2.5 million dollars....

[carlyp]

is what you lost this year. Doesnt sound too good. How on earth can u run at a loss of 2.5 million dollars? gee! All you docker fans better get out there and buy your membership!

 

[Kenny_01]

They're losses wouldn't equal that, they would probably be taking an earning's bath.

They would say the loss was due to the poor management previous to this season, and when they report much brighter figures next season, all will be good.

 

[Rob]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
They're losses wouldn't equal that, they would probably be taking an earning's bath.

They would say the loss was due to the poor management previous to this season, and when they report much brighter figures next season, all will be good.

I'm stating the obvious here, but i'd guess the loss would have more to do with going 2-20 than poor management.

After about Round 6 or 7, the gate takings would have been abysmal. This year I would expect the financial performance to improve due to higher crowds, but there would have been a hangover in terms of membership & sponsorship. Hopefully next season membership should top 27,000 or so combined with a winning season should put the club on track in all areas.

 

[Voice of Reason]

So the $2.53 million loss covers what period exactly? It's still unbelievably bad and can't be explained just by poor on-field results. Season ticket holders pay up front anyway.

I'm interstate working so don't get the local analysis at the moment and there may be reasons, but it looks terrible.

 

[masai]

The figures are for the 2001 season.

I did see a report in the last month or two with all the projections for the clubs in 2002, plus an analysis as to whether those targets were being reached. From memory Freo was projecting a loss but was on target to do better than the projections. On the projections I think a couple of Melbourne clubs were in even deeper manure.

Yes the figure of 2.5 million is not good, nothing to be proud of but I think the present administration is calling a spade a spade and getting on with business.

Talking to a business analyst in about June, she said that the AFL clubs are business's and the two W.A. clubs have alot of consumers to draw on thus they are both very viable business's. Both have had their "stuff ups" in building (Indian Pacific + Hattgate), but in normal business investors would be falling over themselves to buy in.

I think the admin is finally learning from their errors.

 

[Kenny_01]

The 2.53 million loss is from last season. Carly thinks its from this year but she doesn't know what shes talking about.

The loss was 1.6 or 1.8 million originally but when the new management came in, they said it went out to 2.5 million. The reason for doing this is because rather than adding that 700,000 or so loss to this years total, they added it to last years total to make it look like it was the old managements fault.

So when this years figures come out, everyone will think the management has done a decent job from getting the losses from 2.53 million to under 1 million.

Also, a fair bit of that 2.53 million was for new clubrooms or something like that.

 

[Balip]

The loss was for the 2001 Financial year, (1/7/00 - 30/6/01)

The question you need to ask is was there any "book" entries that had the effect of inflating the loss. For example they wrote down the value of the licence by way of amortisation/ depreciation. Now this will effect the profit figure but it is not a cash entry. Items like this need to be considered when looking at the true financial position of the club.

 

[carlyp]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
The 2.53 million loss is from last season. Carly thinks its from this year but she doesn't know what shes talking about.

Then why are these figures only coming out now for all the clubs?

 

[Scal]

It was a 2.5 million DEBT...not a loss, there is a difference.

 

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by carlyp


Then why are these figures only coming out now for all the clubs?

Because they just did some investigations on it. Did you not read the article properly?



More than a third of the AFL's clubs reported big financial losses in 2001, according to figures released today.

Fremantle, the Western Bulldogs, Melbourne, St Kilda, the Kangaroos and 2001 premier Brisbane all recorded losses of more than $500,000.

In the worst result, Fremantle lost more than $2.5 million, while the Bulldogs and Melbourne lost $1.7 and $1.6 million respectively.

The figures, released today by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA), showed there was a growing divide between the league's richer and poorer clubs.

The figures showed, on average, each of the AFL's 16 clubs incurred a financial loss of $208,000.




Arictle by John McGrath on April 30th.




"Fremantle's financial stocks have taken a battering with the revelation that last year's loss has blown out from $1.8 million to $2.5 million.

The adjusted loss for 2001 has been reported to the club's owner, the WA Football Commission.

It follows a loss of $1.37 million in 2000 and a projected loss of $1.4 million for this year.

But, Fremantle won't seek any financial assistance from the AFL's sale of Waverley Park and the $500 million TV rights deal until it has a detailed business plan in place.

The majority of the $700,000 blow-out has come about by the new board's decision to include the amortisation of its $4 million licence fee to the AFL ($400,000 a year) to give a more accurate picture of the club's finances.

Other added costs to the 2001 bottom line include an overload of legal fees to settle certain matters, including the Fabian Francis affair, termination payments to six staff members and general running expenses."

 

[carlyp]

Alright Alright Alright! I didnt read it properly! I was just thinking....damn I want the dockers to be doing well financially because they are an interstae club and I want all interstate clubs to be successfull over a prictorian team! As you can read from the first post....I was saying, go buy your memberships!

 

[Docker_Brat]

In reality, can WA support 2 sides at the moment? In time with the population growth, more than likely. Why bag the Dockers and their supporters over this debt/loss/whatever? The AFL deserves the criticism.

 

[carlyp]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
In reality, can WA support 2 sides at the moment? In time with the population growth, more than likely. Why bag the Dockers and their supporters over this debt/loss/whatever? The AFL deserves the criticism.

I wasnt bagging your supporters I was just making you guys aware and telling you to buy some memberships! I am not trolling, I really was just bringing it to your attention so you all knew!