Resource 2016 Annual Reports Thread - Club Comparisons post #002

[Muggs]

That's why all 18 clubs don't have AFL guarantees?

Some have strong Balance Sheets that wont draw an auditors qualification without the AFL guarantee.

Asking the AFL to guarantee borrowings has a certain parallel with the folks guaranteeing a loan.

Not sure what you point is here.

It's about providing security to minimise the risk to the lender, to obtain a lower interest rate. AFL guarantee is one way to do this - think EFC is the perfect example of this. If the club has assets it can use as security great. Not all clubs do as the land they use is often not their land (even if they paid for the buildings on the land) thus need to provide another form of security the AFL guarantee is this security.

I agree that there are certainly clubs out there where the guarantee is needed to ensure being a going concern, but its not the ONLY reason to ask the AFL to guarantee, my point all along.

 

[Kwality]

Not sure what you point is here.

It's about providing security to minimise the risk to the lender, to obtain a lower interest rate. AFL guarantee is one way to do this - think EFC is the perfect example of this. If the club has assets it can use as security great. Not all clubs do as the land they use is often not their land (even if they paid for the buildings on the land) thus need to provide another form of security the AFL guarantee is this security.

I agree that there are certainly clubs out there where the guarantee is needed to ensure being a going concern, but its not the ONLY reason to ask the AFL to guarantee, my point all along.

I have read you to be saying the lower interest rate is the reason for an AFL guarantee, with you now.
I haven't got to the Bombers yet so I'll be back

May also reflect my not having been in the shoes of the lender.

 

[Muggs]

I have read you to be saying the lower interest rate is the reason for an AFL guarantee, with you now.

This is largely a chicken or the egg point.

The guarantee gives a low interest rate due to greater security it gives the lender. A lender will ask for security if possible to lower their risk and thus give a lower interest rate.

The directors IMO be crazy not to get the AFL to provide a guarantee if it's available and they can't provide other security.

 

[telsor]

This is largely a chicken or the egg point.

The guarantee gives a low interest rate due to greater security it gives the lender. A lender will ask for security if possible to lower their risk and thus give a lower interest rate.

The directors IMO be crazy not to get the AFL to provide a guarantee if it's available and they can't provide other security.

and also, it would seem self evident that clubs that don't require finance don't require a guarantee (and thus, not all 18 clubs would have a current one).

All clubs would be able to get one (I understand that it's AFL policy/standard practice), but why create legal paperwork for something that's not needed? It'd just be an added cost (legal fees) for something that you don't intend to use.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2016-12-07/dogs-announce-a-record-operating-profit

Western Bulldogs:
Operating Profit $3,641,018
Statutory Profit: $1,773,324
($1.9 million written off due to failed Edgewater investment largely from pokies licenses)

Revenue up to $48.4 million from $41.3 million last year

Net debt down from $8.3 million to $1.9 million

 

[The_Wookie]

The on and off-field improvement at Carlton continues, after recording a $1.1 million operating profit before depreciation and amortisation for the year ending October 31, 2016.

Including depreciation and amortisation, the Club recorded a net deficit of $765,000 – in comparison with $2.7 million in 2015.

This result represents a $2.0million improvement on the previous financial year, which is a tremendous turn around,” LoGiudice said.

“We have managed our costs very effectively and have a clear vision to continue to advance our revenue streams both in a traditional and non-traditional capacity.

“Across the board, the Club experienced substantial growth and improvement – ranging from seven wins (an increase from four on the previous year) and membership of 50,202 for only the second time in our history.

“Although a commercially poor fixture meant gate receipts were down for the year, a significant amount of work went into increasing corporate partnerships, hospitality and commercial revenues.

