Analysis Richmond Tigers record $500,000 profit

[Ned_Flanders]

I think the point was, the company should be making a profit w/o this assistance. Look at last year, there was about 500k to the JDF, but we made 1.3m, which could be looked at as a profit of 800k before donations. Its not that we don't want the facility, just that we should be doing better. Imo the way we accountant for things, makes it harder to discern where things are.

If you are going to take our JDF money, you have to take out all the spending it's used for (ie the recent refurb of the punt road stands, and internal refurb of the Facility

This exact same thing happened when we built the joint. Revenues went up massively when the govt grants were received, but later expenses massively rose as those funds were being spent

You have to include both in your reporting, or the ato will lose their s**t

 

[theflea]

Except the money from the JDF can only be used for improvements, not go towards the cash in the bank, so we have to spend it on the facilities. As such the money from the JDF has been earned and spent. The profit stands alone.

Where you spend it isn't in question and it isn't separated in the bottom line. I just wanted to know why our FD revenue is lower.

 

[theflea]

If you are going to take our JDF money, you have to take out all the spending it's used for (ie the recent refurb of the punt road stands, and internal refurb of the Facility

This exact same thing happened when we built the joint. Revenues went up massively when the govt grants were received, but later expenses massively rose as those funds were being spent

You have to include both in your reporting, or the ato will lose their s**t

Absolutely, but it still doesn't get to my question about FD revenue.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Absolutely, but it still doesn't get to my question about FD revenue.

I'm gunna back right up, because the terms you are using may be causing confusion

There is no such thing as footy dept revenue. The footy dept is purely a cost entry on our annual report. As such, your phrase could mean one of two areas:

1) footy support expense
This is the cost of running the footy dept EXCLUDING staff. So if we expanded the Dept, this figure wouldn't change. It will only change if our other costs rise or fall. Now some of these costs will be static, thinks like footies and bandages. However if the club has a year where they buy a lot of equipment, or has a bad year medically, you will get one off rises.

Most people are wanting more staff, so the growth will be in the employment figure, not this one.

2) game day revenue
You won't get this figure, unless the afl release it next year. Receipts from footy ops is nearly entirely out afl dividend. Off memory about $12m of the $14m is from the afl (don't quote numbers, going off memory).

The remaining $2m rough amount I think is net gate receipts

The other figure of marketing reciepts is a combined figure which includes sponsorships, memberships, merchandise, corporates, and so on. The club usually never breaks this down, and in the past has only released a membership revenue number based upon net revenue per member.



Now I suspect you are referring to (2) in which case the answer would be a possible three parter.

Firstly we lost the carton share gate, which was a six figure hit. Secondly clubs for the past few years have been receiving their afl grants for the future fund. Ours was related to the jack dyer stand and spectator amenities for PRO mostly (I believe). As the bulk of this work was completed before 2015, we would have received less this year from the afl I'm guessing than 2014

Finally we have the increase in members. As this is a marketing revenue and not a footy revenue, any rise would transfer income away from "football" to marketing. With our strong growth in membership, a flattening/fall in the gate was inevitable

 

[Cotchin 9]

I'm sure we all remember how exciting is was when we were kids waking up on Christmas day to open our presents.

Well, Christmas has come early for us Tiger fans this year.

Our presents and gifts have already arrived, as we should all be sitting here in wonderous expectation about what the 2009 season will deliver to us.

A much deserved finals appearance, and what's even more thriling is knowing that this time next year we'll have seen the realisation of TW's magnificient vision and deliverance of the Tiger resurgance

Yes, there are exciting, truly mesmerising times ahead for us Tiger fans.

Join me in celebrating, and being genuinely thrilled about the next few seasons at Richmond.

Well done, just a huge resounding well done to TW and his team of top notch assistants for ensuring that every Tiger fans can have a joyous 2008 festive season, safe in the knowledge that 2009 onwards will yield the sweet fruits of a fantastic 5 year vision.

