AFL 2010 Club Financial Reports Summary

[The_Wookie]

Most of the reports are in, all but one Melbourne club (and its geelong so not really melbourne is it) have submitted. Most interstate clubs dont submit them (port and brisbane are the exceptions). Adelaide do submit one but its not public, West coast and freo are included in the WAFC annual reports but not separate. Sydney evidently doesnt do them at all.

For those who havent seen them, theres some fun reading.

Revenue:
1. Collingwood (75 million)
2. Essendon (44.8 million)
3. Bulldogs (41 million)
last - North (25 million)

Football Operations
1. Hawthorn (22 million)
2. Collingwood (19 million)
3. St Kilda (16.5 million)
last - North (14.5 million)

Assets
1. Bulldogs (36 million)
2. Hawthorn (33 million)
3. Collingwood (27 million)
last - Melbourne (4.3 million)

Liabilities
1. Collingwood (18 million)
2. Bulldogs (13.5 million)
3. Carlton (10.8 million)
last - melbourne (4 million)

Net Assets
1. Hawthorn (25.9 million)
2. Bulldogs (22.4 million)
3. Essendon (20 million)
last: Melbourne (314k)

Membership
1. Collingwood (57,617)
2. Hawthorn (53,951)
3. Adelaide (45,945), St Kilda (40,544) - melbourne clubs.
last: Sydney (28,871), North (29,272) - melbourne clubs

Membership revenue (only 6 clubs list this)
1. Collingwood (11.7 million)
2. Hawthorn (7.5 million)
3. Essendon (6.9 million)

Average member/revenue
1. Collingwood ($204.27 ea)
2. Essendon ($171.41 ea)
3. Bulldogs ($169.31 ea)
4. Melbourne ($150.63 ea)
5. Hawthorn ($139.37 ea)
6. St Kilda ($88.64 ea) <-- wtf is going on there.

Non AFL Grants to clubs
1. Bulldogs ($9.4 million) - Whitten Oval Upgrade
2. St Kilda ($7.5 million) - Frankston Upgrades
3. Carlton ($2.3 million) - Princes park upgrades

Reported Profit
1. Bulldogs (9.7 million)
2. Hawthorn (8.6 million)
3. St Kilda (7.4 million)
Last: North (233k)

Reported Loss
1. Brisbane (2.9 million)
2. Essendon (1.5 million)
3. Port Adelaide (1.3 million)

All the information above is written into a nice easy to read spreadsheet here: http://www.worldofwookie.com/docs/afl financials 2011.xlsx

Let me know if theres other stuff i should include or change.

 

[campbell]

nice to see we are winning somthing.not.....

 

[loki04]

Wow Hawks must have A LOT of 3-4 game members.

 

[AG]

Sydney evidently doesnt do them at all.

They'd have to do them. ASIC would be all over them if they didn't.

Members can request a copy.

 

[Bosk]

Reported Profit
1. Bulldogs (9.7 million)
2. Hawthorn (8.6 million)
3. St Kilda (7.4 million)
Last: North (233k)

Dear oh dear.

Not that any of us expected it to be any different of course, but here we have yet another indicator that North's place in the AFL is untenable.

 

[The_Wookie]

They'd have to do them. ASIC would be all over them if they didn't.

Members can request a copy.

I think the same applies to Adelaide, but i cbf'd going to the trouble. Ill wait til they release statements lol.

 

[The_Wookie]

Dear oh dear.

Not that any of us expected it to be any different of course, but here we have yet another indicator that North's place in the AFL is untenable.

lets also be fair, st kilda and carlton would have made losses without the government grants (narrow losses of around 100k each, but still losses. bulldogs profit would have only been 300k if you take out the government grant. Even less if you take out the 1.9 million ASD funding from teh AFL.

 

[RandB]

wrt revenue, operating activities is probably a better indicator of club performance (notwithstanding the expenses and any losses).

The Doggies made $32,053,145 in revenue from operating activities. Their total revenue was $41,474,030 but was inflated due to the $9.4mill grant. There are a few more AFL clubs in front of them wrt operating revenue like Hawthorn ($40mill), Carlton($35mill) etc

 

[Geoffa32]

Port had $5mill in grants from SANFL/AFL.

Not sure if they recieved the entire $4mill from SANFL last AFL Financial year.

