2009 Financial Report

Remove this Banner Ad

A few interesting things (to me..lol)

1. Membership numbers were up this year, however, membership revenue was down as were membership expenses and hospitality expenses. This indicates a slight shift away from higher-end memberships which occured last year, especially those who upgraded to guaranteed grand final tickets. Possibly less people could afford to this year.

2. Football department expenditure was up by around $500k which is a good thing.

3. From the 2008 Report: "Operating lease commitments include the lease of the property located at Whitten Oval, 417 Barkly Street Footscray West. The lease with the City of Maribyrnong has a 25 year term that ends on 30th September 2021."

From 2009 Report: "Operating lease commitments include the lease of the property located at Whitten Oval, 417 Barkly Street Footscray West. A new lease with the Minister for Environment and Climate Change on behalf of the Crown in the right of the State of Victoria has a 21 year term that ends on 31 May 2030. The lease is to be signed in the coming months."

This confirms that the club expects the Vic Goverment to take control over the Whitten Oval site which also is shown by the removal of the $1.5m maintenance cost (payable in 5+ years) to the City of Maribyrnong.

4. The $1.7m AFL Annual Special Distribution has been confirmed for 2010.

5. We have $4.665m in player payments currently allocated for 2011, which is down from $5.647 (allocated for 2010 in 2008 report). This shows that we have a large number of players/large contracts ending in 2010 so it's critical that we renew these before the GC start sniffing around.
 
Interesting to compare some aspects to a club like Collingwood:

Football department expenditure: WB $13.35 million Collingwood $17 million
Revenue: WB $31 million Collingwood $87 million

The club has done a really good job to make a bigger profit than Collingwood considering they are turning over $87 million in revenue in contrast to our $31 million but we did receive some development and AFL special distribution funds.

However collingwood spent 3.5 million more in their footy department and this is what worries me as that is pretty unfair, a cap should be placed on such aspects that effect player performance directly (ie Collingwood paying for the best of everything, specialists, technology, latest medicine/treatment whereas other clubs have to settle for less which gives an unfair advantage.).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

100action said:
However collingwood spent 3.5 million more in their footy department and this is what worries me as that is pretty unfair, a cap should be placed on such aspects that effect player performance directly (ie Collingwood paying for the best of everything, specialists, technology, latest medicine/treatment whereas other clubs have to settle for less which gives an unfair advantage.).
Click to expand...

Can't agree on a cap for such things as doing so would mean there would be no reason for clubs to increase their membership base and their income over and above what is needed to cover the capped amounts.

They certainly have an advantage but as long as everyone has a certain level of technology/staff, I don't think it's an unfair one.

Probably the biggest thing I noticed in their report was that their goodwill was valued at over $13m, where as ours is only valued at around $170k.
 
^^^
In theory, yes.
But spending more money off-field doesn't equate to on-field success.
ie: Western Bulldogs 2009: 3rd; Collingwood 2009: 4th
We seem to be getting the best out of what we can afford and seem to be building a stronger business each year.
Good times to be a Dogs' fan I reckon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top