AFL Clubs 2012 Annual Reports

[The_Wookie]

something very off there - I would have lost my house if you asked to be bet that Adelaide has a lower revenue than Port. Is this something to do with the whole Magpies separate entity issue that recently resolved?

Dont know, but its categorically true.

2010 - Adelaide (not released), Port (36.6 million)
2011 - Adelaide (30.5 million), Port (37 million)
2010 - Adelaide (29.6 million), Port (31.9 million)
2009 - Adelaide (29.4 million), Port (31.9 million)
2008 - Adelaide (26.2 million), Port (32.4 million)

It gets better too when it comes to sponsorship

2012: Neither club has released
2011: Adelaide (9.5 million), Port (16.2 million)
2010: Adelaide (9.7 million), Port (15.7 Million)
2009: Adelaide (9.2 million), Port (14 million)
2008: Adelaide (8.3 million), Port (15.6 million)

How the hell Port is losing 4 million a year baffles me.

 

[Sidebottom2Beams]

Hasn't Kochie taken over them now, hopefully he can pull it all into line but that seems rather odd.

 

[Papa G]

Dont know, but its categorically true.

2010 - Adelaide (not released), Port (36.6 million)
2011 - Adelaide (30.5 million), Port (37 million)
2010 - Adelaide (29.6 million), Port (31.9 million)
2009 - Adelaide (29.4 million), Port (31.9 million)
2008 - Adelaide (26.2 million), Port (32.4 million)

It gets better too when it comes to sponsorship

2012: Neither club has released
2011: Adelaide (9.5 million), Port (16.2 million)
2010: Adelaide (9.7 million), Port (15.7 Million)
2009: Adelaide (9.2 million), Port (14 million)
2008: Adelaide (8.3 million), Port (15.6 million)

How the hell Port is losing 4 million a year baffles me.

Crowds. Every time we get less than 26,000?? (which has been a lot lately) we write the SANFL a cheque. Those figures are obviously very rubbery as well. There is no way in hell we'd get more sponsorship dollars than the Clowns.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Dont know, but its categorically true.

2010 - Adelaide (not released), Port (36.6 million)
2011 - Adelaide (30.5 million), Port (37 million)
2010 - Adelaide (29.6 million), Port (31.9 million)
2009 - Adelaide (29.4 million), Port (31.9 million)
2008 - Adelaide (26.2 million), Port (32.4 million)

How the hell Port is losing 4 million a year baffles me.

not doubting you mate, just looking through them with Vic eyes doesn't make sense.

If you read their presser, they are down $250k in membership, which ain't great, but even if they have a similar drop in merchandise and sponsorship, it doesn't hit $4m

 

[Kwality]

Doing the 5 year comparisons at the moment, cant finish it without this years results, but along the way ive tried to separate the club data from the WAFC data in their reports, that should be doable by pulling the WAFC income and expense (which is separately listed) from the consolidated results. At least we'll get a revenue idea from it. Fun notes:

The combined finances of Freo and West Coast have not topped 80 million between them, on average putting them somewhere around Carltons level of funding, while still making a joint profit of around over 2-3 million. Adelaides revenue figures actually make the Bulldogs look good, cosnsistently 30 million or below - and not paying the SANFL 1/5th of what the WA clubs are to the WAFC. Ports revenue figures are actually better - but still nowhere near the top 5 or 6 melbourne clubs. Something is really off in Adelaide.

• Adelaide, a supposed powerhouse, have less revenue than almost every other AFL club including Port
• Port Adelaide managed to lose money on Matchday revenue three years out of the last five
• Ports royalty feees are about the same as what a victorian AFL club would pay to run a VFL club (about 350k)
• Adelaide and Port both have sub 1,000,000 merchandise sales 4 out of the last 5 years - and i havent got the 2012 results yet.

Revenue?

No pokies revenue?

Comparing apples with pomegranites?

What is matchday revenue?

Oh for some accounting standards in reporting !~!

 

[2010premier]

Really?
So what was all that talk re it would have to be supported by the AFL forever and a day then?

Aided by the best stadium deal in the country. They made 300K from a bloody Foo Fighters concert apparently. 8000 is break even and 18000 gets them 500K in the bank. Southport Sharks tip in 1.5 mill a year and the AFL switched to Virgin to get them a major sponsor. If they can just start winning a few games I've got no doubt they will hold their own financially.

 

[Cmarsh]

Aided by the best stadium deal in the country. They made 300K from a bloody Foo Fighters concert apparently. 8000 is break even and 18000 gets them 500K in the bank. Southport Sharks tip in 1.5 mill a year and the AFL switched to Virgin to get them a major sponsor. If they can just start winning a few games I've got no doubt they will hold their own financially.

Very interesting thanks for the info. Can't see how they will ever be in danger of folding with those kind of strong revenue streams.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

not doubting you mate, just looking through them with Vic eyes doesn't make sense.