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/2016-12-07/carltons-20-million-improved-financial-position

 

[The_Wookie]

Collingwoods annual report is out

Statements

• Brisbane Football Club
• Carlton Football Club
  
• Collingwood Football Club
  
• Essendon Football Club
• Geelong Football Club
  
• Hawthorn Football Club
  
• Melbourne Football Club
  
• Richmond Football Club
• St Kilda Football Club
• Western Bulldogs Football Club

Annual Reports

• Brisbane Football Club
• Collingwood Football Club
  
• Essendon Football Club
• Geelong Football Club
  
• Hawthorn Football Club
  
• Melbourne Football Club
  
• Richmond Football Club
• St Kilda Football Club

Consolidated Profit/Loss

• Hawthorn - $4,660,824
• Geelong - $2,255,116
• St Kilda - $1,107,311
  
• Melbourne - $720,218
  
• Richmond - ($80,257)
• Brisbane - ($1,783,506)
• Collingwood - ($2,622,623)
  
• Essendon - ($9,825,37)

Revenue

• Collingwood - $71,475,457
  
• Hawthorn - $69,779,234
• Geelong - $54,650,813
  
• Essendon - $53,499, 545
• Brisbane - $48,707,494
• Melbourne - $47,552,639
• Richmond - $47,538,233
• St Kilda - $39,928,568

AFL Revenue

• St Kilda - $17,125,673 (shown as AFL distributions and "other" income)
  
• Brisbane - $16,753,407
• Melbourne - $12,758,742
• Richmond - $10,478,488
• Essendon - $9,824,470
• Hawthorn - $9,788,488
• Geelong - $9,512,533
• Collingwood - $8,888,484

Membership Revenue

• Collingwood - $22,565,759 (includes matchday)
  
• Geelong - $14,341,800 (includes gate reciepts)
  
• Hawthorn - $12,422,423
• Essendon - $10,100,110
• Melbourne - $7,578,057 (includes fundraising)
• St Kilda - $6,646,174/38,101
  
• Brisbane - $5,602,557 (includes Gate reciepts)

Membership Revenue per Member

• Geelong - $274.77 (includes gate reciepts)
  
• Brisbane - $240.59 (includes gate reciepts)
• Melbourne - $193.58 (includes fundraising)
  
• Essendon - $175.67
• st Kilda - $174.44
  
• Hawthorn - $164.86

Sponsorship Revenue

• Collingwood - $17,024,436
  
• Geelong - $16,079,494 (includes fundraising)
  
• Hawthorn - $14,947,662
• Essendon - $12 ,493 ,197
• Richmond - $10,575,059
• Brisbane - $9,599,634
• Melbourne - $8,916,023
• St Kilda - $5,838,157

Pokies and Hospitality Revenue

• Collingwood - $21,656,298
  
• Hawthorn - $18,338,797
• Brisbane - $15,192,965
• Essendon - $13,540,006
• Melbourne - $12,193,285
• Geelong - $9,060,375
  
• Richmond - $7,217,846
• St Kilda - $2,069,132

Pokies and Hospitality Profit

• Collingwood - $5,501,431
  
• Brisbane - $4,207,183
• Melbourne - $3,620,569
• Essendon - $2,456,768

Gate Reciepts and Match Returns

• Melbourne - $4,592,047
• Hawthorn - $4,372,640
• St Kilda - $1,623,290
  
• Essendon - $216 , 850

Merchandise

• Hawthorn - $4,020,932
• Essendon - $2,268,964
• Geelong - $1,742,436
  
• Merchandise - $986,269
• Brisbane - $817,849
• St Kilda - $791,796

Football Department Spend

• Geelong - $23,172,565
  
• Essendon - $22,981,249
• Collingwood - $22,959,708
  
• Richmond - $22,794,109
• Brisbane - $22,236,384
• Melbourne - $21,927,456
• St Kilda - $20,724,493
  
• Hawthorn - Not completely defined.