 

[theflea]

I'm gunna back right up, because the terms you are using may be causing confusion

There is no such thing as footy dept revenue. The footy dept is purely a cost entry on our annual report. As such, your phrase could mean one of two areas:

1) footy support expense
This is the cost of running the footy dept EXCLUDING staff. So if we expanded the Dept, this figure wouldn't change. It will only change if our other costs rise or fall. Now some of these costs will be static, thinks like footies and bandages. However if the club has a year where they buy a lot of equipment, or has a bad year medically, you will get one off rises.

Most people are wanting more staff, so the growth will be in the employment figure, not this one.

2) game day revenue
You won't get this figure, unless the afl release it next year. Receipts from footy ops is nearly entirely out afl dividend. Off memory about $12m of the $14m is from the afl (don't quote numbers, going off memory).

The remaining $2m rough amount I think is net gate receipts

The other figure of marketing reciepts is a combined figure which includes sponsorships, memberships, merchandise, corporates, and so on. The club usually never breaks this down, and in the past has only released a membership revenue number based upon net revenue per member.



Now I suspect you are referring to (2) in which case the answer would be a possible three parter.

Firstly we lost the carton share gate, which was a six figure hit. Secondly clubs for the past few years have been receiving their afl grants for the future fund. Ours was related to the jack dyer stand and spectator amenities for PRO mostly (I believe). As the bulk of this work was completed before 2015, we would have received less this year from the afl I'm guessing than 2014

Finally we have the increase in members. As this is a marketing revenue and not a footy revenue, any rise would transfer income away from "football" to marketing. With our strong growth in membership, a flattening/fall in the gate was inevitable

Thanks for the response. yes my FD revenue is listed as 'Receipts from footy op's', hence FD revenue( same diff). Yep that's all I wanted to know, essentially how we bracket individual items. This wasn't a slap to the club, just wanted to understand where we put things, so we can be more informed. I was more looking at membership revenue, but we wont see it, it looks like.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thanks for the response. yes my FD revenue is listed as 'Receipts from footy op's', hence FD revenue( same diff). Yep that's all I wanted to know, essentially how we bracket individual items. This wasn't a slap to the club, just wanted to understand where we put things, so we can be more informed. I was more looking at membership revenue, but we wont see it, it looks like.

It's a pedantic point, but you can't consider it footy dept revenue, as they are not the ones who are responsible for building it

It's pedantic I know, but it's important in understanding who's responsible for what

On the membership revenue, we never release this, but sometimes the afl release details to the media

 

[theflea]

It's a pedantic point, but you can't consider it footy dept revenue, as they are not the ones who are responsible for building it

It's pedantic I know, but it's important in understanding who's responsible for what

On the membership revenue, we never release this, but sometimes the afl release details to the media

Not sure about that, considering about 2m is gate receipts, which indicate attendance for our games, which we got to the best in the comp. This should be higher imo. Anyway all good.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not sure about that, considering about 2m is gate receipts, which indicate attendance for our games, which we got to the best in the comp. This should be higher imo. Anyway all good.

attendances are not gate takings though

Your membership, provides nothing at the gate, not a cent

we now have 70k members, so a massive proportion of our home game attendance is now on membership tickets, which means much less at the game each game

Then lets look at our games:

Round 9 Bombers MCG 83804
Round 7 Magpies MCG 59034
Round 4 Demons MCG 58175
Round 15 Blues MCG 52564
Round 2 Bulldogs MCG 49945
Round 5 Cats MCG 45228
Round 12 Eagles MCG 45178
Round 23 Kangaroos Etihad Stadium 40461
Round 17 Dockers MCG 39777
Round 20 Suns MCG 38508
Round 14 Giants MCG 35968

The only ones that bust the bank on this list are the bombers, pies, and the dees, thanks to the away attendances. This is the key, our attendances will be heavily membership based now, so its the crowds with big away attendances that will be a boon for the gate for us. That rough guess (assuming im right and my memory is right) of $2m will be mostly from the bombers, pies, and dees game.

If you look at the rest, they are interstate teams, Cats on the decline, Dogs with a small supporter base, the Blues with SFA turning up, and of course LOL NORF

This is why the Blues made their deal - they lose on a gate share, as we have more members turning up which means they get less gate share for our home game.