If you read their presser, they are down $250k in membership, which ain't great, but even if they have a similar drop in merchandise and sponsorship, it doesn't hit $4m

The crows like the eagles don't have a pub/social venue. Port has had marginally more income than the crows for years because of the social venue that breaks even. Then we started getting SANFL grants. When the PAFC Ltd merged with the PAMFC Inc just after the start of the 2011 financial year about $4.6mil was added to the PAFC Ltd's accounts approx $1.3mil in football revenue of the Magpies and $3.3mil from the pub they have the leasehold over.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The crows like the eagles don't have a pub/social venue. Port has had marginally more income than the crows for years because of the social venue that breaks even. Then we started getting SANFL grants. When the PAFC Ltd merged with the PAMFC Inc just after the start of the 2011 financial year about $4.6mil was added to the PAFC Ltd's accounts approx $1.3mil in football revenue of the Magpies and $3.3mil from the pub they have the leasehold over.

THanks mate, given these joints can turnover around $4-6m (ports two are $6m), if you added that to the crows figure it starts to paint a different picture. Any reason the crows haven't gotten into pokies or pubs like most clubs have?

Also do you know how the $4m Port loss was made up?

 

[Kwality]

THanks mate, given these joints can turnover around $4-6m (ports two are $6m), if you added that to the crows figure it starts to paint a different picture. Any reason the crows haven't gotten into pokies or pubs like most clubs have?

Also do you know how the $4m Port loss was made up?

Gold mines are they?
The Pies did well this year it appears, but they dropped $8mil a few years back - commercial risk includes losing money.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Gold mines are they?
The Pies did well this year it appears, but they dropped $8mil a few years back - commercial risk includes losing money.

Like any investment, you have to manage them properly. No argument they don't just rain money because you put the club logo on the door.

Main reason clubs have gotten into them here is it provides a non footy income stream that is uneffected by downturns in the footy teams performance. Maybe not needed for crows/eagles as they are effectively state sides and less effected by these downturns?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

THanks mate, given these joints can turnover around $4-6m (ports two are $6m), if you added that to the crows figure it starts to paint a different picture. Any reason the crows haven't gotten into pokies or pubs like most clubs have?

Also do you know how the $4m Port loss was made up?

They weren't a traditional club so they didn't have a social venue and the SANFL wanted people drinking and gambing at their established venue at Football Park rather than spend money on a new one. It was dubbed the crows tavern but the revenue went to the SANFL. The new Westpac Centre changed that somewhat but is still a relatively small operation compared to other clubs' social venues.

Since the GFC Port's revenue's have remained pretty stagnant ( except for adding in revenue from merger but the magpies were a break even proposition - or a small loss) and costs have increased markedly, both football (about $3mil)and non football over the last 4 years.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

They weren't a traditional club so they didn't have a social venue and the SANFL wanted people drinking and gambing at their established venue at Football Park rather than spend money on a new one. It was dubbed the crows tavern but the revenue went to the SANFL. The new Westpac Centre changed that somewhat but is still a relatively small operation compared to other clubs' social venues.

Since the GFC Port's revenue's have remained pretty stagnant ( except for adding in revenue from merger but the magpies were a break even proposition - or a small loss) and costs have increased markedly, both football (about $3mil)and non football over the last 4 years.

Thanks mate, between this sjit, the license fee payments, and the ground returns, no wonder you lot are happy to have the AFL buy the license back!

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Thanks mate, between this sjit, the license fee payments, and the ground returns, no wonder you lot are happy to have the AFL buy the license back!

Good to see you have seen the light! We have been telling people for years its a stupid set up. I can't think of any other national sports competition in the developed world were a club in the no.1 sporting comp, has to be so subservient to a state league and completely screwed it over, whilst trying to compete in a national league against clubs who don't have this rubbish set up and one arm tied behind its back.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Good to see you have seen the light! We have been telling people for years its a stupid set up. I can't think of any other national sports competition in the developed world were a club in the no.1 sporting comp, has to be so subservient to a state league and completely screwed it over, whilst trying to compete in a national league against clubs who don't have this rubbish set up and one arm tied behind its back.

I've actually been on your side (been a big fan of the move to AO for this reason), but I can't believe they even interfere in the Crows looking at pub options.

You guys being "Port Adelaide" in a single entity again, the sale of the licences to the AFL, and the move to AO will all be good for the SA teams IMO.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying on the loss situation

 

[Kwality]

Good to see you have seen the light! We have been telling people for years its a stupid set up. I can't think of any other national sports competition in the developed world were a club in the no.1 sporting comp, has to be so subservient to a state league and completely screwed it over, whilst trying to compete in a national league against clubs who don't have this rubbish set up and one arm tied behind its back.

Do you subscribe to the claim all will be good at Adelaide Oval?

If yes, based on what info?

 

[The_Wookie]

Do you subscribe to the claim all will be good at Adelaide Oval?

If yes, based on what info?

Personally I dont think that Adelaide Oval will be the sole factor, AFL ownership will be a major part. Take a look at other AFL clubs and how wee they've done for sponsorship and stadium deals. No one in footy negotiates like the AFL. The AFL isnt going to sign a bad deal for Port at Adelaide Oval, certainly not when its pitching in AFL money for it - the SANFL might on Ports behalf though and that would be part of the reason the SANFL could hold up the license sale beyond next season.

