AFL Rich List: Your club's finances rated

[Chief]

http://www.bigfooty.com/news/2015/03/afl-rich-list-your-clubs-finances-rated/

Jason Lassey writes:

AFL finances are an often murky and misunderstood area.

We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue.

1. Collingwood

• Ownership structure: Membership, Limited by Guarantee
• 2014 Revenue: $76,256,915
• 2014 Profit: $2,017,992
• 2014 Assets: $51,330,691
• 2014 Annual Report

The Pies benefit from a huge membership (80,000+ in 2014), no debt, almost 20 million in sponsorship, league best facilities at Westpac Centre, and a profitable gaming venue that deliver almost $24 million to the bottom line.

The Pies 14th straight profit comes despite an almost $900,000 hit from the AFL’s new equalisation tax, and despite not playing in the finals.

...

Full Article with all teams =>

 

[RUNVS]

It would be interesting to see what each club spends on their football department.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Excellent.

 

[Kwality]

View attachment 114346
http://www.bigfooty.com/news/2015/03/afl-rich-list-your-clubs-finances-rated/

Jason Lassey writes:

AFL finances are an often murky and misunderstood area.

We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue.

1. Collingwood

• Ownership structure: Membership, Limited by Guarantee
• 2014 Revenue: $76,256,915
• 2014 Profit: $2,017,992
• 2014 Assets: $51,330,691
• 2014 Annual Report

The Pies benefit from a huge membership (80,000+ in 2014), no debt, almost 20 million in sponsorship, league best facilities at Westpac Centre, and a profitable gaming venue that deliver almost $24 million to the bottom line.

The Pies 14th straight profit comes despite an almost $900,000 hit from the AFL’s new equalisation tax, and despite not playing in the finals.

...

Full Article with all teams =>

14th straight profit claim seems to indicate no research AT ALL.

With the claimed $24 mil to the bottom line from a gaming venue (how many venues do they have?), and a declared profit of $2mil, is that saying they lost $22mil on footy operations, despite the claimed benefit of membership, of no debt, of $20mil in sponsorship .... rich list maybe, but are these numbers fair dinkum?

 

[dewah07]

Well it's time to relocate us

More serious tho once we get rid of our edihad deal along with we just got a sponser this year we should and a member base getting behind the club we should be allright

 

[the harry]

Geelong made a loss?! How the hell do they manage that with their stadium deal?

Eagles with a lazy $39 million in equity is alright.

Edit: We should be higher in terms of financial health, the Hawks have significantly more debt than us, while Collingwood have more debt, and less assets.

 

[Rob]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters. They have $50 million cash in the bank FFS. Some clubs' only major asset is buildings on land they don't own.

 

[Iron]

Adelaide: 15th probably

Hey fingers crossed right?

 

[Chief]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters. They have $50 million cash in the bank FFS. Some clubs' only major asset is buildings on land they don't own.

ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue.

 

[Zahki]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters.

Is it really that hard to read the 2nd sentence of the article?

"We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue."

 

[Rob]

Is it really that hard to read the 2nd sentence of the article?

"We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue."

Hence why I was disappointed with the lack of insight. Ranking clubs based solely on revenue doesn't give you much idea of club finances at all.

 

[the harry]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters. They have $50 million cash in the bank FFS. Some clubs' only major asset is buildings on land they don't own.

I didn't realise we had that much cash, exceeds total liabilities by almost $35million.

 

[the harry]

Is it really that hard to read the 2nd sentence of the article?

"We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue."

I missed that, whoops.

Went straight to balance sheets to check financial health.

 

[Chief]

Hence why I was disappointed with the lack of insight. Ranking clubs based solely on revenue doesn't give you much idea of club finances at all.

What would your ranked list look like?

 

[Kwality]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters. They have $50 million cash in the bank FFS. Some clubs' only major asset is buildings on land they don't own.

Drivel or dribble? Poor at best. All he had to do was search the clubs not needing AFL guarantees to get a first pass on who is who.

The AFL guarantees enable clubs to secure a line of credit at a cheaper interest rate than banks would otherwise offer, if at all, to businesses facing similar financial difficulties. A quick google revealed an article, dated sure, but a guide to what may be.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...ield-financially/story-fnca0u4y-1226822011769

Surely any serious attempt at an article on this subject would see which clubs needed an AFL guarantee in their 2014 financials.

 

[Rob]

What would your ranked list look like?

Based on overall financial health?

