-
Not Footy
2nd Test: Aus v Sri Lanka - Stream it Live // BBL Big Final: REN v STA
Elimination Chamber - Monday 18th February
EPL Matchday 26 // FA Cup Rd 5 // Champs Rd of 16 // Europa Rd of 32 // League Cup Final
2019 Formula 1 // How the hell did they survive that? // 2019 Supercars - Stream it Live
Official Club Stuff 2018 Financial Results (links, rankings - now in post #2)
- Thread starter The_Wookie
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 51,813
- Likes
- 64,120
- Location
- SE Oz
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- The Mighty Blacks
Impressive result from Richmond to grow revenue from $47.5m in 2016 to $65.1m in 2017 to $79.7m and the increase in the Health and Fitness business has only gone from $2.4m to $8.6m to $14.2m and gambling revenue has only increased by $400k over 3 years to go to $7.6m. Winning on the field was the big driver in winning off the field and taking an $80k loss to a $3.06m and then $4.21m profit.
What a lot of peope dont get is that you can actually make more money the year after a flag win than the year you win flag, provided the next season you are top or near top of the ladder for most of the home and away part of the season, and then get to a PF or GF. If you go back to back then you do even better.
Reason is you only have a month to capitalise on your flag success before the books are closed, but the next year you get extra members, more corporates, charge them higher rates, more coterie groups, more merchandise sales etc as you have about 10 months to capitalise on that flag success the next financial year and especially if you can win 16 to 18 games before finals.
That's why the cyclical financial clubs, really need to make back to back GF's to really lock in financial success when its their window for a serious tilt at the flag.
What a lot of peope dont get is that you can actually make more money the year after a flag win than the year you win flag, provided the next season you are top or near top of the ladder for most of the home and away part of the season, and then get to a PF or GF. If you go back to back then you do even better.
Reason is you only have a month to capitalise on your flag success before the books are closed, but the next year you get extra members, more corporates, charge them higher rates, more coterie groups, more merchandise sales etc as you have about 10 months to capitalise on that flag success the next financial year and especially if you can win 16 to 18 games before finals.
That's why the cyclical financial clubs, really need to make back to back GF's to really lock in financial success when its their window for a serious tilt at the flag.
The Health and Fitness stuff growing is no surprise, they've been adding new contracts/leases/facilities as they go, so as they come on line, it's no surprise revenue has grown as well. That it's now making a (small) profit is the really good news on that front.
Gambling is actually 'gambling and hospitality', and I imagine the latter part would have had a decent bump...For example, the Maurice Rioli club would have had more/bigger functions as a result of the flag and bigger crowds, and a winning season (it's at Punt Road Oval, so serves as an 'afterparty' after games at the G for those with access...more wins, bigger afterparties).
Best bit...In 2005, the club had net assets of $-704K, so that's an over $32M turnaround in 13 years. From struggling to keep the lights on to looking for the next investment opportunity is a huge deal. This isn't 'just' a premiership bump (although obviously that'd be a factor too).
Worst bit...Not seeing a lot of bad there, it really is a beautiful set of numbers. Pretty much every category moved in a 'good' way. Some might have issue with still being involved in gambling, but I'm not one of them (that's a discussion for other threads though). I suppose that Richmond has one of, if not the, worst financial reports of all clubs has to get a mention too.
Curious bit...$13.7M is a lot of cash on hand, especially at this time of year. I know they were trying to get government support for some redevelopment work at PRO (trying to cash in on election pork barrelling no doubt), but that doesn't seem to have come through...I dare say there will be some kind of announcement in the next few months though (if not redevelopment work, then something...that much cash on hand is just wasteful).
Gambling is actually 'gambling and hospitality', and I imagine the latter part would have had a decent bump...For example, the Maurice Rioli club would have had more/bigger functions as a result of the flag and bigger crowds, and a winning season (it's at Punt Road Oval, so serves as an 'afterparty' after games at the G for those with access...more wins, bigger afterparties).
Best bit...In 2005, the club had net assets of $-704K, so that's an over $32M turnaround in 13 years. From struggling to keep the lights on to looking for the next investment opportunity is a huge deal. This isn't 'just' a premiership bump (although obviously that'd be a factor too).
Worst bit...Not seeing a lot of bad there, it really is a beautiful set of numbers. Pretty much every category moved in a 'good' way. Some might have issue with still being involved in gambling, but I'm not one of them (that's a discussion for other threads though). I suppose that Richmond has one of, if not the, worst financial reports of all clubs has to get a mention too.
