Official Club Stuff 2022 Financial Results

[The_Wookie]

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Not all of these guarantees have been used. Essendons isnt drawn, I dont think Carlton or Footscrays are either.

The AFL gives the clubs' banker's guarantees and they keep getting renewed, if the banks want some form of security over overdraft facilities or commercial notes drawn on during the year for short term, not just straight out long term loans.

All clubs have overdraft facilities, some of those on that contingent liabilities list at end of year might look like they have cash in the bank, but probably go into overdraft at sometime during the year. North Melbourne say they are debt free but they probably go into overdraft during the year for short periods.

Essendon got their's in 2013 when the drug saga broke and they were still financing the construction of the Hangar. Then they lost $10m in 2016 after the CAS ruling banning the players in January 2016. It was $5.0m in 2013 nothing in 2012 and then $10m in 2016 and slowly decreasing, reduced to $8.0m in 2019 and then $4.0m in 2021. They have had to partially debt finance the 2nd stage development of the Hangar, they borrowed $8m in 2020 and would be part of the reason why they still need/want a guarantee from the AFL. They paid back $6m in 2021.

Richmond had a guarantee from the AFL for $5.0m in 2012 and then $1.5m in 2013 for several more years.

 

[Adz2332]

Debt under 6 mill according to Richo. massive if true.
6mill paid off in the last 2 years

 

[VineValerian]

I speak from the perspective of supreme ignorance on matters financial.

Given the spin and accounting obfuscation seen previously from our nabobs, I will await a financial bainiac's objective take on whether we really are blasting away debt, and establishing a financial bastion going forward, or if it's just gimmickery - by acts such as bringing forward anticipated revenue from membership renewals into every reporting period, etc.

I don't trust these *******s to provide a straight answer.

 

[jac147]

REH - perhaps you could answer this as it’s got something to do with financial and development.
At the end of the next 5 years we could be looking for some further development at Alberton Oval. A prime piece of land for development would be the land now being used by the bowling club. Firstly what is their tenure over that parcel of land? Can the footy club ask them to leave?
I specifically have some ideas how that land could be used for the footy going public and those ideas would be useless if the bowling club can’t be shifted.
And one day I would like to watch a game from that south western pocket, a pleasure that has been denied to us Port supporters.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

REH - perhaps you could answer this as it’s got something to do with financial and development.
At the end of the next 5 years we could be looking for some further development at Alberton Oval. A prime piece of land for development would be the land now being used by the bowling club. Firstly what is their tenure over that parcel of land? Can the footy club ask them to leave?
I specifically have some ideas how that land could be used for the footy going public and those ideas would be useless if the bowling club can’t be shifted.
And one day I would like to watch a game from that south western pocket, a pleasure that has been denied to us Port supporters.

Below is the diagram from the PAE Council documents about the redevelopment that I put on page 50 of Alberton Oval Redevelopment thread. In post

• #1,231

I wrote;
What this document shows is that Port

• own control the land the old croquet club was on - I was aware of that,
• they own the land the Quinn stand is built on and the car park area behind it, wasn't 100% sure if that was the case,
• they own control the bowling club area - I did ask KT if there was any land tenure issue with the 2018 proposal to build the PA Aboriginal Centre of Excellence, the bowling club has had a lease with the PAFC for a long time, and he said no. But the bowling club would have protested.
• we own the land the original ASHQ was built on and car park plus the 2009-10 extension to the facility.

I originally wrote own but have changed to control today in that post, as since posting that I have read a bit more and I think the phrase community land refers to where no specific lease from the council to a sporting club exists. I have also adjusted the phrase own to control for the old croquet club as Port have leased that land.

Port have a lease on the land from the council and the Bowling Club have a sub lease, have done so for over 100 years and that's why its correct to say the club control it, not own it like the two parcels of land that cover the Quinn Stand and ASHQ and parking area. I think the rent the Bowling Club pay Port = the rent the council charge Port.