 

[Tiger7374]

attendances are not gate takings though

Your membership, provides nothing at the gate, not a cent

we now have 70k members, so a massive proportion of our home game attendance is now on membership tickets, which means much less at the game each game

Then lets look at our games:

Round 9 Bombers MCG 83804
Round 7 Magpies MCG 59034
Round 4 Demons MCG 58175
Round 15 Blues MCG 52564
Round 2 Bulldogs MCG 49945
Round 5 Cats MCG 45228
Round 12 Eagles MCG 45178
Round 23 Kangaroos Etihad Stadium 40461
Round 17 Dockers MCG 39777
Round 20 Suns MCG 38508
Round 14 Giants MCG 35968

The only ones that bust the bank on this list are the bombers, pies, and the dees, thanks to the away attendances. This is the key, our attendances will be heavily membership based now, so its the crowds with big away attendances that will be a boon for the gate for us. That rough guess (assuming im right and my memory is right) of $2m will be mostly from the bombers, pies, and dees game.

If you look at the rest, they are interstate teams, Cats on the decline, Dogs with a small supporter base, the Blues with SFA turning up, and of course LOL NORF

This is why the Blues made their deal - they lose on a gate share, as we have more members turning up which means they get less gate share for our home game.

The transition from Football Revenue to Marketing Revenue is a pox, I hate Segment Accounting when it serves to confuse, not clarify. And since when are Owners of the club classified as Marketing...just pure pox. Lol rant over.

We lose Footy Revenue only when last year's Casual became this year's Member. New members, new fans are incremental. And food and beverage should still be a factor with crowd increase. Even if the crowd increase was all new member, we should get an increase of game day receipts. But the Blue decision will have mitigated royally.

I think we have bigger issues in our numbers than game day revenue...Wages, Sponsorship and Other Expenses particularly. Will have a go at them shortly.

 

[Tiger7374]

I just went over to the HFC and they have Full Annual Reports going back for 10 years available to the public.

Yet the RFC want to dick around with Concise Reports...makes you wonder what's in the numbers really. You can see the HFC income streams via Note 4 so so clearly.

 

[Rumballs]

995k.Thats alot of snipping.lol

Charges by the hour - was probably Nahas.

 

[theflea]

attendances are not gate takings though

Your membership, provides nothing at the gate, not a cent

we now have 70k members, so a massive proportion of our home game attendance is now on membership tickets, which means much less at the game each game

Then lets look at our games:

Round 9 Bombers MCG 83804
Round 7 Magpies MCG 59034
Round 4 Demons MCG 58175
Round 15 Blues MCG 52564
Round 2 Bulldogs MCG 49945
Round 5 Cats MCG 45228
Round 12 Eagles MCG 45178
Round 23 Kangaroos Etihad Stadium 40461
Round 17 Dockers MCG 39777
Round 20 Suns MCG 38508
Round 14 Giants MCG 35968

The only ones that bust the bank on this list are the bombers, pies, and the dees, thanks to the away attendances. This is the key, our attendances will be heavily membership based now, so its the crowds with big away attendances that will be a boon for the gate for us. That rough guess (assuming im right and my memory is right) of $2m will be mostly from the bombers, pies, and dees game.

If you look at the rest, they are interstate teams, Cats on the decline, Dogs with a small supporter base, the Blues with SFA turning up, and of course LOL NORF

This is why the Blues made their deal - they lose on a gate share, as we have more members turning up which means they get less gate share for our home game.

Yes I was aware its based on the away attendances and the diminishing money because of our membership increases. I guess I still think its a little low for revenue.

 

[theflea]

I just went over to the HFC and they have Full Annual Reports going back for 10 years available to the public.

Yet the RFC want to dick around with Concise Reports...makes you wonder what's in the numbers really. You can see the HFC income streams via Note 4 so so clearly.

If you contact the club you can be put of the register to get the full reports.

 

[theflea]

I just don't like the way we account for things as compared to other clubs. Just a different way to do things but hard to compare.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The transition from Football Revenue to Marketing Revenue is a pox, I hate Segment Accounting when it serves to confuse, not clarify. And since when are Owners of the club classified as Marketing...just pure pox. Lol rant over.

We lose Footy Revenue only when last year's Casual became this year's Member. New members, new fans are incremental. And food and beverage should still be a factor with crowd increase. Even if the crowd increase was all new member, we should get an increase of game day receipts. But the Blue decision will have mitigated royally.