AFL Equalisation Levy

• Collingwood - $1,405,904
  
• Hawthorn - $1,301,588
• Geelong - $390,000
  
• Essendon - $350,004

Assets

• Hawthorn - $62,414,117
• Collingwood - $52,857,370
  
• Essendon - $47, 817, 356
• Geelong - $35,036,809
  
• Richmond - $29,521,323
• Melbourne - $17,484,015
• St Kilda - $14,160,615
  
• Brisbane - $8,195,809

Liabilities

• Geelong - $25,105,827
  
• Hawthorn - $20,814,863
• Essendon - $20,363,757
• Brisbane - $19,067,673
• Collingwood - $17,546,328
  
• St Kilda - $14,795,190
  
• Melbourne - $12,644,379
• Richmond - $5,430,252

Equity

• Hawthorn - $41,559,254
• Collingwood - $35,311,042
  
• Essendon - $27,453 , 599
• Richmond - $24,091,071
• Geelong - $9,930,982
  
• Melbourne - $4,839,636
• St Kilda - ($634,575)
  
• Brisbane - ($10,871,864)

 

[The_Wookie]

North deliver a profit
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2016-12-08/norths-strong-result

For the eighth time in nine years, North Melbourne has recorded a profit.

The club recorded a net operating profit of $470,046, while again reducing the club’s overall debt by a further $400,000 in the last financial year.

Managing Director and CEO Carl Dilena said North Melbourne was in a strong financial position.

“We are very pleased to post yet another profit in the past financial year,” Dilena told NMFC.com.au.

“We are fully aware we operate in a really challenging financial environment, so our staff deserve a massive amount of gratitude for their hard work and dedication in helping us record this result.

“In 2016, we saw an increase in total revenue to $38 million, thanks to the growth in gate receipts, membership and merchandise sales."

Key points – 2015/16
- Net operating profit of $470,046
- Football Department expenditure increase of $496,000
- Reduction of debt by a further $400,000 to $1.25 million
- Revenue of $38m, an increase of $1.09 million on 2014/15
- Gambling and pokies revenue $0

 

[mikeg4]

North deliver a profit
http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2016-12-08/norths-strong-result

For the eighth time in nine years, North Melbourne has recorded a profit.

The club recorded a net operating profit of $470,046, while again reducing the club’s overall debt by a further $400,000 in the last financial year.

Managing Director and CEO Carl Dilena said North Melbourne was in a strong financial position.

“We are very pleased to post yet another profit in the past financial year,” Dilena told NMFC.com.au.

“We are fully aware we operate in a really challenging financial environment, so our staff deserve a massive amount of gratitude for their hard work and dedication in helping us record this result.

“In 2016, we saw an increase in total revenue to $38 million, thanks to the growth in gate receipts, membership and merchandise sales."

Key points – 2015/16
- Net operating profit of $470,046
- Football Department expenditure increase of $496,000
- Reduction of debt by a further $400,000 to $1.25 million
- Revenue of $38m, an increase of $1.09 million on 2014/15
- Gambling and pokies revenue $0

That is an amazingly low revenue, how do they compete with other clubs?

 

[Prince Imperial]

That is an amazingly low revenue, how do they compete with other clubs?

Revenue doesn't necessarily equate with profit and they have a very good deal in Hobart and they get substantial AFL equalization funding like we do.

 

[Muggs]

That is an amazingly low revenue, how do they compete with other clubs?

No pokies but neither do they have the expenses that go with them.

Fairly low cost base for their oval at Arden street, particularly when compared to some of the clubs with custom built training facilities.

No VFL squad, only an affiliation so reduced costs again.

Really comes down to they have relatively few expenses outside their football department.

 

[Tas]

That is an amazingly low revenue, how do they compete with other clubs?

All other Victorian clubs have pokies and/or investments like pubs or clubs which can have high turnover but low profitability. If we bought a pub that had a $100m turnover but only made $1 profit then the amount of revenue is quite meaningless and a poor mechanism for comparison.

Clubs should compare football revenue and non-football revenue, not that we are an awesome football revenue type of club, just that it is the only way to make a meaningful comparison.

 

[Kwality]

All other Victorian clubs have pokies and/or investments like pubs or clubs which can have high turnover but low profitability. If we bought a pub that had a $100m turnover but only made $1 profit then the amount of revenue is quite meaningless and a poor mechanism for comparison.

Clubs should compare football revenue and non-football revenue, not that we are an awesome football revenue type of club, just that it is the only way to make a meaningful comparison.

Some minimum reporting format should be an AFL requirement, but given its record on transparency don't hold your breath ...

 

[The_Wookie]

Some minimum reporting format should be an AFL requirement, but given its record on transparency don't hold your breath ...

