Resource 2014 Annual Reports - ALl clubs now complete (in OP)

[The_Wookie]

Comparative Report from the FFA
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/football_federation_makes_profit_0DA9yf8w6iZYOMDcoWAQYM

The FFA’s accounts for the 2013-14 financial year, recently lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, showed the organisation made a net profit of $7.3 million from revenue of $136 million.

The FFA’s accounts revealed the Wanderers were sold for exactly $10 million on June 30 to a consortium led by BRW Rich List member Paul Lederer .

It is understood the nine remaining A-League clubs each received about $300,000 from the FFA from the Wanderers deal, with the FFA keeping the rest. The accounts showed the FFA now has net assets of about $7.4 million.

The $136 million income included about $10 million in revenue from Australia competing in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, but most of the money was spent on player wages and expenses such as travel and accommodation.

 

[The_Wookie]

Brisbanes books still not looking good

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2014-11-25/lions-2014-financial-result

The Brisbane Lions AFC today announced a net operating loss of $3.5 million for the financial year, ending 31 October, 2014.

The Club generated a trading loss of $1 million prior to depreciation and interest costs.

The key points of the Lions’ 2014 Financial Report are:

• Total Club turnover of $46.5 million
• Football department expenditure of $18.6 million
• Social Club turnover of $15.4 million

The Club has been working with the AFL to implement a range of operational changes aimed at improving financial performance and to ensure the Club benefits fully from the competitive balance model.

 

[The_Wookie]

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/...o-discuss-financial-pain-20141125-11tq4d.html

Club chiefs are set to make it clear they are finding it increasingly difficult to break even - let alone make a profit - when they meet with AFL boss Gillon McLachlan on Wednesday.

While Essendon ($721,517) and Richmond ($1.3 million) and power clubs Hawthorn ($3.4 million) and Collingwood ($2 million) have recently announced substantial profits, it's estimated half of the 18 clubs will be in the red by the time the reporting season is over.

"It's tough out there, people are not spending," one club boss said.

Geelong, despite another finals run, are set to post a six-figure loss, their first in 15 years, prompting the club to make a number of staff changes, while St Kilda have announced a $2 million loss, despite cutting spending by more than $460,000 this year. Carlton have flagged a loss of about $500,000.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Brisbanes books still not looking good

http://www.lions.com.au/news/2014-11-25/lions-2014-financial-result

The Lions have $6.2m of trade payables owing to the AFL which isn't demanding the money. Without this, the Lions (with negative equity of $8.2m) would clearly be insolvent.

 

[telsor]

The Lions have $6.2m of trade payables owing to the AFL which isn't demanding the money. Without this, the Lions (with negative equity of $8.2m) would clearly be insolvent.

Yeah, I noticed that. That said, their biggest asset doesn't appear on the books (being somewhat intangible/unquantifiable). The AFL is determined to have 2 teams in the QLD market, one of which must be in Brisbane, so they'll back them through almost anything.

I also noted that St Kilda has 'negative assets', and while they can surely count on some AFL support, I dare say they couldn't count on quite as much.

Mind you, you can read too much into such figures. Most clubs main asset is their club rooms/training center, which is largely worthless in the sense that they'd be lucky to sell them for even a fraction of the listed amount. If you only used the 'sale value' of assets, I dare say a great many clubs would be in the red.



edited to add: Just did a check of Richmond...If you figure we'd actual realise 10c in the dollar for "Property, plant and equipment", Richmond is worth ~2.6Million rather than the $23.7M we say we're worth.....but that's the rules of accounting...It go paid for, so it must be worth something, right?

 

[Tas]

St Kilda's result is horrific, liabilities increased from 10,753,536 to 15,684,905.
Net cash flow from operations of -2,714,903
Borrowing facility from Westpac of 6.75m drawn to 6.55m
Had to get an unsecured loan from the AFL this year of 2,857,570 to pay creditors.

