2014 Financial Report

Remove this Banner Ad

spotthedog1 said:
I get the sense that the loss was actually maximised this year. It just looks like the accountants were under instruction to write off anything borderline. Possibly Swanny's suggestion. More loss now when people are expecting it, makes it a bit rosier in the coming years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 'tis a classic CEO move - get all the skeletons out of the closet while you can still blame the last guy.
 
Also getting pretty sick of the fact that every year our massive financial losses are meant to appear far worse because of 'one off write offs'. Let's just take it as given that these 'one offs' are there every year in some form or another.

I don't think Swann is under any illusion with just how big his task really is.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No way we can sugarcoat this it is disastrous. I am pretty sure that $3.5 million would almost be a record loss for the AFL, can't think of a bigger one. Thank God for the AFL even though I hate to say it. We need success even to get close to breaking even. I think the cost of running clubs has risen dramatically in the last decade, look at Port Adelaide this year huge crowds but $2million loss. I can't see how cost cutting will dramatically improve our bottom line. We must have success on the field and we must have good governance and management leading us off it.
 
What stuns me the most with this from what I can understand is why has it taken 10 years to reach this "rock bottom" point before the AFL start taking our financial position seriously. I know Gil is new in the head job, but surely the afl would have been aware before now of our situation and could have started talking to the then board (5 years ago even) about our strategies to get us out of it. It just sickens me that it took this long before "serious" action is being taken. It appears now our situation has crossed their "Oh crikey, they are up the creek" threshold and Gil heard the alarm and is acting on it - thank goodness.
 
I haven't had time to have a good look at the financial report yet, but something I did notice from the articles on the AFL website is that:

- we spent $18.6m on footy department spending (up $1.3m on 2013 I think?)
- Collingwood spent $22m on footy department spending, almost 20% more than us

It would be interesting to know what other clubs spent
 
Flossie32 said:
What stuns me the most with this from what I can understand is why has it taken 10 years to reach this "rock bottom" point before the AFL start taking our financial position seriously. I know Gil is new in the head job, but surely the afl would have been aware before now of our situation and could have started talking to the then board (5 years ago even) about our strategies to get us out of it. It just sickens me that it took this long before "serious" action is being taken. It appears now our situation has crossed their "Oh crikey, they are up the creek" threshold and Gil heard the alarm and is acting on it - thank goodness.
Click to expand...

Lethal's book is fascinating in that regard. Explains how the Lions (under Bowers) absolutely destroyed their relationship with the AFL. Demetriou would have been reasonably content to see us suffer until the end of his reign.
 
Last edited:
leaper said:
No way we can sugarcoat this it is disastrous. I am pretty sure that $3.5 million would almost be a record loss for the AFL, can't think of a bigger one. Thank God for the AFL even though I hate to say it. We need success even to get close to breaking even. I think the cost of running clubs has risen dramatically in the last decade, look at Port Adelaide this year huge crowds but $2million loss. I can't see how cost cutting will dramatically improve our bottom line. We must have success on the field and we must have good governance and management leading us off it.
Click to expand...
The thing is, that's not the end of the world. We get money from tickets, the AFL gets money from TV. The AFL already hand a chunk to the clubs, but there is definitely room for more. It's come out today that one club CEO has stated that excluding pokie revenue, only Collingwood would have made a profit - 17 losses if they don't factor pokies in. That shows just how reliant the clubs are on getting money from the TV deal... and that's fine. I don't think this is a great result at all, but I think disasterous is a bit heavy.
 
spotthedog1 said:
The thing is, that's not the end of the world. We get money from tickets, the AFL gets money from TV. The AFL already hand a chunk to the clubs, but there is definitely room for more. It's come out today that one club CEO has stated that excluding pokie revenue, only Collingwood would have made a profit - 17 losses if they don't factor pokies in. That shows just how reliant the clubs are on getting money from the TV deal... and that's fine. I don't think this is a great result at all, but I think disasterous is a bit heavy.
Click to expand...
In other words we now have a handout mentality. It's ok the AFL will fix it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

leaper said:
In other words we now have a handout mentality. It's ok the AFL will fix it.
Click to expand...
Either that or the balance is genuinely off as far as TV rights cash distribution goes.
 
leaper said:
In other words we now have a handout mentality. It's ok the AFL will fix it.
Click to expand...

The other option at this stage is to shut up shop because we, as a club, literally do not have the cash to continue without the AFL. It's kind of odd to look at the clubs as being independent of the AFL as well. They aren't. They are really the same entity and it's only pretending to be separate to play to the fans which is why I'm not hugely concerned about being "supported" by the AFL. In addition all sporting leagues have the same "handouts" (NRL, A-League, NFL, NBA, EPL, and so on) where common funds are distributed either evenly or, more commonly, according to needs.
 
leaper said:
In other words we now have a handout mentality. It's ok the AFL will fix it.
Click to expand...
I think a lot more clubs than ours would disappear without some form of "handout". Without assistance, I reckon the AFL could reduce to as few as 10 or 12 clubs. Do the math, that would include a few "traditional" Melbourne clubs too. A smaller competition would mean smaller interest and tiny TV rights. The industry across the board would suffer. So while clubs like ours might rely on handouts, those bigger clubs like Collingwood also rely on us getting them. Don't feel bad though, even Eddie has trouble with this concept.
 