Curious bit...$13.7M is a lot of cash on hand, especially at this time of year. I know they were trying to get government support for some redevelopment work at PRO (trying to cash in on election pork barrelling no doubt), but that doesn't seem to have come through...I dare say there will be some kind of announcement in the next few months though (if not redevelopment work, then something...that much cash on hand is just wasteful).
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2018
- Posts
- 2,044
- Likes
- 3,379
- Location
- Mornington Peninsula
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Melb Storm, Liverpool, S Thunder
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2018
- Posts
- 2,044
- Likes
- 3,379
- Location
- Mornington Peninsula
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Melb Storm, Liverpool, S Thunder
Wookie on Hawks reporting sheet it says>The Club is delighted to announce a net profit for the year ended 31 October 2018 of $2,011,363
Then on the next line it says>>The consolidated net profit attributable to the members of the Group for the year ended 31 October 2018 is $4,626,038 (Consolidated 2017: $4,763,638).
So whats the difference between the 2 figures?
Well im guessing the first mentioned is their true NET profit $2,011,363
Even bombers>Essendon announce a comprehensive profit of $3,571,871
But true net figure>>Essendon Football Club is delighted to announce a net operating profit of $2,321,871 for the 2018 financial year
For Richmond it states>>Off-field, the Club will report a profit of $4.21 million for the financial year ended October 31. The Club’s operating profit was $5.54 million before amortisation and depreciation. The Club generated total revenue of $79.8 million, an increase of $14.6 million year-on-year.
So does the operating profit of $5.54 million mean the same as hawks consolidated net profit and bombers comprehensive profit?
Then on the next line it says>>The consolidated net profit attributable to the members of the Group for the year ended 31 October 2018 is $4,626,038 (Consolidated 2017: $4,763,638).
So whats the difference between the 2 figures?
Well im guessing the first mentioned is their true NET profit $2,011,363
Even bombers>Essendon announce a comprehensive profit of $3,571,871
But true net figure>>Essendon Football Club is delighted to announce a net operating profit of $2,321,871 for the 2018 financial year
For Richmond it states>>Off-field, the Club will report a profit of $4.21 million for the financial year ended October 31. The Club’s operating profit was $5.54 million before amortisation and depreciation. The Club generated total revenue of $79.8 million, an increase of $14.6 million year-on-year.
So does the operating profit of $5.54 million mean the same as hawks consolidated net profit and bombers comprehensive profit?
U
Net profit is the true accounting bottom line and represents the result after including non cash items including depreciation and amortisation.
The most relevant and important result is the Operating result before these non cash items are deducted as the clubs net cash flow is the most meaningful indicator of the businesses trading performance. Simply cash in / cash out.
All three clubs reported outstanding trading performances represented by great operating results. Richmond $5.54M, Essendon $5.7M and Hawthorn $5.05M I believe are all excellent results.
Richmond clearly reaping the benefits of a premiership (est +$8.0M additional revenue flowing in from its operations).
Essendon despite not playing finals generating strong revenue growth once donations are removed.
All clubs with very different business models have achieved powerful results for their members.
Net profit is the true accounting bottom line and represents the result after including non cash items including depreciation and amortisation.
The most relevant and important result is the Operating result before these non cash items are deducted as the clubs net cash flow is the most meaningful indicator of the businesses trading performance. Simply cash in / cash out.
All three clubs reported outstanding trading performances represented by great operating results. Richmond $5.54M, Essendon $5.7M and Hawthorn $5.05M I believe are all excellent results.
Richmond clearly reaping the benefits of a premiership (est +$8.0M additional revenue flowing in from its operations).
Essendon despite not playing finals generating strong revenue growth once donations are removed.
All clubs with very different business models have achieved powerful results for their members.
Well articulated Dave, clarified a few points i wasn't sure of, i understand it fully now!
Agree all of Ess, Rich, and hawks have announced outstanding results.
I will say Essendons operating profit is excellent based on almost same Revenue of 65.092m from 2017
Richmond increased revenue by almost 15 mil from 2017 to almost 80 mil but similar operating result to Ess.
I will say my tiges have come a long way since SOS and even in 2005 where we had a net asset deficiency of 704,000 but as of 2018 have a net asset position of $31,364,372 plus almost 14 million in cash reserves.
Agree all of Ess, Rich, and hawks have announced outstanding results.
I will say Essendons operating profit is excellent based on almost same Revenue of 65.092m from 2017
Richmond increased revenue by almost 15 mil from 2017 to almost 80 mil but similar operating result to Ess.
I will say my tiges have come a long way since SOS and even in 2005 where we had a net asset deficiency of 704,000 but as of 2018 have a net asset position of $31,364,372 plus almost 14 million in cash reserves.
'The Club' is Hawthorn football club.
The 'consolidated' figure includes all related and owned entities (largely pokies related stuff I imagine, but there are other bits).