If the AFL didn't give the loan the club would be insolvent.
Net current assets are -2,758,821
Net assets are -894,193 and realistically a lot worse given fire sale of facilities would be a fraction of it's current value.

I think the AFL should disclose how much debt they are prepared to extend to St Kilda, a similar result next year and they would need a $5m from the AFL to meet their payments. Creditors would want to know the extent the AFL is going to cover their debts.

 

[telsor]

St Kilda's result is horrific, liabilities increased from 10,753,536 to 15,684,905.
Net cash flow from operations of -2,714,903
Borrowing facility from Westpac of 6.75m drawn to 6.55m
Had to get an unsecured loan from the AFL this year of 2,857,570 to pay creditors.

If the AFL didn't give the loan the club would be insolvent.
Net current assets are -2,758,821
Net assets are -894,193 and realistically a lot worse given fire sale of facilities would be a fraction of it's current value.

I think the AFL should disclose how much debt they are prepared to extend to St Kilda, a similar result next year and they would need a $5m from the AFL to meet their payments. Creditors would want to know the extent the AFL is going to cover their debts.

and how would you have responded if the AFL did that to North a few years back?

 

[Tas]

and how would you have responded if the AFL did that to North a few years back?

We never had to borrow from the AFL.

I think it is critical information because the Auditor's report says that Saints as a going concern are dependant on the AFL's line of credit to keep going. Creditors have been burned by Saints in the past, would you expose your business to a significant amount of credit supplying the Saints if you didn't know to what extent the AFL would extend their credit?

 

[The_Wookie]

We never had to borrow from the AFL.

I think it is critical information because the Auditor's report says that Saints as a going concern are dependant on the AFL's line of credit to keep going. Creditors have been burned by Saints in the past, would you expose your business to a significant amount of credit supplying the Saints if you didn't know to what extent the AFL would extend their credit?

With the amount of money being used in recent times to keep Port Adelaide and Brisbane alive (let alone GWS and Gold Coast), theres no way the AFL can not fund the Saints without a riot from Victoria.

 

[bombersfan4000]

We never had to borrow from the AFL.

I think it is critical information because the Auditor's report says that Saints as a going concern are dependant on the AFL's line of credit to keep going. Creditors have been burned by Saints in the past, would you expose your business to a significant amount of credit supplying the Saints if you didn't know to what extent the AFL would extend their credit?

the AFL have given North Extra money through the distributions & its future fund. they received 3 million from the future fund alone last year

 

[Tas]

With the amount of money being used in recent times to keep Port Adelaide and Brisbane alive (let alone GWS and Gold Coast), theres no way the AFL can not fund the Saints without a riot from Victoria.

I agree. I have no doubt that they would and doubt the clubs would veto a decision to help them. However, when you talk about businesses, it would irresponsible to not ensure anyone you give a significant amount of credit to has the means to pay when the debts fall due.

 

[Tas]

the AFL have given North Extra money through the distributions & its future fund. they received 3 million from the future fund alone last year

Saints also received 3.8m this year, all the Docklands tenants have receive an inadequate compensation for the AFL *up. However, we have spent within our means. Our football department spending last year was under 17m, Saints is over 19m. You just can't spend money beyond your means to pay.

 

[The_Wookie]

the AFL have given North Extra money through the distributions & its future fund. they received 3 million from the future fund alone last year

Thats not the same as requiring millions to pay off creditors. The Future fund is designed to address short falls within the club so they can be pfofitable in the future, loaning clubs money to pay off debt is literally life support.

I agree. I have no doubt that they would and doubt the clubs would veto a decision to help them. However, when you talk about businesses, it would irresponsible to not ensure anyone you give a significant amount of credit to has the means to pay when the debts fall due.

Almost every clubs annual report points out that the profitability and survival prospects of each club is derived directly from the AFL.

