left behind.

 

[StonesThrow]

I assume you're also outraged that alcohol is sold and profited from at the football then?

Yes let's have an argument comparing the pros and cons of alcohol and pokie machines.

But yeah okay you got me, I'm a terrible person just like everyone else.

 

[Sanders]

Yes let's have an argument comparing the pros and cons of alcohol and pokie machines.

But yeah okay you got me, I'm a terrible person just like everyone else.

As long as pokies are legal an argument about pros & cons is just masturbation

 

[AFC3000]

If the club isn't opposed to accepting betting sponsorship and I really haven't noticed any supporter outrage, I don't expect them to be opposed to pokie machines either. I am sure if the right opportunity came along they would take it, I probably hope they would if it meant us becoming a bigger football club.

I don't look to the club to be morally perfect. Win me a premiership is all I am looking for. Sure gambling can be bad for some people, I choose to think pokies are pretty stupid but whatever, I find sports betting can make a game interesting but never choose to bet more than I am happy to lose. Same with alcohol, and whats next, the healthy eating save the children people saying our Balfours and Coca Cola sponsorship are leading to fat kids.

As long as we avoid the illegal stuff like player drugging and I don't know the club gambling with its own money then "whatever it takes" I guess.

 

[Marty64]

There used to be crowsbet.com and I never saw an angry mob headed to West Lakes with pitchforks protesting about it.

At a quick look I am directly invested in pokies, general gambling and casinos I must be evil...

 

[ManInTheArena]

My understanding was it was in the license we wouldn't compete with the SANFL gaming venues ?

Okay. I don't really understand how the AFC having gaming would effect the SANFL clubs gaming revenue, but on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if the SANFL had something stupid like that in the license agreement.

 

[craig crowing]

Whilst not wanting to make this another Trigg bashing it is difficult not to as he is paid big money to run the club successfully and simply has not done so and we have gone backwards in so many areas not only in revenue but support and general standing within the sporting industry.
Putting the Footy Park stadium deal as a reason in going backwards is ludicrous as had same deal from day 1.
Also if this deal was so bad the SANFL and clubs must be super rich , which of course they are not.
So why is our revenue down so dramatically .
Ticket - Membership Sales -- It is obvious we don't get the numbers we used to and obvious we have just coasted along expecting the numbers to remain and not even re- acting when they have fallen .
Why -- Obviously not done enough work to engage SA public with the club .
Port work much harder at this but keeping shooting themselves in the foot with their 1870 history crap.
Sponsorship and general business support ( Corporate Boxes etc)
You only have to talk to business owners , managers etc to be aware they are generally treated poorly and with arrogance .
Merchandising and other fund raising -- Although restricted by AFL as agree NBA , NFL put out stuff you want to wear anytime . Just go into Lakers merchandising shop anytime and all sorts of stuff and designs gets sold .
But surely could do better and where are the new ideas in just marketing our club.
Simply the whole management of club needs a shake up but by retaining Trigg and Smart appointment that is not going to happen for awhile.
I for one do not see how A.O move is going to increase our revenue to any great degree.
Believe we have on field team to move back up again where have to think how much stronger we would be with another 5 or 6 top draft picks .
So can our highly paid management actually move the club forwards off the field.

 

[Vader]

Whilst not wanting to make this another Trigg bashing it is difficult not to as he is paid big money to run the club successfully and simply has not done so and we have gone backwards in so many areas not only in revenue but support and general standing within the sporting industry.
Putting the Footy Park stadium deal as a reason in going backwards is ludicrous as had same deal from day 1.

Things have gone backwards since day 1. Back in Day 1 we used to regularly attract crowds in excess of 45k. These days that happens only once or twice per season. That makes our inability to earn money on game day even worse. All of the other clubs have been able to re-negotiate their stadium deals, on terms far more favourable (and profitable) than ours. We're still stuck with the old arrangement, with no ability to change it until we move to AO. The difference is around $3-5M per year, which is the difference between us being one of the more successful clubs and an also ran.

Also if this deal was so bad the SANFL and clubs must be super rich , which of course they are not.

No.. the SANFL runs at a loss, using the money raised by the AFC to prop it up. Without the AFC funds the SANFL would be in dire financial straits by now.

So why is our revenue down so dramatically .
Ticket - Membership Sales -- It is obvious we don't get the numbers we used to and obvious we have just coasted along expecting the numbers to remain and not even re- acting when they have fallen .

Where do you get this rubbish from? The AFC are painfully aware that the numbers have been going down for years. The reasons are many and the club's options are limited. Moving to AO is part of the solution, but there is no panacea.

Why -- Obviously not done enough work to engage SA public with the club .
Port work much harder at this but keeping shooting themselves in the foot with their 1870 history crap.
Sponsorship and general business support ( Corporate Boxes etc)

This is one of the main reasons why the club is so happy to move to AO. Footy Park doesn't have many corporate boxes for them to sell - and the SANFL get the money from selling them anyway. The new AO has far more corporate boxes, which is where most of the $3-5M is expected to come from.

Merchandising and other fund raising -- Although restricted by AFL as agree NBA , NFL put out stuff you want to wear anytime . Just go into Lakers merchandising shop anytime and all sorts of stuff and designs gets sold .

You've already pointed out that they're restricted by the AFL... But I do agree, they could do a much better job of their merchandising sales. I'm just not sure how much extra money they'd expect to make from it, noting that most merchandising sales money goes straight into the AFL's coffers rather than the club's bank accounts.

But surely could do better and where are the new ideas in just marketing our club.
Simply the whole management of club needs a shake up but by retaining Trigg and Smart appointment that is not going to happen for awhile.
I for one do not see how A.O move is going to increase our revenue to any great degree.

blah, blah, blah.

 

[jackster83]

We've had it far too good for too long; the club has never actually had to make a real effort to attract sponsorship and revenue in general.

The elitist attitude when the new shed was opened summed this up - we were excluding the general populace who might otherwise rock up and spend some cash.

As I've previously mentioned, we need to engage with second generation supporters as well as casual fan, as our long term supporter base is an ageing one. Whether that means pokies, pubs, a bigger range of merch or dealing in illegal drugs (joking lol), we clearly need to broaden our income stream.

 

[cmndstab]

The elitist attitude when the new shed was opened summed this up - we were excluding the general populace who might otherwise rock up and spend some cash.

I don't disagree with most of your post, but for this bit, the idea was obviously that the Crows wanted to make their gold packages (or whatever they were called) more attractive.

I don't know how well it worked in terms of selling more of those packages, but that was the aim. Make more money by making their top-level membership package more desirable.

Of course, in the process they lose the "joe public" spenders, and potentially spoil some goodwill with the average fan. Hopefully they've done some kind of analysis to see whether the money they gained from selling extra packages makes up for the money lost.