At the end of the day, the AFL will take ownership of a Port Adelaide that has taken several years of multimillion dollar losses and either get a good deal or point out that the license could go elsewhere if SA isnt going to be profitable.

 

[Kwality]

Personally I dont think that Adelaide Oval will be the sole factor, AFL ownership will be a major part. Take a look at other AFL clubs and how wee they've done for sponsorship and stadium deals. No one in footy negotiates like the AFL. The AFL isnt going to sign a bad deal for Port at Adelaide Oval, certainly not when its pitching in AFL money for it - the SANFL might on Ports behalf though and that would be part of the reason the SANFL could hold up the license sale beyond next season.

At the end of the day, the AFL will take ownership of a Port Adelaide that has taken several years of multimillion dollar losses and either get a good deal or point out that the license could go elsewhere if SA isnt going to be profitable.

Admire your optimism Wookie, afraid I dont share it.
The SACA, the SANFL, the Ultimate Club have already cherrypicked the seating with the club members well back - its the Melbourne template though at both the MCG & Docklands.
Many Melbourne clubs are unhappy with their stadium deals, just the Pies & Bombers happy?

As for any threat of relocating the Port licence, they will be locked in to a stadium deal at Adelaide Oval.

 

[The_Wookie]

Admire your optimism Wookie, afraid I dont share it.
The SACA, the SANFL, the Ultimate Club have already cherrypicked the seating with the club members well back - its the Melbourne template though at both the MCG & Docklands.
Many Melbourne clubs are unhappy with their stadium deals, just the Pies & Bombers happy?

As for any threat of relocating the Port licence, they will be locked in to a stadium deal at Adelaide Oval.

Several Melbourne clubs actually have no deals (St Kilda and North, and probably the Bulldogs). Can hold a club to a contract if its broke either. The AFL will simply argue that financial circumstances require the winding up of the Port license if it cant turn a profit. It is one thing to rip off a club you effectively own, its quite another to rip off the AFL.

 

[The_Wookie]

OP updated to include Melbournes results.

Still waiting for

• Collingwood (statement released)
• North (statement released)
• Port (statement released)
• West Coast
• Fremantle
• Adelaide
• Sydney
• GWS/Gold Coast

 

[The_Wookie]

Fun bit from the annual reports:

Information based entirely from annual reports and a quote from Gary March about membership revenue on the richmond website.
Note several clubs include gate reciepts with their membership and seating totals. These include Geelong Brisbane, St Kilda.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Do you subscribe to the claim all will be good at Adelaide Oval?

If yes, based on what info?

Not until i see what the stadium deal is. The deal wont be a clean stadium deal but if it allows for a low break even figure then that's good and if we have plenty of corporate space to sell compared to the one area at football Park, and we can sell advertising then even better. And if we can have access to some of the corporate facilities 24/7 during footy season and set up a merchandise presence there for a peppercorn rent then that's good. The SuiteOne corporate area at AO which is bigger than the one at Football Park is Port's to sell 365 days a year for functions at no cost. Stuff like this has to be worked into the deal.

If we get 30,000 average crowds again, driven by selling 9,000 extra PAFC 11 game season tickets/memberships, as projected, then Adelaide Oval solves half our problems. I can see us doing that in season 1 and season 2 when its a shinny new stadium, but after that if the NBN fully rolls out and the AFL sell games via the NBN and live against the gate continues then who bloody knows when its no longer a brand new toy.

But the fact that less than $60mil was spent on Kardinia Park and about 85% of that came from the 3 levels of government and Geelong has gone from a cyclical club to a bullet proof club when they draw 25,000 and at AO the taxpayer is putting up half a billion dollars and it looks like the 2 major revenue generators will only be marginally better off, then you know its a BS process. The government has to step in before the deal is finalised and demand the 2 AFL clubs get a bigger slice of the pie than what has been described out in the media.

Basically the SA government has to tell the SANFL to * off.

 

[manicmagpie]

Fun bit from the annual reports:

Information based entirely from annual reports and a quote from Gary March about membership revenue on the richmond website.
Note several clubs include gate reciepts with their membership and seating totals. These include Geelong Brisbane, St Kilda.

As per the Collingwood website, the Pies' membership revenue was $16,200,000 from 73,605 members, or a bit over $220 per member.

 

[The_Wookie]

As per the Collingwood website, the Pies' membership revenue was $16,200,000 from 73,605 members, or a bit over $220 per member.

Yes, but they dont accounbt separately for gate receipts either. In most annual reports where this is the case, gate reciepts are counted with membership and reserved seating. I cant confirm that until I see an annual report

 

[manicmagpie]

Yes, but they dont accounbt separately for gate receipts either. In most annual reports where this is the case, gate reciepts are counted with membership and reserved seating. I cant confirm that until I see an annual report

Yeah, going by previous years that figure won't include gate receipts, but need to wait for the report. No idea why it doesn't get put up sooner.