I believe the club has, as part of redevelopment of Alberton changing completely from the 2018 version to the 2022 version, have some concept design for the bowling club area, but that is all it is.

The club don't have the funds and haven't put it to the council and haven't progressed it with the Bowling Club. Its some sort of partnership with the Bowling Club but what it is I have no idea what it exactly is, but involves Port having a higher involvement in the space.

I suspect the success / growth of the AFLW team will determine if the development involves a grandstand / viewing area for average Port fan. I can't see the club kicking out the bowling club to build an income producing building or venture on the land. That would be a big s**t fight.

There is a long way to go for that area to change.

 

[Buget]

REH - perhaps you could answer this as it’s got something to do with financial and development.
At the end of the next 5 years we could be looking for some further development at Alberton Oval. A prime piece of land for development would be the land now being used by the bowling club. Firstly what is their tenure over that parcel of land? Can the footy club ask them to leave?
I specifically have some ideas how that land could be used for the footy going public and those ideas would be useless if the bowling club can’t be shifted.
And one day I would like to watch a game from that south western pocket, a pleasure that has been denied to us Port supporters.

I would suggest that even if they could move on the bowling club, it wouldn’t be a strategically sound move. The new development includes access to the local soccer club, so how would evicting the bowls club look?

And, for the record, I use to watch Magpies games from the bowls club in the late 90s/early 2000s. You use to go into the club house for scones at half time.

 

[Duck Farmer]

I would suggest that even if they could move on the bowling club, it wouldn’t be a strategically sound move.

We should annex bowl land.

 

[Interstater]

The AFL has given a guarantee to our bankers for $5.0m and has for many years and lists it under their contigent liabilities note in their annual report.

For years we couldn't technically operate as a going concern without it.

Our debt was accumulated out of losses, not going out to borrow to buy an asset to build the business.

There is nothing wrong to borrow large sums of debt to buy/build an income producing asset,

Hawthorn did it for their Caroline Springs pokie venue, borrowed $12m to buy machines and fit out that leasehold venue as well as machines for their other venue Vegas Club in Mulgrave in 2010 when the Vic pokie duopoly was broken up. They then generated profits of between $2m-$4m a year and then mid this year they sold off both venues and after paying off outstanding debt of about $8m they netted just over $40m. They paid their debt off slowly when their asset was making large returns in a low interest environment.

That's the sort of large debt you want.

Its not the debt pursue, its the AFL oversight that is the issue. Being debt free means less oversight from the AFL as they don't have to give your bankers a guarantee to operate, and maybe one day, like the Crows have in their constitution, post 31/10/2028 they get out of their hair, and will get out of ours and we have more member elected directors and more say in our club.


From page 35 of the AFL's 2021 annual report lodged with ASIC.


View attachment 1574060
View attachment 1574059

I wonder if our guarantee was renewed.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I wonder if our guarantee was renewed.

I cant see why the bank would not have asked the AFL to roll it over, and I cant see why the AFL would have said no.

 

[VineValerian]

We should annex bowl land.

You're showing your bias there.

And I'm Jack of it tbh.



Good night!!!

 

[Lockhart Road]

Below is the diagram from the PAE Council documents about the redevelopment that I put on page 50 of Alberton Oval Redevelopment thread. In post

• #1,231

I wrote;
What this document shows is that Port

• own control the land the old croquet club was on - I was aware of that,
• they own the land the Quinn stand is built on and the car park area behind it, wasn't 100% sure if that was the case,
• they own control the bowling club area - I did ask KT if there was any land tenure issue with the 2018 proposal to build the PA Aboriginal Centre of Excellence, the bowling club has had a lease with the PAFC for a long time, and he said no. But the bowling club would have protested.
• we own the land the original ASHQ was built on and car park plus the 2009-10 extension to the facility.

I originally wrote own but have changed to control today in that post, as since posting that I have read a bit more and I think the phrase community land refers to where no specific lease from the council to a sporting club exists. I have also adjusted the phrase own to control for the old croquet club as Port have leased that land.