 

[The_Wookie]

I said in another thread a while back that this tv rights deal should look after the clubs, as the last one took care of the players.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tv-rights-cash-row-looms-20141126-11upuu.html

There has been growing disenchantment among the clubs over the players' push for more flexible free agency rules along with the belief among many that the last collective bargaining agreement was overly generous and has put even more pressure on cash-strapped clubs.

Also reported by the H/S - http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...al-is-negotiated/story-fnelctok-1227136076706

Club chief executives met with league bosses on the Gold Coast for more than four hours on Wednesday, saying new equalisation measures introduced this year had not solved their financial problems.

About half of the league’s 18 clubs are expected to record losses from the 2014 season, including powerhouse Geelong.

One club boss said only Collingwood would have made a profit this year of the 10 Victorian clubs without pokies revenues.

Also the Blues...

The push has come as yet another club prepares to announce a seven-figure loss with Carlton to report a statutory net loss of $1,605,453. While the Blues have declared a trading surplus of just over $300,000 the club is one in a long line also pointing to increased AFL-mandated expenses, as reported by Fairfax on Tuesday.

And Blues chairman Mark LoGiudice has suggested that head office should in future look at wearing the expense of justified but potentially costly experiments such as the poorly received 2014 AFL home-and-away fixture.

Carlton's poor attendances in 2014 were compounded by the club's poor 0-4 start to the season but further eroded by a fixture that included three Sunday night games including one a home fixture against Port Adelaide as the season opener.

 

[Prudster]

God, i knew the smaller clubs were in a bit of trouble, but looking through Saint Kilda's report, i struggle to see how they will compete in the future.

The profit/loss margins of some of the bigger clubs seems to be masking exactly how big a gap there is and how much it is growing. The investments of the bigger clubs haven't always been profitable straight away, but they are slowly making more money, and just giving the clubs a safety net if they desperately needed cash. Meanwhile, the smaller clubs have very little, and rely almost entirely on the AFL.

I know merging or getting rid of clubs is off the table (as it should be), but what exactly can the AFL do to help these clubs?

 

[telsor]

We never had to borrow from the AFL.

I think it is critical information because the Auditor's report says that Saints as a going concern are dependant on the AFL's line of credit to keep going. Creditors have been burned by Saints in the past, would you expose your business to a significant amount of credit supplying the Saints if you didn't know to what extent the AFL would extend their credit?

I can't find your 2010 financials, but even 2013 includes

The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and
meet its debts as and when they fall due is dependent on the Company:

....

b. Receiving continued financial support from the AFL including Future Funding payments,

...

I'd be surprised if in 2010 if wasn't that and significantly more.

 

[Tas]

Thats not the same as requiring millions to pay off creditors. The Future fund is designed to address short falls within the club so they can be pfofitable in the future, loaning clubs money to pay off debt is literally life support.



Almost every clubs annual report points out that the profitability and survival prospects of each club is derived directly from the AFL.

Yes, a fair few Melbourne have a going concern clause, our does in relation to the future fund as well. However, we do not have a line saying "Loan facility with the AFL enabling the Group to receive periodic advances of monies to pay its creditors."

I am sympathetic of every club that plays a number of games at Docklands, well, other than Essendon. But after racking up a 2.6m loss last year who was responsible at the Saints for their budget for this year? When you are in rebuild mode you have to cut back your spending.

Otherwise clubs are just going to say * this paying 17m, lets pay 20m and let the AFL pick up the extra 3m tab.

 

[Tas]

I can't find your 2010 financials, but even 2013 includes


I'd be surprised if in 2010 if wasn't that and significantly more.

And? Future fund distributions are clarified and are announced 3 years in advance so clubs know what they are going to get from it and where the money is to be spent on.

This is different from the AFL having to extend a line of credit to pay creditors because they have capped out their credit with the bank and they have negative net assets and your auditor saying you can only go and not be insolvent if this new line of credit continues.