THE AFL and SANFL will give Port Adelaide a grant of $5 million to keep the ailing South Australian club afloat.

At an Alberton press conference covered live by AdelaideNow this afternoon, AFL chief executive Andrew Demetrou said the SANFL would provide $4 million of the cash grant and the AFL would pay the remainder

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/million-lifeline-for-port/story-e6frea6u-1225881009744

Cant see that on your spreadsheet

 

[Fluro Boots]

Wow Hawks must have A LOT of 3-4 game members.

always going to be the case with the four tassie games. I think we have around 8k tassie members

 

[The_Wookie]

Port had $5mill in grants from SANFL/AFL.

Not sure if they recieved the entire $4mill from SANFL last AFL Financial year.






http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/million-lifeline-for-port/story-e6frea6u-1225881009744

Cant see that on your spreadsheet

according to the port adelaide report more than half of the money has yet to be paid. there was no breakdown for the rest in the report.

 

[rose jam]

Dear oh dear.

Not that any of us expected it to be any different of course, but here we have yet another indicator that North's place in the AFL is untenable.

the $233k does that also include AFL handout which means it's really a couple of million loss?

 

[scarecrow2k1]

The AFL makes so much money from our game that they can afford to prop up all the clubs, so what if AD loses a zero or two off his paycheque!

 

[The_Wookie]

the $233k does that also include AFL handout which means it's really a couple of million loss?

I believe so. North dont publish one that is available to non members AFAIK. They issued a fluffy press release.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL makes so much money from our game that they can afford to prop up all the clubs, so what if AD loses a zero or two off his paycheque!

More I think they have to. Clubs like North get and the Bulldogs get screwed over in favour of the bigger drawing clubs, when those same clubs could well be there salvation. They are victims of fixturing, both matches and tv screenings.

The very real problem that occured with the nationwide expansion is that clubs which had little drawing power as it was, had even less against teams from interstate. Throw in a bad stadium deal, and well the AFL doesnt have a choice.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Would love to know WC membership revenue - must be close to $20m i reckon

 

[Quinz]

It was about $11m in 2008. With increased membership prices and pretty much the same membership base it would be a little higher this year.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It was about $11m in 2008. With increased membership prices and pretty much the same membership base it would be a little higher this year.

i wonder how that works - the average membership would be about $500 - 40,000 members = $20m

That ignores all the exotic membership types like in the wings, vics, global, kids etc

 

[Quinz]

Well that's what was reported.

There are quite a few standard and budget seats, plus the concession or kids memberships... Who knows.

 

[grimface_87]

More I think they have to. Clubs like North get and the Bulldogs get screwed over in favour of the bigger drawing clubs, when those same clubs could well be there salvation. They are victims of fixturing, both matches and tv screenings.

The very real problem that occured with the nationwide expansion is that clubs which had little drawing power as it was, had even less against teams from interstate. Throw in a bad stadium deal, and well the AFL doesnt have a choice.

Exactly. At least making profits means we are going in the right direction (however small they are!)

 

[snrub]

Dear oh dear.

Not that any of us expected it to be any different of course, but here we have yet another indicator that North's place in the AFL is untenable.

Because North's reported profit is the lowest of all clubs who reported a profit? I take it then, that you are also demanding the immediate disbanding of Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Essendon, who all reported a substantial loss. And surely you understand that a loss is worse than a profit.

 

[Crow-mo]

Because North's reported profit is the lowest of all clubs who reported a profit? I take it then, that you are also demanding the immediate disbanding of Port Adelaide, Brisbane and Essendon, who all reported a substantial loss. And surely you understand that a loss is worse than a profit.

hang on, you turned over $20m less than Essendon.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Dear oh dear.

Not that any of us expected it to be any different of course, but here we have yet another indicator that North's place in the AFL is untenable.

The fact that we making profits means our position is untenable?

Erm ...

 

[winty]

Guess you didn't look hard enough for Geelong's financial reports.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/portals/0/cats_docs/GFC_2010_concise financial report.pdf

This is what I could glean from the reports just by browsing through them:

Revenue: $44,824,045

Assets: $29,329,374

Liabilities: $19,391,106

Net Assets: $9,938,268

Reported Profit: $1,284,509

 

[desie]

The fact that we making profits means our position is untenable?

Erm ...

Not all of us are blessed with double figure IQ's unfortunately.