Revenue

• Collingwood - $71,475,457
  
• Hawthorn - $69,779,234
• Geelong - $54,650,813
  
• Essendon - $53,499, 545
• Brisbane - $48,707,494
• Western Bulldogs - $48,400,000 (statement only)
  
• Melbourne - $47,552,639
• Richmond - $47,538,233
• St Kilda - $39,928,568
• North Melbourne - $38,000,000 (statement only)

Revenue without Gaming/Hospitality

• Hawthorn - $51,440,437
  
• Collingwood - $49,819,159
  
• Geelong - $45,590,438
• Richmond - $40,320,387
  
• Essendon - $39,959,539
• North Melbourne - $38,000,000 (statement only)
  
• Melbourne - $35,359,354
  
• Brisbane - $33,514,529
  
• St Kilda - $37,859,436

 

[GreyCrow]

Collingwood have all the punters then?

 

[GreyCrow]

Collingwoods annual report is out

Statements

• Brisbane Football Club
• Carlton Football Club
  
• Collingwood Football Club
  
• Essendon Football Club
• Geelong Football Club
  
• Hawthorn Football Club
  
• Melbourne Football Club
  
• Richmond Football Club
• St Kilda Football Club
• Western Bulldogs Football Club

Annual Reports

• Brisbane Football Club
• Collingwood Football Club
  
• Essendon Football Club
• Geelong Football Club
  
• Hawthorn Football Club
  
• Melbourne Football Club
  
• Richmond Football Club
• St Kilda Football Club

Consolidated Profit/Loss

• Hawthorn - $4,660,824
• Geelong - $2,255,116
• St Kilda - $1,107,311
  
• Melbourne - $720,218
  
• Richmond - ($80,257)
• Brisbane - ($1,783,506)
• Collingwood - ($2,622,623)
  
• Essendon - ($9,825,37)

Revenue

• Collingwood - $71,475,457
  
• Hawthorn - $69,779,234
• Geelong - $54,650,813
  
• Essendon - $53,499, 545
• Brisbane - $48,707,494
• Melbourne - $47,552,639
• Richmond - $47,538,233
• St Kilda - $39,928,568

AFL Revenue

• St Kilda - $17,125,673 (shown as AFL distributions and "other" income)
  
• Brisbane - $16,753,407
• Melbourne - $12,758,742
• Richmond - $10,478,488
• Essendon - $9,824,470
• Hawthorn - $9,788,488
• Geelong - $9,512,533
• Collingwood - $8,888,484

Membership Revenue

• Collingwood - $22,565,759 (includes matchday)
  
• Geelong - $14,341,800 (includes gate reciepts)
  
• Hawthorn - $12,422,423
• Essendon - $10,100,110
• Melbourne - $7,578,057 (includes fundraising)
• St Kilda - $6,646,174/38,101
  
• Brisbane - $5,602,557 (includes Gate reciepts)

Membership Revenue per Member

• Geelong - $274.77 (includes gate reciepts)
  
• Brisbane - $240.59 (includes gate reciepts)
• Melbourne - $193.58 (includes fundraising)
  
• Essendon - $175.67
• st Kilda - $174.44
  
• Hawthorn - $164.86

Sponsorship Revenue

• Collingwood - $17,024,436
  
• Geelong - $16,079,494 (includes fundraising)
  
• Hawthorn - $14,947,662
• Essendon - $12 ,493 ,197
• Richmond - $10,575,059
• Brisbane - $9,599,634
• Melbourne - $8,916,023
• St Kilda - $5,838,157

Pokies and Hospitality Revenue

• Collingwood - $21,656,298
  
• Hawthorn - $18,338,797
• Brisbane - $15,192,965
• Essendon - $13,540,006
• Melbourne - $12,193,285
• Geelong - $9,060,375
  
