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

[Tas]

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.

To get any support from the AFL back then we had to strip spending to barebones, one year we were not allowed to recruit rookies.

I am critical about St Kilda because they have gone on a sacking spree which has cost them a lot of money, they have spent a fortune on training facilities at Seaford, cost Frankston $4m for that project, god knows what the AFL kicked in, had a lease to 2035 which the AFL and the state government are going to try and buy out of to spend another $10m plus to move them to Junction Oval.

I think they are just lacking in terms of competent management in recent years. Generally giving money to incompetent people isn't usually a recipe for success.

Find me someone at the Saints who can justify spending $19m on the football department for the output it delivered? Essendon and Carlton have double the revenue base and only spent $2m more on the football department, both of those clubs had intentions on making finals, Essendon did make the finals and paid Hird $1m for his overseas bender. Saints are in full on rebuild mode.

I just feel sorry for the Saints supporters, their club has very quickly turned from a solid club into one on shaky grounds, you have to blame those managing the club for that. They should never have been in this position.

 

[Tas]

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.

Try not to be a dickhead. No north supporter has made any such claims. We full well know what it is like to have shithouse administration which leads you nowhere and can see the signs of incompetency. The only thing we are happy about is finally having competent people running the club. Our club is still one of the smaller ones and making money while playing at Docklands is a hard slog.

 

[telsor]

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.

So 18*2.2=37.6% to clubs (why did you use the total for players, but per club for the clubs?)

So tell me, where should the AFL cut back in order to find this extra money to the clubs?

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Annual Report/2013 AFL Annual Report.pdf

 

[telsor]

Try not to be a dickhead. No north supporter has made any such claims. We full well know what it is like to have shithouse administration which leads you nowhere and can see the signs of incompetency. The only thing we are happy about is finally having competent people running the club. Our club is still one of the smaller ones and making money while playing at Docklands is a hard slog.

So you're not saying St Kilda has to sort their own crap out?
Or you're not saying North supporters kept on about how the AFL should give them more?


Sorry but you guys lost me with the Gold coast move.
"Everyone help us" (many did, and move avoided) "we did it all ourselves without any help"

I don't expect masses of gratitude for buying a 3 game membership, but denying anyone helped...You lot can get stuffed.

 

[Tas]

So 18*2.2=37.6% to clubs (why did you use the total for players, but per club for the clubs?)

So tell me, where should the AFL cut back in order to find this extra money to the clubs?

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Annual Report/2013 AFL Annual Report.pdf

It should have cut back by not expanding with GWS and GC, but you can't undo that financial disaster.

As I said, the NEXT broadcasting arrangement should have the bulk of the gains distributed to clubs. Pretty much all of the broadcasting gains the AFL has distributed to the clubs has gone to cover the AFL's increase in salary cap, clubs are no better off than they were from the last two broadcasting rights, if they were then 3/4 of the Victorian clubs wouldn't be posting losses. If it wasn't for gaming revenue and the future fund who would have posted a profit?

Clubs need to be viable just from the operation of playing footy. The current model is a complete joke. NFL can afford to give players as much as they do because the amount they receive is so far above the overheads that they are distributing pure profit. That isn't the scenario in the AFL.

 

[The_Wookie]

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.

The operating surplus is after the cost of running the competition is removed. Out of the rest they fund the under 18s, 5 state leagues and other development too. Not to mention the future fund and other essential parts of running a major competition.

If the clubs are distributed 209 million of 446 million, then the clubs are distributed more than 40% of the leagues total revenue before expenses, and nearly 60% of the surplus.

 

[The_Wookie]

It should have cut back by not expanding with GWS and GC, but you can't undo that financial disaster.

If you never go, you never know. And you always go when you can afford it.

As I said, the NEXT broadcasting arrangement should have the bulk of the gains distributed to clubs. Pretty much all of the broadcasting gains the AFL has distributed to the clubs has gone to cover the AFL's increase in salary cap, clubs are no better off than they were from the last two broadcasting rights, if they were then 3/4 of the Victorian clubs wouldn't be posting losses. If it wasn't for gaming revenue and the future fund who would have posted a profit?

Clubs need to be viable just from the operation of playing footy. The current model is a complete joke. NFL can afford to give players as much as they do because the amount they receive is so far above the overheads that they are distributing pure profit. That isn't the scenario in the AFL.