West Coast
Collingwood
Hawthorn
Fremantle
Essendon
Adelaide
Geelong
Richmond
Sydney
Carlton
Port Adelaide
Melbourne
North
Bulldogs
Brisbane
St Kilda
Gold Coast
GWS

 

[the harry]

Interesting, if all else remains equal and the Swans get a 5% of so drop off in sponsorship and match day intake, along with slightly less prize money ($600k for making the GF) they could be technically insolvent within 12 months.

Is this one of the biggest issues in the competition currently? That a club who was going for a second flag in 3 years and had just signed one of the best players in the competition to a massive deal can be this financially unhealthy?

 

[Golden_6]

What would the clubs assets entail? I noticed the dogs have greater deal of assets compared to most. Obviously that would be very good financially? Or am I missing something. I know they still have a fair amount of debt to pay off though.

 

[Kwality]

Is it really that hard to read the 2nd sentence of the article?

"We hope to shed some light on them for you by ranking the AFL clubs in terms of revenue."

Ranking has a meaning, its a list based on revenue.

And what shenanigans can be at play when its suggested the Pies have 14 straight profits:

... the damage of the club's decision to invest in a couple in late 2006.

When Collingwood publicly announced it had secured leaseholds on the Beach Hotel in Albert Park and Diamond Creek Tavern, officials spruiked the ventures as lucrative revenue streams, as well as opportunities that would allow fans to mix with heroes.
The Footy Show even crossed live one night to a Collingwood function at The Beach.

Two years later, the leases have been sold, with $8 million wiped from Collingwood's books.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-for-collingwood/story-e6frf36c-1111118282531


Is this an attempt to rewrite history? Try and google Mr Demetriou's comments about the VFL being a redneck competition, its gone, gawn ... a bit of revisionism?

 

[the harry]

What would the clubs assets entail? I noticed the dogs have greater deal of assets compared to most. Obviously that would be very good financially? Or am I missing something. I know they still have a fair amount of debt to pay off though.

Bulldogs have 25k in food and liquor and 70k in merch (they let it drop from $330k the previous year, this will help their 2014 profit because they essentially sold merch last year that they bought the previous years so for the calender year they only recorded the revenue and not the expense).

They have $700k in "goodwill", which is kind of like the value of a brand or a name of a business that has been purchased. You know there is this value above what the bank balance is, but it doesn't have a real way to measure it, it's intangible. Goodwill annoys me but it's not a bad thing.

The main this is "Whitten Oval and Leasehold Improvements" of $28 million though (a huge portion of your assets). Without knowing the exact detail or bothering to read too much, I'm going to assume that the land is owned by the government, but the building on it is owned by the bulldogs? Other clubs may not have such arrangements.

As for more assets being good financially, it depends. If I go to a bank and get a $100k loan to buy a $100k house (ignoring the reality of deposits and things like that), am I better off than someone with just $20k in cash? Sure I have a house, but technically I owe the bank the exact value of everything I have. If I was to sell up and pay the bank back I'd have $0 while the guy with $20k would still have $20k. The important thing is generally the difference between what you have and what you owe.

This is all just from having a quick look through the annual report but I'd say the dogs are doing alright, especially given the year on field. You're in better health than Sydney I'd say.

 

[Kwality]

What would the clubs assets entail? I noticed the dogs have greater deal of assets compared to most. Obviously that would be very good financially? Or am I missing something. I know they still have a fair amount of debt to pay off though.

Most of the $30 mil + is money spent at Whitten Oval:

Whitten Oval and leasehold improvements

Opening carrying amount 29,176,978
Additions 85,164
Depreciation expense (927,267)
Closing carrying amount 28,334,875

As an asset I'd suggest it has a realisable value of $zilch IMHO - but its not for sale so its accounting treatment is fair & reasonable. In summary 6, its nothing to get excited about.

 

[Shoei]

Interesting, if all else remains equal and the Swans get a 5% of so drop off in sponsorship and match day intake, along with slightly less prize money ($600k for making the GF) they could be technically insolvent within 12 months.

Is this one of the biggest issues in the competition currently? That a club who was going for a second flag in 3 years and had just signed one of the best players in the competition to a massive deal can be this financially unhealthy?

"But there's money in here somewhere!?"

 

[Ambrosia]

A bit disappointing with the lack of insight.

Any list of AFL club finances that doesn't have West Coast at #1 and daylight #2 really doesn't show much understanding of off-field matters. They have $50 million cash in the bank FFS. Some clubs' only major asset is buildings on land they don't own.

Seriously? That's insane.

 

[the harry]

Seriously? That's insane.

Oh c'mon, you guys have.... $1.77million. That's pretty good too

 

[WCErevival]

Its no wonder we have that much cash when we are profiting over 4 million in a non finals year.