Skoob said:
I think a lot more clubs than ours would disappear without some form of "handout". Without assistance, I reckon the AFL could reduce to as few as 10 or 12 clubs. Do the math, that would include a few "traditional" Melbourne clubs too. A smaller competition would mean smaller interest and tiny TV rights. The industry across the board would suffer. So while clubs like ours might rely on handouts, those bigger clubs like Collingwood also rely on us getting them. Don't feel bad though, even Eddie has trouble with this concept.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that we shouldn't accept the AFL's assistance, I just think we need to lift our game and strive to not always be on life support. The way everybody is talking around here, that's the way it's gonna be from now on. We will always be mediocre if we think like that, $3.5million loss is unacceptable and embarrassing. An old adage " If you live with the lame, you learn to limp".
 
leaper said:
I am not saying that we shouldn't accept the AFL's assistance, I just think we need to lift our game and strive to not always be on life support. The way everybody is talking around here, that's the way it's gonna be from now on. We will always be mediocre if we think like that, $3.5million loss is unacceptable and embarrassing. An old adage " If you live with the lame, you learn to limp".
Click to expand...
Yeah sure but I recall we went about getting sponsorship or something from a chocolate company or a soft drink company or something??? the AFL fined the heck out of us for not following their rules. Have no memory of a top line soccer team in the EPL, for example, having to wear that type of control of their finances so IMO if the AFL demand a socialist comp then they suffer the consequences when the teams with less of a supporter base suffer from long term failure because of that.

IMO if it was an earnings and wages free for all we would have been able to survive in the short to medium term at the top of the ladder for a lot longer by playing on the Qlder BS etc. Could that have been a long term strategy? Maybe not. If the AFL is happy for the big clubs to effectively have 15/16 teams play at home year in year out they have to pay the consequences of that system that supports the likes of the QLD and NSW based teams inability to earn during the lean times.
 
leaper said:
I am not saying that we shouldn't accept the AFL's assistance, I just think we need to lift our game and strive to not always be on life support. The way everybody is talking around here, that's the way it's gonna be from now on. We will always be mediocre if we think like that, $3.5million loss is unacceptable and embarrassing. An old adage " If you live with the lame, you learn to limp".
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disagrees with the bolded text. However I'm guessing it's that different people have different ideas about what AFL "assistance" consists of. Last year the AFL paid out $9m to every club. In some cases it was up to over $13m (Essendon, Bulldogs). Has any club announced a profit of above $9m? If not, they're all dependant on the AFL to some degree - that's how it is, and that's how it's going to be from now on (and from years ago) for all clubs. That shouldn't be a surprise. Having said that, the club getting its act together and making more money = more money to spend on the football club = better results (generally) = good. Again, not a surprise and I doubt that anyone posting here is arguing that that's not going to be the case.
 
leaper said:
I am not saying that we shouldn't accept the AFL's assistance, I just think we need to lift our game and strive to not always be on life support. The way everybody is talking around here, that's the way it's gonna be from now on. We will always be mediocre if we think like that, $3.5million loss is unacceptable and embarrassing. An old adage " If you live with the lame, you learn to limp".
Click to expand...
I don't think the welfare we receive, or will ever receive, will ever allow clubs to live 'high on the hog'. So the incentive is still there to make your own fortune. The handouts allow clubs to survive and go someway to being competitive, but being a sporting club, we'll always want to be better than just competitive and to do that clubs have to find a way to prosper off field as well. Sometimes clubs need a kick in the arse too, which we got by way of the AFL getting involved with removing our chairman and CEO. The members could have (and would have) removed the chairman, but the CEO could have continued killing us for a couple of years. They did that so we are better equipped to move forward.
As far as us punters go, I don't think there is a "handout mentality". I think most recognise that rather than simply being 1 of 18 seperate clubs, we are in fact all part of a larger organisation. Don't forget that that larger organisation draws the biggest income and that is then distributed to all 18 clubs.
You could make all sorts of analogies, but think of it like this;
You run a huge business and slit your spending across sales, marketing, admin, accounts, IT, maintenance etc. Your your marketing is aided by high consumer awareness, your sales team is doing a great job, your admin and accounting is on top of things and the new software is running like a dream. Unfortunately some of your equipment is breaking down. Do you distribute your spending equally? No, you funnel funds into maintenance. The equipment required for your business is very sofisticated and needs constant repair, nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. So it constantly needs more spent on it.
But while the maintenance department keeps getting more funding, they are also under constant pressure to reduce that cost and the maintenance guys are constantly trying improve procedures and methods to achieve that. Each department will always deserve and require funding to continue and sometimes the boss might have to forego his new Mercedes in the interest of providing that. There may come a time when the equipment is running well and maintenance costs reduced, and the time may come when the consumer isn't convinced they need your product and marketing will need a boost.
Make no mistake, the AFL's money is our money. It exists because clubs exist, we shouldn't have to fight so hard or suffer so badly to get our hands on some of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dalions
Training 2024 Preseason training reports and discussion
64 65 66 67 68
Replies
2K
Views
102K
martinson
martinson

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top