Been saying this same thing for years

 

[Tas]

So you're not saying St Kilda has to sort their own crap out?
Or you're not saying North supporters kept on about how the AFL should give them more?


Sorry but you guys lost me with the Gold coast move.
"Everyone help us" (many did, and move avoided) "we did it all ourselves without any help"

I don't expect masses of gratitude for buying a 3 game membership, but denying anyone helped...You lot can get stuffed.

I am not sure what you are ranting about or why you are even mentioning North to me when I am talking about the way St Kilda has been managed.

They have blown the budget on sacking people all over the place and making some terrible decisions, like the move to Seaford, ditching their games in Tasmania when they were in the contention window and leaving a lot of accumulated debt on the books without much scope for leaner seasons at the end of a peak.

They should have cut back football department spending a lot more and focus the spending on pure player development.

They need the leadership to recruit the right people and see them through their contracts, how much have they wasted over the last few years paying out people they have contracted?

They have to be a bit more efficient and generate more corporate revenue, that is a challenge at Docklands, a bigger one when you get s**t timeslots and your team isn't doing well.

They also need to adopt a program to reduce their debt levels, hard to do again while rebuilding if you do not have supporters with very deep pockets. AFL will help out with the future fund, they haven't allocated the remaining two years (2015 & 2016) of this broadcasting agreement, they only allocated the 2012-14 period previously, am sure they will re-juggle the last two years to where it is needed the most.

 

[Tas]

The operating surplus is after the cost of running the competition is removed. Out of the rest they fund the under 18s, 5 state leagues and other development too. Not to mention the future fund and other essential parts of running a major competition.

If the clubs are distributed 209 million of 446 million, then the clubs are distributed more than 40% of the leagues total revenue before expenses, and nearly 60% of the surplus.

You understand the premise that the revenue only exists if the clubs exist. You can't focus on who you are going to give the money to if the clubs that you need to generate the revenue all go under.

If even one club goes under (which it wont) a massive wad of that revenue would vanish, a lot more than what the AFL give to that club in any given year. Thus the AFL has to focus on the wellbeing of the clubs before it worries about to whom else it gives money to.

 

[The_Wookie]

You understand the premise that the revenue only exists if the clubs exist. You can't focus on who you are going to give the money to if the clubs that you need to generate the revenue all go under.

If even one club goes under (which it wont) a massive wad of that revenue would vanish, a lot more than what the AFL give to that club in any given year. Thus the AFL has to focus on the wellbeing of the clubs before it worries about to whom else it gives money to.

You understand clubs dont exist without players and players dont exist without development right?

 

[telsor]

I am not sure what you are ranting about or why you are even mentioning North to me when I am talking about the way St Kilda has been managed.

Because I'm pointing out that the views of you and your fellow north supporters were very different when it was your club in dire straights.

 

[Tas]

You understand clubs dont exist without players and players dont exist without development right?

Do you think there would be a shortage of AFL players if the average payment was $150k instead of $300k and the highest paid players were getting $500k instead of $1m+?

Would kids stop playing football at junior level?

TAC probably does more harm than good to young kids who also play at school level, a relative of mine went through the TAC recently at a high level, was taught nothing, no help preparing for AFL level football, most TAC kids play too much footy, a lot develop OP from being over-worked. Most of the kids can't kick a footy properly, and need to have their skills overhauled at club level, most can't kick on the opposite foot at all. My relative was drafted based on natural ability alone.

There are so many fingers in the pie making a living out of football and it is very dubious how much it actually benefits the game.

What we have is a lot of athletes running around who have found more money in AFL than any amatuer running based competition. I'd rather see clubs safe and secure than seeing all the hangers on benefit. If Carlton dumped all their players for a bunch of players who wanted to bleed for the navy blue would you give a flying * if all these current posers took a hike?

 

[telsor]

You understand the premise that the revenue only exists if the clubs exist. You can't focus on who you are going to give the money to if the clubs that you need to generate the revenue all go under.

If even one club goes under (which it wont) a massive wad of that revenue would vanish, a lot more than what the AFL give to that club in any given year. Thus the AFL has to focus on the wellbeing of the clubs before it worries about to whom else it gives money to.

If one club went under, another club would spring up. TV rights says 18 clubs, not which clubs, or where they play. The players are under contract to the AFL, so they'd be paying them anyway, might as well setup a club in Tas (for example).

 

[Tas]

Because I'm pointing out that the views of you and your fellow north supporters were very different when it was your club in dire straights.