• Richmond - $7,217,846
• St Kilda - $2,069,132

Pokies and Hospitality Profit

• Collingwood - $5,501,431
  
• Brisbane - $4,207,183
• Melbourne - $3,620,569
• Essendon - $2,456,768

Gate Reciepts and Match Returns

• Melbourne - $4,592,047
• Hawthorn - $4,372,640
• St Kilda - $1,623,290
  
• Essendon - $216 , 850

Merchandise

• Hawthorn - $4,020,932
• Essendon - $2,268,964
• Geelong - $1,742,436
  
• Merchandise - $986,269
• Brisbane - $817,849
• St Kilda - $791,796

Football Department Spend

• Geelong - $23,172,565
  
• Essendon - $22,981,249
• Collingwood - $22,959,708
  
• Richmond - $22,794,109
• Brisbane - $22,236,384
• Melbourne - $21,927,456
• St Kilda - $20,724,493
  
• Hawthorn - Not completely defined.

AFL Equalisation Levy

• Collingwood - $1,405,904
  
• Hawthorn - $1,301,588
• Geelong - $390,000
  
• Essendon - $350,004

Assets

• Hawthorn - $62,414,117
• Collingwood - $52,857,370
  
• Essendon - $47, 817, 356
• Geelong - $35,036,809
  
• Richmond - $29,521,323
• Melbourne - $17,484,015
• St Kilda - $14,160,615
  
• Brisbane - $8,195,809

Liabilities

• Geelong - $25,105,827
  
• Hawthorn - $20,814,863
• Essendon - $20,363,757
• Brisbane - $19,067,673
• Collingwood - $17,546,328
  
• St Kilda - $14,795,190
  
• Melbourne - $12,644,379
• Richmond - $5,430,252

Equity

• Hawthorn - $41,559,254
• Collingwood - $35,311,042
  
• Essendon - $27,453 , 599
• Richmond - $24,091,071
• Geelong - $9,930,982
  
• Melbourne - $4,839,636
• St Kilda - ($634,575)
  
• Brisbane - ($10,871,864)

Looks like I have stumbled into a vFL thread. Even Fitzroy is in there.

 

[The_Wookie]

Looks like I have stumbled into a vFL thread. Even Fitzroy is in there.

When and if clubs outside of Victoria decide to release their annual reports they'll also be on the list. The problem is they dont, and come february ill have to buy most of them to get the information.

 

[Kwality]

When and if clubs outside of Victoria decide to release their annual reports they'll also be on the list. The problem is they dont, and come february ill have to buy most of them to get the information.

As a public company Indian Pacific Ltd (the Eagles) comply with both the Corporations Act timetable and statutory reporting requirements.

 

[Kwality]

Revenue

• Collingwood - $71,475,457
  
• Hawthorn - $69,779,234
• Geelong - $54,650,813
  
• Essendon - $53,499, 545
• Brisbane - $48,707,494
• Western Bulldogs - $48,400,000 (statement only)
  
• Melbourne - $47,552,639
• Richmond - $47,538,233
• St Kilda - $39,928,568
• North Melbourne - $38,000,000 (statement only)

Revenue without Gaming/Hospitality

• Hawthorn - $51,440,437
  
• Collingwood - $49,819,159
  
• Geelong - $45,590,438
• Richmond - $40,320,387
  
• Essendon - $39,959,539
• North Melbourne - $38,000,000 (statement only)
  
• Melbourne - $35,359,354
  
• Brisbane - $33,514,529
  
• St Kilda - $37,859,436

Revenue is hardly transparency in financial reporting IMHO.

 

[The_Wookie]

As a public company Indian Pacific Ltd (the Eagles) comply with both the Corporations Act timetable and statutory reporting requirements.

And I never said they didnt. I said that id have to buy their report to get it because they arent freely available.

Revenue is hardly transparency in financial reporting IMHO.

And yet all clubs apparently comply with the Corporations act and statutory reporting requirements and it doesnt stop you complaining about it. You want the AFL to mandate something they legally dont have to.

 

[Kwality]

And I never said they didnt. I said that id have to buy their report to get it because they arent freely available.



And yet all clubs apparently comply with the Corporations act and statutory reporting requirements and it doesnt stop you complaining about it. You want the AFL to mandate something they legally dont have to.

That's exactly my position, fans have a right to more transparency from the clubs that take their membership, donations and more.