Port have a lease on the land from the council and the Bowling Club have a sub lease, have done so for over 100 years and that's why its correct to say the club control it, not own it like the two parcels of land that cover the Quinn Stand and ASHQ and parking area. I think the rent the Bowling Club pay Port = the rent the council charge Port.

I believe the club has, as part of redevelopment of Alberton changing completely from the 2018 version to the 2022 version, have some concept design for the bowling club area, but that is all it is.

The club don't have the funds and haven't put it to the council and haven't progressed it with the Bowling Club. Its some sort of partnership with the Bowling Club but what it is I have no idea what it exactly is, but involves Port having a higher involvement in the space.

I suspect the success / growth of the AFLW team will determine if the development involves a grandstand / viewing area for average Port fan. I can't see the club kicking out the bowling club to build an income producing building or venture on the land. That would be a big s**t fight.

There is a long way to go for that area to change.

REH … in Hong Kong what would happen is that the Bowling Club would be retained / restored / refurbished at Govt expense and a new PAFC facility of two or three storeys would be built over / on top of it … with the architects being told to maximise sunshine still finding its way on to the bowling green.

This would be promoted as an architectural competition … with the Government and Heritage Society being heavily involved.

Give it ten years. In Hong Kong this would take three years.

Example: The HK Jockey Club being thwarted in moving the next-door HK Football Club up the hill, and having to, at its own expense, rebuild the HKFC into the deluxe complex it is today and putting HK$35 million in cash in the HKFC bank account to compensate for ‘inconvenience’.

There is an amusing side story to go with this. The Jockey Club gave a cheque for HK$35,000,000 to the HKFC because that’s all the HKFC asked for. If HK$50 million had been requested the HKFC would’ve got it. The Jockey Club was over a barrel as it needed to extend and widen its northern bend to qualify under safety regulations for international class races at Happy Valley. The HKFC was in the way. Today, however, the rebuilt north bend is still too unsafe for Group 1 races to be run at Happy Valley, only out at Shatin.

The HK$35 million dollar cheque was handed to the HKFC Treasurer of the time at a cocktail reception. He put the cheque in his shirt pocket, imbibed, went home, threw the shirt into the laundry basket and crashed. In the morning the housekeeper discovered the cheque just before she pushed the button on the washing machine. Now that’s nearly-laundered money.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

REH … in Hong Kong what would happen is that the Bowling Club would be retained / restored / refurbished at Govt expense and a new PAFC facility of two or three storeys would be built over / on top of it … with the architects being told to maximise sunshine still finding its way on to the bowling green.

This would be promoted as an architectural competition … with the Government and Heritage Society being heavily involved.

Give it ten years. In Hong Kong this would take three years.

Example: The HK Jockey Club being thwarted in moving the next-door HK Football Club up the hill, and having to, at its own expense, rebuild the HKFC into the deluxe complex it is today and putting HK$35 million in cash in the HKFC bank account to compensate for ‘inconvenience’.

There is an amusing side story to go with this. The Jockey Club gave a cheque for HK$35,000,000 to the HKFC because that’s all the HKFC asked for. If HK$50 million had been requested the HKFC would’ve got it. The Jockey Club was over a barrel as it needed to extend and widen its northern bend to qualify under safety regulations for international class races at Happy Valley. The HKFC was in the way. Today, however, the rebuilt north bend is still too unsafe for Group 1 races to be run at Happy Valley, only out at Shatin.

The HK$35 million dollar cheque was handed to the HKFC Treasurer of the time at a cocktail reception. He put the cheque in his shirt pocket, imbibed, went home, threw the shirt into the laundry basket and crashed. In the morning the housekeeper discovered the cheque just before she pushed the button on the washing machine. Now that’s nearly-laundered money.

Haha one can only dream of something like that happening in Adelaide.

That whole set up of the HKJC / HKFC and the sporting fields inside the race course is magnificent.