One shows how the football club itself is going, the other shows all the money (etc) they have to draw on.
Honestly, I wish all clubs would report like this, especially as they're increasingly looking for outside profit centers/investments.
The 'consolidated' figure includes all related and owned entities (largely pokies related stuff I imagine, but there are other bits).
One shows how the football club itself is going, the other shows all the money (etc) they have to draw on.
Honestly, I wish all clubs would report like this, especially as they're increasingly looking for outside profit centers/investments.
Remember, these are 'not for profit' entities...profit isn't (or shouldn't be) the goal and really, what gets reported as profit is, in large part, really just an operating surplus held over until they get a chance to spend it later.
It's like a future draft pick in next years draft...it's nice to have, but doesn't really benefit the club until you spend it and start reaping the benefits.
It's like a future draft pick in next years draft...it's nice to have, but doesn't really benefit the club until you spend it and start reaping the benefits.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 51,813
- Likes
- 64,120
- Location
- SE Oz
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- The Mighty Blacks
Hawthorn the football club that runs a team in the AFL, owns some pokies up at Waverley and leases out some of the buildings at Waverely made an Operating Profit of $2.011m.
Hawthorn the football club also has liquid short term investments in shares and bonds and unlike the majority of entities, rather than account for them in the balance sheet at the lower of a)cost price or b)market value, records them at market value, so after its operating results it records the movements in investments above or below cost and improvements or decrease movements over that 12 months. Hawthorn's investments in 2018 increased by $333k and that's why it records its Comprehensive Profit of $2.344m.
Hawthorn unlike what dave10 said, records depreciation and amortisation and other non cash items as part of normal operating results just like any normal business does, because depreciation and amortisation is a normal business/accounting expense.
The Hawthorn Football Club consolidated group includes the football club and non current investments in Caroline Springs pokie venue (72% ownership I think) and Box Hill Hawks Football Club and the Hawthorn FC Foundation.
That consolidated group made an operating profit of $4.727m. However the group has minority interests in one of the group entities which have nothing to do with Hawthorn. Their share of the $4.727 is $101k and Hawthorn's share is $4.626m
When you then add the movements in investments of $333k mentioned above, the consolidated group Comprehensive Profit is $5.060m - which is what The_Wookie recorded in his footy industry tweet. The Hawks share of that is $4.959m and the outside minority interest is $0.101m.
The whole - what is true net operating profit of an AFL football club has become a bit of a farce since the mid 2000's when clubs started building major training facilities that cost between $10m and $30m and they had to write off those buildings over 20-40 years and an annual hit to the bottom line of depreciation of between $500k and $1m suddenly appeared.
The clubs then started spinning the results to the public removing this normal business expense from their normal operating results for PR spin purposes when they release it to their members. When depreciation is between $1m and $2m because clubs are now buying a lot of software and hi-tech equipment that they write off over 2 or 3 years as well have large building depreciation, removing that from "operating results" to look better. Hawthorn don't do this. I know Adelaide do. Port didn't but because the Adelaide media is too stupid to understand this, they in 2017 reported pre depreciation operating result so that Adelaide and Port results in the media were reported more apples vs apples comparison.
When Geelong had to destroy a stand and write that off from its books, it was reasonable that the $1.8m depreciation and write off of that stand was recorded below the line as an abnormal item and not part of normal operating activities/profit and loss, as it was a one off.
Large government grants to build these new facilities tend to be removed from normal operating profits, but those under $1m tend to be reported in normal operating profits.
Add to that that some clubs have over the last 10-15 years started to make significant large investments in separate legal entities, to drive new revenue, that they have now by law, had to produce consolidated accounts for the group results, that can add confusion to the average punter.
The health of any club can really be seen in the Cash Flow statement where you have 3 components and you look at the football club result for;
1. Net Cash from Operating Activities - ie non cash items eliminated but timing issues can affect it
2. Net Cash from Investing Activities - ie cash from buying and selling - land and buildings, property plant and equipment, and buying and selling other investments like shares and bonds. government grants and large donations to build those training facilities sits here.
3. Net Cash from Financing Activities - ie cash in from taking out loans and borrowing monies, cash out from paying off loans and borrowings plus cash out re those borrowing expenses
Hawthorn the football club also has liquid short term investments in shares and bonds and unlike the majority of entities, rather than account for them in the balance sheet at the lower of a)cost price or b)market value, records them at market value, so after its operating results it records the movements in investments above or below cost and improvements or decrease movements over that 12 months. Hawthorn's investments in 2018 increased by $333k and that's why it records its Comprehensive Profit of $2.344m.