Best example is surplus/deficit on footy ops, quite independent of non footy income - its a long time since Peter Jackson at the Bombers advised that clubs first loss on footy operations, clearly he thought it worthy of comment - to me its relevant.

 

[Muggs]

Best example is surplus/deficit on footy ops, quite independent of non footy income - its a long time since Peter Jackson at the Bombers advised that clubs first loss on footy operations, clearly he thought it worthy of comment - to me its relevant.

Pretty easy though to go and look at the notes (usually 3a and 3b）to work this out.

The clubs are all pretty good (and required to under current accounting standards which govern this more directly than corps law which basically just says follow standards) at disclosing their major sources of income and expenses by category.

Personally happy for the details to be in the notes, the face of the statements should be there for big picture comparisons, and with not all clubs having similar sources of income and expenses extra details could make this harder.

Footy clubs disclosure in notes are all fairly straightforward, certainly less complex than many listed companies.

Personally though don't see if making a loss or profit on footy operations as being particularly relevant. Be so much judgement involved in what is footy operations, particularly footy admin, that you could easily manipulate this figure. Is membership footy or non footy?

Furthermore footy clubs are just that, footy clubs, if they use other more profitable areas to cross subsidise the footy department to achieve greater success it is no big deal. If anything can see seperately reporting footy operations introducing a perception that clubs need to make a profit on footy operations and this being a hindrance if cross subsidies are available.

 

[Kwality]

Accept what you say Muggs, but disagree - I 'm happy with the notes as is, however believe more transparency is good thing.

As far as where income/expenditure is allocated it would be very easy to set up a template for footy operations and apply it to all clubs, not leave it to be manipulated at the whim of the individual footy club. To some extent the footy dept expenditure as measured for equalisation should be already available.
Commercial operations could be whats left of the income matched with expenditure & reported BUT with club management costs/admin again reported separately.

I'd like to see what a club has in the way($) of committed player contracts going forward by year, a number that every club has - there is no extra cost in disclosure.
I would also like disclosure on salaries for admin similar to public companies.

As for the results of increased disclosure I don't agree with your suggestion that perceptions on profitability would be an issue as the PR release is what the AFL footy media run with.

 

[Muggs]

As far as where income/expenditure is allocated it would be very easy to set up a template for footy operations and apply it to all clubs, not leave it to be manipulated at the whim of the individual footy club. To some extent the footy dept expenditure as measured for equalisation should be already available.

If there is one thing I have learnt is that rules based approaches to accounting just don't work. Soon as a template or something is set defining what something is you will start seeing contracts structured to avoid the rules to gain an advantage by avoiding disclosure. It's one reason why accounting standards change on a reasonably regular basis, they certainly not static like many people believe.

Sure this only affects a set of income and more likely costs at the fringes of what is footy operations, but it's these that will determine what level of surplus/deficit there is on footy operations and the final amount of admin and commercial operations.

I'd like to see what a club has in the way($) of committed player contracts going forward by year, a number that every club has - there is no extra cost in disclosure.

In theory I like this, but in the days of free agency and salary caps will be concerned that this would be releasing to much information and put clubs in a weaker position come negotiating time. So am a bit two ways on this one.

I would also like disclosure on salaries for admin similar to public companies.

There should be in the full reports, not the concise reports that get released publicly.

As for the results of increased disclosure I don't agree with your suggestion that perceptions on profitability would be an issue as the PR release is what the AFL footy media run with.

For the article on the results yes, but normally a few articles each year comparing results. Also in today's world of equalization I can see this becoming a hotter topic.

 

[GreyCrow]

In theory I like this, but in the days of free agency and salary caps will be concerned that this would be releasing to much information and put clubs in a weaker position come negotiating time. So am a bit two ways on this one.

But isn't the fact that there is a Cap mean that either party in a FA situation can only spend so much? You cant blow away another club without damaging your own.

What I think will happen if contracts are open to the public is more pressure on clubs to drop or select players based on output v $$$. Public pressure will skew selection at times. ie '' #dropjoebloggsasheisntworththemoney