Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion Thread

[Kane McGoodwin]

Every single club got more in AFL distributions than we did. West Coast and Collingwood both got more.
The fact that the club allows us to get the least amount of dividends from the AFL isnt an issue for Ports management, its an issue with ours.
What was Ports sponsorship numbers for 2016? How do they compare with ours?

So you are saying Port are a better run club because they need more funding from the AFL?

Btw, their distribution formula is stuffed & I believe it is being reviewed.

We get millions more in sponsorship than Port. They are struggling to get major sponsors.

 

[MRB37]

Did he say “mate” in the email?

I believe he did. He seemed nice enough in it, certainly doesn't reek of arrogance like Trigg did.

 

[Mego Red]

While I enjoy paying out Poort Adelaide, reality is our books arnt any better than theirs.
They have more revenue than us and have posted more profits in the last few years than us.

How do you work that out?

Memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship would all be higher with us.

 

[Mego Red]

Every single club got more in AFL distributions than we did. West Coast and Collingwood both got more.
The fact that the club allows us to get the least amount of dividends from the AFL isnt an issue for Ports management, its an issue with ours.
What was Ports sponsorship numbers for 2016? How do they compare with ours?

What? What are you expecting our management to do? To go on strike until the AFL changes its calculations and gives us more money?

We get less BECAUSE of how well we do, and because of how good our stadium deal is. The distribution deal acknowledges those clubs that have shit circumstances, most of which the AFL has helped create.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What? What are you expecting our management to do? To go on strike until the AFL changes its calculations and gives us more money?

We get less BECAUSE of how well we do, and because of how good our stadium deal is. The distribution deal acknowledges those clubs that have shit circumstances, most of which the AFL has helped create.

Not sure why we get less than the likes of West Coast... but the AFL are reviewing the methodology.

However, we are likely to always get less than Port because we make more on sponsorship & membership.

 

[FR0GGY]

My first thoughts it would be Spotless, as they are part of the Celsus consortium receiving $1m per day for the nrah.

Spotless good fit to go with cashless

 

[tinman]

That's not Richmond

Reckon it's Claremont

 

[Roovolution]

Reckon it's Claremont

Reckon the intent is there. He’s trolling as usual.

 

[Cleric]

How do you work that out?

Memberships, ticket sales, sponsorship would all be higher with us.

2016 revenue numbers
Port Adelaide – $52,768,461
Adelaide – $48,327,897
We kill on membership revenue against nearly all clubs. Sponsorship we dont have the numbers.

 

[Cleric]

What? What are you expecting our management to do? To go on strike until the AFL changes its calculations and gives us more money?

We get less BECAUSE of how well we do, and because of how good our stadium deal is. The distribution deal acknowledges those clubs that have shit circumstances, most of which the AFL has helped create.

It has nothing to do with our stadium deal. Collingwood makes more from their MCG stadium deal than we do.
Oh and Chappy has shown just how big hill balls are with the AFL hasnt he?

 

[Jack is Back]

2016 revenue numbers
Port Adelaide – $52,768,461
Adelaide – $48,327,897
We kill on membership revenue against nearly all clubs. Sponsorship we dont have the numbers.

Revenue is virtually meaningless.
Club A purchases several hotels which increase revenue by $5 million but expenses increase by $5.5 million.
Club B purchases an away match and plays it overseas. Revenue increases $4.5 million (mostly from AFL and government subsidies) expenditure increases by $5 million.

In both cases there is a big increase in revenue but the club sustains greater losses.

The world is littered with companies that increase revenue year after year until they go into liquidation.

 

[Cleric]

Revenue is virtually meaningless.
Club A purchases several hotels which increase revenue by $5 million but expenses increase by $5.5 million.
Club B purchases an away match and plays it overseas. Revenue increases $4.5 million (mostly from AFL and government subsidies) expenditure increases by $5 million.

In both cases there is a big increase in revenue but the club sustains greater losses.

The world is littered with companies that increase revenue year after year until they go into liquidation.

So with them posting profits and us posting losses, I guess that meaningless as well?
And us having 5 million more in liabilities?
Reality is we aint doing that much better than the rabble down the road.

 

[relapse]

So the prick has to wear a shirt with a Richmond emblem on it ........is this guy just a wannabe shit stirrer of a journalist..... and i say this with all due respect to proper journalists

I know we all love to bag Rucci, but it's blatantly obvious that the logo is not Richmond. The picture of the tiger looks nothing like anything that Richmond have ever used, if anything it looks like a Claremont shirt.

 

[relapse]

Reckon the intent is there. He’s trolling as usual.

From memory I actually think he supports Claremont in the WAFL (I could be wrong though)

 

[FR0GGY]

I know we all love to bag Rucci, but it's blatantly obvious that the logo is not Richmond. The picture of the tiger looks nothing like anything that Richmond have ever used, if anything it looks like a Claremont shirt.

It also says Claremont

 

[Jack is Back]

So with them posting profits and us posting losses, I guess that meaningless as well?
And us having 5 million more in liabilities?
Reality is we aint doing that much better than the rabble down the road.

Our liabilities in recent years have included

1) Paying back our significantly higher licence fee

2) Paying back the money borrowed to build the Taj at West Lakes

Our depreciation is high because we are writing off the the value of the Taj asap.

Our expenditure has increased due to the AFLW, which will ensure we remain the premier club in SA for as far as the eye can see. Unlike our neighbours we haven’t pissed money against the wall by having heat training in Dubai, having the most expensive fitness guy in the world or chasing the golden yuan.

A business is not sustainable if it has to rely on mercy ****s from the AFL and government subsidies to stay afloat.

 

[relapse]

2016 revenue numbers
Port Adelaide – $52,768,461
Adelaide – $48,327,897
We kill on membership revenue against nearly all clubs. Sponsorship we dont have the numbers.