Hawthorn unlike what dave10 said, records depreciation and amortisation and other non cash items as part of normal operating results just like any normal business does, because depreciation and amortisation is a normal business/accounting expense.
The Hawthorn Football Club consolidated group includes the football club and non current investments in Caroline Springs pokie venue (72% ownership I think) and Box Hill Hawks Football Club and the Hawthorn FC Foundation.
That consolidated group made an operating profit of $4.727m. However the group has minority interests in one of the group entities which have nothing to do with Hawthorn. Their share of the $4.727 is $101k and Hawthorn's share is $4.626m
When you then add the movements in investments of $333k mentioned above, the consolidated group Comprehensive Profit is $5.060m - which is what The_Wookie recorded in his footy industry tweet. The Hawks share of that is $4.959m and the outside minority interest is $0.101m.
The whole - what is true net operating profit of an AFL football club has become a bit of a farce since the mid 2000's when clubs started building major training facilities that cost between $10m and $30m and they had to write off those buildings over 20-40 years and an annual hit to the bottom line of depreciation of between $500k and $1m suddenly appeared.
The clubs then started spinning the results to the public removing this normal business expense from their normal operating results for PR spin purposes when they release it to their members. When depreciation is between $1m and $2m because clubs are now buying a lot of software and hi-tech equipment that they write off over 2 or 3 years as well have large building depreciation, removing that from "operating results" to look better. Hawthorn don't do this. I know Adelaide do. Port didn't but because the Adelaide media is too stupid to understand this, they in 2017 reported pre depreciation operating result so that Adelaide and Port results in the media were reported more apples vs apples comparison.
When Geelong had to destroy a stand and write that off from its books, it was reasonable that the $1.8m depreciation and write off of that stand was recorded below the line as an abnormal item and not part of normal operating activities/profit and loss, as it was a one off.
Large government grants to build these new facilities tend to be removed from normal operating profits, but those under $1m tend to be reported in normal operating profits.
Add to that that some clubs have over the last 10-15 years started to make significant large investments in separate legal entities, to drive new revenue, that they have now by law, had to produce consolidated accounts for the group results, that can add confusion to the average punter.
The health of any club can really be seen in the Cash Flow statement where you have 3 components and you look at the football club result for;
1. Net Cash from Operating Activities - ie non cash items eliminated but timing issues can affect it
2. Net Cash from Investing Activities - ie cash from buying and selling - land and buildings, property plant and equipment, and buying and selling other investments like shares and bonds. government grants and large donations to build those training facilities sits here.
3. Net Cash from Financing Activities - ie cash in from taking out loans and borrowing monies, cash out from paying off loans and borrowings plus cash out re those borrowing expenses
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Posts
- 51,813
- Likes
- 64,120
- Location
- SE Oz
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- The Mighty Blacks
Essendon annual report comes up at this link not one in tweet
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Archive/AnnualReport2018 - FINAL.pdf
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Archive/AnnualReport2018 - FINAL.pdf
I've said for a while now that the Saints were the Vic club in most financial trouble, and this report does nothing to change my mind on that. Even with over $22M added in the past 2 years for redevelopment of Moorabbin, this still looks anemic.
Debt up significantly, current/redeemable assets halved, and all that on massive extra AFL distributions.
The only thing going for them is the new facilities, and that's unlikely to produce much by way of extra revenue/profits.
It's no surprise they ended up 'hosting' the China game.
Debt up significantly, current/redeemable assets halved, and all that on massive extra AFL distributions.
The only thing going for them is the new facilities, and that's unlikely to produce much by way of extra revenue/profits.
It's no surprise they ended up 'hosting' the China game.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2000
- Posts
- 26,889
- Likes
- 12,298
- Location
- South of the river
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Peel Thunder
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2000
- Posts
- 26,889
- Likes
- 12,298
- Location
- South of the river
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Peel Thunder
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Posts
- 14,485
- Likes
- 4,612
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
Just checking out the dogs financial report now, total revenue fairly stable, but were able to increase net profit by reducing some expenses.
But they've reported a significant below the line item, the transfer of land from the Vic Govt, notes 3 and 4 refer to the Whitten Oval and environs, not sure if that means the whole Whitten Oval or just part of it, maybe where the old Drill Hall was or other adjoining properties. Whatever it is, fair value is $16 mill. Anyone know what this is exactly?
Whatever it is, pretty damn generous!
But they've reported a significant below the line item, the transfer of land from the Vic Govt, notes 3 and 4 refer to the Whitten Oval and environs, not sure if that means the whole Whitten Oval or just part of it, maybe where the old Drill Hall was or other adjoining properties. Whatever it is, fair value is $16 mill. Anyone know what this is exactly?
Whatever it is, pretty damn generous!