 

[Tas]

God, i knew the smaller clubs were in a bit of trouble, but looking through Saint Kilda's report, i struggle to see how they will compete in the future.

The profit/loss margins of some of the bigger clubs seems to be masking exactly how big a gap there is and how much it is growing. The investments of the bigger clubs haven't always been profitable straight away, but they are slowly making more money, and just giving the clubs a safety net if they desperately needed cash. Meanwhile, the smaller clubs have very little, and rely almost entirely on the AFL.

I know merging or getting rid of clubs is off the table (as it should be), but what exactly can the AFL do to help these clubs?

Saint's corporate sponsorship and events revenue is very low and for some reason for every dollar they generate they only keep 31c so they are paying a lot to generate what corporate revenue they have. I remember when the AFL were trying to shiv us in 2007 we looked to both Saints and Cats and spoke to them about how they were able to turn over a decent profit off a relatively modest revenue base and a key area was ensuring that your sponsorship and events were highly profitable, we went through a phase where we got rid of all the unprofitable ventures and now had a 62% profit ratio of revenue generated to net proceeds, Saints is down to 31% so they are struggling to get a healthy amount of corporate and sponsorship revenue.

AFL just retains far too much money from broadcasting rights, the bulk of the gains of the next broadcasting rights should be distributed directly to clubs and player salary increased should be indexed by the clubs ability to pay, not some unsustainable figure which keeps clubs at the brink of collapse.

 

[The_Wookie]

AFL just retains far too much money from broadcasting rights, the bulk of the gains of the next broadcasting rights should be distributed directly to clubs and player salary increased should be indexed by the clubs ability to pay, not some unsustainable figure which keeps clubs at the brink of collapse.

Seen this sentiment around lately.

Broadcast and Media paid 236 million in 2013, the AFL distributed 209 million to the clubs.

 

[The_Wookie]

Carltons annual report
http://www.edocumentview.com.au/cfcq2/2014/1612/default.htm?voting=false#p=2&c=1&v=1

 

[Tas]

Seen this sentiment around lately.

Broadcast and Media paid 236 million in 2013, the AFL distributed 209 million to the clubs.

446.5m in revenue, 309.8m operating surplus. As a club your base distribution is 1.6% of the revenue generated, clubs on average end up with about 2.2% of the revenue, and players want 27% of all revenue.

The situation is comical.

 

[Prince Imperial]

We never had to borrow from the AFL.

I think it is critical information because the Auditor's report says that Saints as a going concern are dependant on the AFL's line of credit to keep going. Creditors have been burned by Saints in the past, would you expose your business to a significant amount of credit supplying the Saints if you didn't know to what extent the AFL would extend their credit?

This is all true, but I don't think supporters of our two clubs can be too critical of the Saints over the large support they are getting including the large interest free loan. For a number of years we received large equalization funding amounts whilst the Saints got nothing despite the poor returns of Etihad affecting all of us.

I agree though that the AFL should be stuck into them about their football department spending when other clubs are being more responsible.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Carltons annual report
http://www.edocumentview.com.au/cfcq2/2014/1612/default.htm?voting=false#p=2&c=1&v=1

Pretty poor result really. Despite their whining about the draw, they had 8 Thursday/Friday night games including Friday night home matches against Collingwood, Hawthorn, North and Geelong as well as a home game against Essendon.

 

[telsor]

This is all true, but I don't think supporters of our two clubs can be too critical of the Saints over the large support they are getting including the large interest free loan. For a number of years we received large equalization funding amounts whilst the Saints got nothing despite the poor returns of Etihad affecting all of us.

I agree though that the AFL should be stuck into them about their football department spending when other clubs are being more responsible.

Thank you.

I get tired of North supporters being all holier than thou about club finances now that they're on top and riding the bandwagon bubble when only a few years back they were struggling and rather than talking about how the club should sort it's crap out (as is the case here) it was all about how the AFL needed to help them more.