AFL Rich List: Your club's finances rated

[DrMike]

Almost need to move St Kilda to WA

 

[Tas]

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.

Given what WAFC charges Perth people for access to footy, even charging to wait on a waiting list, I think they should be a lot stronger.

 

[Shoei]

Seriously? That's insane.

How do you think we give the players so many Hookers and so much Coke?

 

[catters05]

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

Further investing into the club.

 

[beerbandit]

Winning

 

[the harry]

Given what WAFC charges Perth people for access to footy, even charging to wait on a waiting list, I think they should be a lot stronger.

We paid more to the commission last year than North have profited in the last two, and we still made a profit 100x greater than Norths in 2014.

Further investing into the club.

It is actually an 7% drop in your revenues from 2013 than caused the loss. There is not a significant increase in any expenditure that relates to "further investing into the club".

 

[catters05]

It is actually an 7% drop in your revenues from 2013 than caused the loss. There is not a significant increase in any expenditure that relates to "further investing into the club".

So, the $800K spent on assets and capital projects wouldn't be classed as investing in the club? You remove that, and we have a profit.

 

[Bloody]

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

Richmond so close to ninth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Inferno]

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.

We've ran losses fairly often the last decade or so, mostly due to investing truckloads of money into redeveloping Kardinia Park.

 

[Tas]

We paid more to the commission last year than North have profited in the last two, and we still made a profit 100x greater than Norths in 2014.

You realise it is a non-profit organisation, ripping off supporters isn't the objective.

 

[Power Raid]

PAFC still has a long way to go to stabilise the business. Hopefully we end up with our own licence, our own board and a sensible stadium agreement.

 

[Piss Poor]

well looking at this to me basically tells me it doesn't matter how much money your club has, because it would make no difference to on field performance.
Westcoast Eagles are the proof.
played 2 finals in eight years and this year already looks like a flop with Emac going down.
Money doesn't effect on field so this stat really isn't going to make your club better, so its useless info to the fan.
just saying

 

[The_Wookie]

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.

There'll be a follow up next week that puts this into some perspective. This was purely based on revenue. the responses arent unexpected.

 

[Kwality]

You realise it is a non-profit organisation, ripping off supporters isn't the objective.

Nor is it a business that is charging the going rate - ripping off: people are queuing to go to the games. sadly you appear so disillusioned by your experience with your own club that it is your norm, yours but not others.
Has living on hand outs jaundiced your view of a successful club, yet you accept milking Tas taxpayers as all good & well.

 

[Kwality]

There'll be a follow up next week that puts this into some perspective. This was purely based on revenue. the responses arent unexpected.

researched?

 

[The_Wookie]

researched?

I dont appreciate the insinuation. Theres nothing wrong with any of the information in the article in the article. Its literally ripped entirely from the annual reports of each club.

 

[the harry]

You realise it is a non-profit organisation, ripping off supporters isn't the objective.

Non-for profit does not mean financially not viable.

 

[tige19]

Waiting for Richmond supporters to claim they will overrun Collingwood for members and Hawthorn are not a big club post....

 

[The_Reaper]

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

We made that in a spoon year didn't we?

You realise it is a non-profit organisation, ripping off supporters isn't the objective.

So North doesn't benefit from Western Australian draftees?

What keeps Western Australian football afloat?

 

[dazbroncos]

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.

We make a loss by playing 7 home games a year AT OUR HOME GROUND. The other 4 are at the MCG or Etihad. And of course, the home final we got at KP then meant that we lost another home game the following year to make up for the AFL contacts.

Then of course, we have to pay 300k to the equalisation fund on a profit of 1.2 million (25%) the previous year while the Pies and Hawks get to pay 500k on their 5.1 million profit. ( 10%). So we pay a higher % than the clubs that made more money than we did.

Oh , and that stadium deal you talk of… you mean the one we have put 15 million of our cash into….


Pretty simple really. We are pushing it uphill.

Go Catters

 

[Paul Kersey]

Ranking by revenue is odd and reporting assets only in the summary is only showing you one side of the balance sheet. Key stats I'd look for are net profit, net asset position and some liquidity ratios. I'd also be interested in seeing how certain non current assets are measured and reported by clubs.

 

[dazbroncos]

I dont appreciate the insinuation. Theres nothing wrong with any of the information in the article in the article. Its literally ripped entirely from the annual reports of each club.

Great insight well surmised.

GO Catters

 

[bombersfan4000]

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 =>

that sponsorship in the article he is talking about includes merchandise sales of
19.3 million

Essendons sponsorship level was at 17.6 million & merchandise sales was at 3.1 million, when combined like the Collingwood one equals 20.7 million

how can you rank Hawthorn, second, their total revenue is boosted by 18 million from poker & gaming revenue machine revenue & selling of home games .


so basically a case of who owns most poker & gaming machines head the list, WCE & Freo are disadvantaged by this due to the current WA laws. at least base the revenue list on football related income with gaming money taken out
in that case the list would be
1 West Coast Eagles
2 Essendon
3 Collingwood
4 Fremantle
5 Hawthorn

 

[Hawkk]

that sponsorship in the article he is talking about includes merchandise sales of
19.3 million

Essendons sponsorship level was at 17.6 million & merchandise sales was at 3.1 million, when combined like the Collingwood one equals 20.7 million

how can you rank Hawthorn, second, their total revenue is boosted by 18 million from poker & gaming revenue machine revenue & selling of home games .


so basically a case of who owns most poker & gaming machines head the list, WCE & Freo are disadvantaged by this due to the current WA laws. at least base the revenue list on football related income with gaming money taken out
in that case the list would be
1 West Coast Eagles
2 Essendon
3 Collingwood
4 Fremantle
5 Hawthorn

Hi brisbane13

Pokies, Tassie and pet memberships...true to form

 

[bombersfan4000]

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."

no rob is right, the Pies & Hawks are only in good shape financially due to their large poke ownership