Hand over a huge cheque at a cocktail party is a very civilized way to do business. Here it would require a big press conference and huge photo op set up with the media.

 

[jac147]

Below is the diagram from the PAE Council documents about the redevelopment that I put on page 50 of Alberton Oval Redevelopment thread. In post

• #1,231

I wrote;
What this document shows is that Port

• own control the land the old croquet club was on - I was aware of that,
• they own the land the Quinn stand is built on and the car park area behind it, wasn't 100% sure if that was the case,
• they own control the bowling club area - I did ask KT if there was any land tenure issue with the 2018 proposal to build the PA Aboriginal Centre of Excellence, the bowling club has had a lease with the PAFC for a long time, and he said no. But the bowling club would have protested.
• we own the land the original ASHQ was built on and car park plus the 2009-10 extension to the facility.

I originally wrote own but have changed to control today in that post, as since posting that I have read a bit more and I think the phrase community land refers to where no specific lease from the council to a sporting club exists. I have also adjusted the phrase own to control for the old croquet club as Port have leased that land.

Port have a lease on the land from the council and the Bowling Club have a sub lease, have done so for over 100 years and that's why its correct to say the club control it, not own it like the two parcels of land that cover the Quinn Stand and ASHQ and parking area. I think the rent the Bowling Club pay Port = the rent the council charge Port.

I believe the club has, as part of redevelopment of Alberton changing completely from the 2018 version to the 2022 version, have some concept design for the bowling club area, but that is all it is.

The club don't have the funds and haven't put it to the council and haven't progressed it with the Bowling Club. Its some sort of partnership with the Bowling Club but what it is I have no idea what it exactly is, but involves Port having a higher involvement in the space.

I suspect the success / growth of the AFLW team will determine if the development involves a grandstand / viewing area for average Port fan. I can't see the club kicking out the bowling club to build an income producing building or venture on the land. That would be a big s**t fight.

There is a long way to go for that area to change.

REH thanks for the intel and I guess I had that feeling all along.

 

[Visenfest]

The debt is not ideal but has never been my biggest concern (admittedly it's become more concerning with the cost of finance rapidly increasing this year). The debt to equity ratio is hardly out of control, our balance sheet is still reasonably healthy.

Bigger concern to me has always been revenue growth. That's ultimately the path to financial strength. Mid teens revenue growth looks excellent but it's hard to really know without the specifics, especially given we're cyclying a somewhat covid affected year.

Exactly this. If we become debt free, that's great. But what's the plan beyond that? On field success requires strong investment, but we've reduced debt by cutting costs. So will we be able to increase investment in our football program without going back into debt, or do we North it for the foreseeable future? Do we need further revenue to increase investment, and if so what is the club's plan to achieve that?

Some kind of attainable vision of what the club wants to be would be great. I sincerely hope that vision isn't low to mid tier battler. Our history demands more than that.

 

[Interstater]

Exactly this. If we become debt free, that's great. But what's the plan beyond that? On field success requires strong investment, but we've reduced debt by cutting costs. So will we be able to increase investment in our football program without going back into debt, or do we North it for the foreseeable future? Do we need further revenue to increase investment, and if so what is the club's plan to achieve that?

Some kind of attainable vision of what the club wants to be would be great. I sincerely hope that vision isn't low to mid tier battler. Our history demands more than that.

I hope that vision includes a change to Port's constitution.
Currently only three of the "interstaters" don't have bank guarantees controlled by the AFL, namely Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast.

Adelaide are going to be pissing themselves laughing at Port when they become a member run club and we are not.

 

[Ilias M]

Does this mean we can afford to move Hinkley on ?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

REH - perhaps you could answer this as it’s got something to do with financial and development.
At the end of the next 5 years we could be looking for some further development at Alberton Oval. A prime piece of land for development would be the land now being used by the bowling club. Firstly what is their tenure over that parcel of land? Can the footy club ask them to leave?
I specifically have some ideas how that land could be used for the footy going public and those ideas would be useless if the bowling club can’t be shifted.
And one day I would like to watch a game from that south western pocket, a pleasure that has been denied to us Port supporters.