You are being a melodramatic.

There wasn't a North supporter that wasn't furious with our administration.

If you go to the Saints board you will find there aren't Saints supporters making excuses for what their administration has done either.

I am not saying the AFL shouldn't help them. I am suggesting the AFL should make a statement for the sake of creditors that they will support the Saints, because without that support you wouldn't be confident of recovering your debt otherwise with negative net assets and the bank having first dibs on anything recovered.

 

[telsor]

Do you think there would be a shortage of AFL players if the average payment was $150k instead of $300k and the highest paid players were getting $500k instead of $1m+?

Do you think top juniors who are good at multiple sports don't consider the potential income?

 

[telsor]

You are being a melodramatic.

There wasn't a North supporter that wasn't furious with our administration.

If you go to the Saints board you will find there aren't Saints supporters making excuses for what their administration has done either.

I am not saying the AFL shouldn't help them. I am suggesting the AFL should make a statement for the sake of creditors that they will support the Saints, because without that support you wouldn't be confident of recovering your debt otherwise with negative net assets and the bank having first dibs on anything recovered.

So your belief then was that your club should have cut back more on football dept spending?

That they should have played out their contracted time on the Gold Coast and tried harder to develop the game/support there?

When you had a new administration (as St Kilda largely does now), you didn't give them a fresh start (how many were there when they left St Kilda/moved to Frankston, which you're blaming them for).

 

[Tas]

If one club went under, another club would spring up. TV rights says 18 clubs, not which clubs, or where they play. The players are under contract to the AFL, so they'd be paying them anyway, might as well setup a club in Tas (for example).

Tasmania can't afford to run a club on their own, sucking even more AFL resources is probably not a great alternative.

 

[Tas]

Do you think top juniors who are good at multiple sports don't consider the potential income?

Everyone considers the income. But we have thousands of players playing in the amateur ranks, most playing for little more than drink money, some doing okay, getting more than rookies are getting. The game would still go on and be a quality product even if we weren't over-paying players.

 

[Tas]

So your belief then was that your club should have cut back more on football dept spending?

That they should have played out their contracted time on the Gold Coast and tried harder to develop the game/support there?

When you had a new administration (as St Kilda largely does now), you didn't give them a fresh start (how many were there when they left St Kilda/moved to Frankston, which you're blaming them for).

Err, we weren't in dire financial trouble when the AFL tried to shiv us, we were already paying minimum TPP and paying barebones football department spending and were breaking even. Seeing Carlton and Collingwood whine because they had a few sunday games, try copping the s**t like North, Dogs (and Saints now cop) with the shitacular timeslots and dud root teams non-stop, year after ******* year.

If is ******* impossible to make any decent money or get more supporters and it is a hard slog to survive with the AFL distributions not even covering player payments which they agree to keep rising up irrespective what they give to clubs.

It has been a crap deal for a long time, mostly for the smaller clubs.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

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.

The operating surplus is after the cost of running the competition is removed. Out of the rest they fund the under 18s, 5 state leagues and other development too. Not to mention the future fund and other essential parts of running a major competition.

If the clubs are distributed 209 million of 446 million, then the clubs are distributed more than 40% of the leagues total revenue before expenses, and nearly 60% of the surplus.

The official base in 2013 was $7.196mil each club got that amount
+ unofficial base of $1.2mil which was the 2007-12 TV monies and repeated in 2012-16 period each club gets this amount
+ $575k 2012-16 TV monies each club gets this amount and its $500k, $575k,$650k,$725k and $800k over the 5 years.

These 3 amounts are the true base and basically paid the $9.139mil salary cap amount in 2013 for each club.

The players put on the game they should get at least 1/4 of AFL industry revenues - over time it should work its way up to between 1/3 and 1/2.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Christ almighty, give it a ******* rest.

 

[Gigantor]

Because I'm pointing out that the views of you and your fellow north supporters were very different when it was your club in dire straights.

Let me tell you strait: it's a case of money for nothing...

 

[Kwality]

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?

Why Financials need to be interpreted & why the footy media buy the PR spin lock, stock & barrel.

 

[Kwality]

Christ almighty, give it a ******* rest.

A North supporter unable to wear critical comment. In this case what was said is fair enough IMHO.

 

[Kwality]

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.

Going forward the Ryan Griffin deal, the Tom Boyd deal will the subject of close scrutiny.