I think we have bigger issues in our numbers than game day revenue...Wages, Sponsorship and Other Expenses particularly. Will have a go at them shortly.

pretty sure we dont get food and bev, the AFL and MCC get that cut

historically MCC tenants have gotten the gate and minimal advertising rights - MCC/AFL keep the rest

ON wages, we are hiring more, but no question we are still middle of the pack. This needs to be a lagging indicator however, as we need to have the capacity to pay before we have the bills going out (contrary to what some think here). We tried "build it and they will come", and it fell down around our ears

On sponsorship, we are coming from a LONG way back. Remember it was only a few years ago we nearly ran out with sponsors missing from spots because we couldn't get anyone to sign on. Things are changing, things are improving - BUT we are not a marquee club by any measure. we haven't won a final in 15 years, and a flag in over 30. sponsors want to attach to something that enhances their brand and increases their visibility. Our improving draw helps the latter, but we are still a media joke which kills the first. We wont be close to the top tier of sponsors until we get success

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I just don't like the way we account for things as compared to other clubs. Just a different way to do things but hard to compare.

thats part of the reason its done

 

[UpTheGuts]

This one suggests we are (or at least were) No.1 in sponsorship and revenue? Is that right?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...th-10-million-sponsorship-20140320-hvkum.html

 

[Ned_Flanders]

This one suggests we are (or at least were) No.1 in sponsorship and revenue? Is that right?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...th-10-million-sponsorship-20140320-hvkum.html

no, its not

we have marketing revenue which includes memberships and merchandise as well as sponsorships

bloody journos cant even read an annual report - just look at the pretty numbers

 

[UpTheGuts]

no, its not

we have marketing revenue which includes memberships and merchandise as well as sponsorships

bloody journos cant even read an annual report - just look at the pretty numbers

business editor of The Age, no less...

 

[Ned_Flanders]

business editor of The Age, no less...

I know, sums up journalism of today though

 

[Tiger7374]

This one suggests we are (or at least were) No.1 in sponsorship and revenue? Is that right?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...th-10-million-sponsorship-20140320-hvkum.html

That's actually a Pie Puff Piece...no one can be that silly as to misrepresent those facts.

To work out our sponsorship from the $24.4m, we deduct 70k @ 120 gross = $8.4m and deduct Merchandise (using Hawks as a proxy) say $4.6m = $13.0m. Leaves $11.4m Corporate Support

 

[Tiger7374]

pretty sure we dont get food and bev, the AFL and MCC get that cut

historically MCC tenants have gotten the gate and minimal advertising rights - MCC/AFL keep the rest

ON wages, we are hiring more, but no question we are still middle of the pack. This needs to be a lagging indicator however, as we need to have the capacity to pay before we have the bills going out (contrary to what some think here). We tried "build it and they will come", and it fell down around our ears

On sponsorship, we are coming from a LONG way back. Remember it was only a few years ago we nearly ran out with sponsors missing from spots because we couldn't get anyone to sign on. Things are changing, things are improving - BUT we are not a marquee club by any measure. we haven't won a final in 15 years, and a flag in over 30. sponsors want to attach to something that enhances their brand and increases their visibility. Our improving draw helps the latter, but we are still a media joke which kills the first. We wont be close to the top tier of sponsors until we get success

Wasn't aware of that...we don't get a cut of the spend by the crowd...zilch????

 

[UpTheGuts]

That's actually a Pie Puff Piece...no one can be that silly as to misrepresent those facts.

To work out our sponsorship from the $24.4m, we deduct 70k @ 120 gross = $8.4m and deduct Merchandise (using Hawks as a proxy) say $4.6m = $13.0m. Leaves $11.4m Corporate Support

Pretty sure $110 or so is (or was, last year) the avg member yield, not the gross (which would be much higher)

So I'd say corporate support is waaaay less than $11.4m

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wasn't aware of that...we don't get a cut of the spend by the crowd...zilch????

Don't take it to the bank, but I'm pretty sure it's zero or not far from zero

After the Dee's improved their deal, ours if officially the worst at the MCG