There might be a chance after all. But it will be very $$$ dependent.

Lockhart Road that indoor bowling facility at HKRC is huge. Is that to the left at the entrance level or the next floor up? From page 53 of the PAE's Sports Development Plan 2017-22.

https://www.cityofpae.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/412754/Sports-Development-Plan.pdf

 

[Lockhart Road]

There might be a chance after all. But it will be very $$$ dependent.

Lockhart Road that indoor bowling facility at HKRC is huge. Is that to the left at the entrance level or the next floor up? From page 53 of the PAE's Sports Development Plan 2017-22.

https://www.cityofpae.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/412754/Sports-Development-Plan.pdf

View attachment 1574704

View attachment 1574706

HKFC has two Lawn Bowls ‘greens’ - one traditionally outdoor immediately south of the Sportsmans Bar and east of the HKFC Stadium, all three facilities being inside the Race Track (as you mentioned earlier) … the other green is on the first floor of the three-storey clubhouse; it has seven rinks and the ‘lawn’ bowling is done on ‘carpet’.

If we dismiss the need for natural sunlight, an identical indoor carpeted green could be located on the first floor of a modern PAFC Annex in the south-west corner of Alberton Oval. This would enable all the grumpy old lawn-bowlers to bowl their bias off hail, rain or shine.

It would also mean that PAFC and the Bowling Club would be well and truly welded into a single entity.

Richo hereby has an excellent case to come back to Hong Kong - chasing greatness - and take a fresh look at the HKFC … with whom I believe PAFC still has intact a Reciprocal Membership Partnership.

 

[Relativity]

Exactly this. If we become debt free, that's great. But what's the plan beyond that? On field success requires strong investment, but we've reduced debt by cutting costs. So will we be able to increase investment in our football program without going back into debt, or do we North it for the foreseeable future? Do we need further revenue to increase investment, and if so what is the club's plan to achieve that?

Some kind of attainable vision of what the club wants to be would be great. I sincerely hope that vision isn't low to mid tier battler. Our history demands more than that.

If the vision begins and ends with the demise of AFL influence within our Board then I'm all for it.

 

[Relativity]

Bowling clubs are hard entities to deal with. You have a large contingent of members who have had no other sporting involvement in their younger years and are not savvy as to how sporting clubs operate and yet are self declared experts on every decision that has to be made.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I hope that vision includes a change to Port's constitution.
Currently only three of the "interstaters" don't have bank guarantees controlled by the AFL, namely Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast.

Adelaide are going to be pissing themselves laughing at Port when they become a member run club and we are not.

It would be a PR disaster for Port.

Our biggest point of difference is that we are a real club vs the Crows corporation.

If they are member run and we are not they would argue that they are more of a real club than us

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chiwigi]

I hope that vision includes a change to Port's constitution.
Currently only three of the "interstaters" don't have bank guarantees controlled by the AFL, namely Adelaide, Fremantle and West Coast.

Adelaide are going to be pissing themselves laughing at Port when they become a member run club and we are not.

Have you seen their members???

 

[Rendaw]

I guess we exist to turn a profit. Would prefer a premiership tho

 

[Doctor Feel]

Does this mean we can afford to move Hinkley on ?

We always could. They chose not to.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Have you seen their members???

In terms of risk of becoming genuinely competent:

Member controlled Port > Member controlled Crows > AFL controlled Port > AFL controlled Crows.

What kills the Crows is the Adelaide footy establishment boys club nepotism. That's at risk when they regain member control.

Interstater and Enviable Tradition are bang on. It's a huge risk for us and it's a huge blow to our point of difference as a football club. Crows supporters absolutely will get a hold of this and absolutely will use this against us. We're going to have a situation where the Crows are electing their own board and we're being reassured by Koch that it doesn't matter, while we continue to flounder.