Sponsorship for us is not a problem, our problem is that we don't have a big enough off field revenue base.

The only reason that Port's revenue numbers is higher than ours is because they have 2 licensed pokie venues (the Port Club as well as the Prince of Wales Hotel) that bring in revenue for the club.

If we had a half decent CEO instead of Trigg, they would have spent their tenure building our off field revenue base. Unfortunately for us Trigg just sat on his hands for over a decade leaving us miles behind many other clubs in terms of our off field revenue.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I know we all love to bag Rucci, but it's blatantly obvious that the logo is not Richmond. The picture of the tiger looks nothing like anything that Richmond have ever used, if anything it looks like a Claremont shirt.

As i said previously , you don't think there was some symbolism, and a dig at the crows behind his wardrobe selection ? ....... oh cmon

 

[subaru]

My first thoughts it would be Spotless, as they are part of the Celsus consortium receiving $1m per day for the nrah.

OneGreatSwornToSecrecyButWantsToBigNoteHimself

"Laurinex are going to be sponsoring us this year, but have done previously too I think. Wouldn't be a major sponsor though."

Never heard of them unless its someone called Lauren and her ex is a cleaner ...

 

[subaru]

Revenue is virtually meaningless.
Club A purchases several hotels which increase revenue by $5 million but expenses increase by $5.5 million.
Club B purchases an away match and plays it overseas. Revenue increases $4.5 million (mostly from AFL and government subsidies) expenditure increases by $5 million.

In both cases there is a big increase in revenue but the club sustains greater losses.

The world is littered with companies that increase revenue year after year until they go into liquidation.

Club A has an asset though

 

[footy4ever]

I know we all love to bag Rucci, but it's blatantly obvious that the logo is not Richmond. The picture of the tiger looks nothing like anything that Richmond have ever used, if anything it looks like a Claremont shirt.

Exactly. But if we had lost the GF to St Kilda e.g., Rootch would have been sporting a Goodwood Saints shirt.

 

[footy4ever]

As i said previously , you don't think there was some symbolism, and a dig at the crows behind his wardrobe selection ? ....... oh cmon

Clearly obvious

 

[Jack is Back]

Club A has an asset though

No, Club A has a $5 million asset and a liability of $5 million for the money it borrowed to purchase the Hotels. The liability increases because Club A doesn’t generate sufficient “profit” to service the extra $5 million in loans.

Check out the history of the Collingwood FC incursion into the hospitality business.

A true measurement of the financial health of the two SA clubs would be to check the accumulated “profits/losses” of both clubs over the last 10 year once you strip out the special grants and loans. If Poort Pear was a private sector company they would have been wound up years ago. They have remained afloat by loans and special grants from the SANFL, the AFL and the government. They will never repay this money, they will continue to exist on welfare unless the Golden Yuan Dream succeeds. Even Koch Head has admitted that their current situation is unsustainable in the longterm.

I am proud that the AFC has not only paid its way over the last 27 years but has also paid huge amounts of money to the AFL and SANFL to enable basket cases like Poort Pear to continue to exist. The building of the Taj at West Lakes has made us more vulnerable once the decision to move to Adelaide Oval was made. Nevertheless we continue to fully fund our club, start a fantastic AFLW team and provide great support for the community.

 

[subaru]

No, Club A has a $5 million asset and a liability of $5 million for the money it borrowed to purchase the Hotels. The liability increases because Club A doesn’t generate sufficient “profit” to service the extra $5 million in loans.

Check out the history of the Collingwood FC incursion into the hospitality business.

A true measurement of the financial health of the two SA clubs would be to check the accumulated “profits/losses” of both clubs over the last 10 year once you strip out the special grants and loans. If Poort Pear was a private sector company they would have been wound up years ago. They have remained afloat by loans and special grants from the SANFL, the AFL and the government. They will never repay this money, they will continue to exist on welfare unless the Golden Yuan Dream succeeds. Even Koch Head has admitted that their current situation is unsustainable in the longterm.

I am proud that the AFC has not only paid its way over the last 27 years but has also paid huge amounts of money to the AFL and SANFL to enable basket cases like Poort Pear to continue to exist. The building of the Taj at West Lakes has made us more vulnerable once the decision to move to Adelaide Oval was made. Nevertheless we continue to fully fund our club, start a fantastic AFLW team and provide great support for the community.

Thanks for that
I guess I was thinking they owned the pub

 

[MRB37]

No, Club A has a $5 million asset and a liability of $5 million for the money it borrowed to purchase the Hotels. The liability increases because Club A doesn’t generate sufficient “profit” to service the extra $5 million in loans.

Check out the history of the Collingwood FC incursion into the hospitality business.

A true measurement of the financial health of the two SA clubs would be to check the accumulated “profits/losses” of both clubs over the last 10 year once you strip out the special grants and loans. If Poort Pear was a private sector company they would have been wound up years ago. They have remained afloat by loans and special grants from the SANFL, the AFL and the government. They will never repay this money, they will continue to exist on welfare unless the Golden Yuan Dream succeeds. Even Koch Head has admitted that their current situation is unsustainable in the longterm.

I am proud that the AFC has not only paid its way over the last 27 years but has also paid huge amounts of money to the AFL and SANFL to enable basket cases like Poort Pear to continue to exist. The building of the Taj at West Lakes has made us more vulnerable once the decision to move to Adelaide Oval was made. Nevertheless we continue to fully fund our club, start a fantastic AFLW team and provide great support for the community.

For a local example, look what happened to Glenelg. Borrowed a shit ton of money to re-build their hospitality establishment, but still don't make enough money to actually pay back the money they borrowed to build the damn thing.