Official Club Stuff 2023 Financial Results

[The_Wookie]

NOT THIS YEAR dave10

Previous Years threads

• 2022 Annual Report Thread
• 2021 Annuial Report Thread
• 2020 Annual Report Thread
• 2019 Annual Report Thread
• 2018 Annual Report Thread
• 2017 Annual Report thread
• 2016 Annual Report thread
• 2015 Annual Report thread
• 2014 Annual Report thread
• 2013 Annual Report thread
• 2012 Annual Report thread
• 2011 Annual Report thread

Past Annual Reports

References - Club Annual Reports
Club	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Adelaide	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Brisbane	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Carlton	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Collingwood	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Essendon	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Fremantle	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Geelong	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Gold Coast	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
G.Western Sydney	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Hawthorn	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Melbourne	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
North Melbourne	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Port Adelaide	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Richmond	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
St Kilda	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Sydney	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
West Coast	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Western Bulldogs	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
AFL (Full)	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
AFL (Concise)	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
SANFL	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
WAFC	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022

2018-22 Data Sheet

 

[The_Wookie]

Is $106m the biggest turnover by any club in any sport in Australian history ?

no.

There are rubgy league clubs that turn over more due to much larger pokie operations. Which in Richmonds case is particularly relevant since a very significant chunk if your revenue doesnt come from Football.

Canterbury turned over 108m, Penrith 145m last year.

The Swans reported total revenue of 108m last year, but almost half was grants for its development.

From pure football operations, no one is close to West Coast.

 

[The_Wookie]

This is a very narrow minded view

Being the first $100m business in Australian sports history will provide leverage opportunities beyond your imagination

its not. Not even close.

I mean the Australian Football League Limited almost hit 950m last year in revenue - thats AFL HQ nd is by far the biggest sports business in Australia.

 

[blaisee]

its not. Not even close.

I mean the Australian Football League Limited almost hit 950m last year in revenue - thats AFL HQ nd is by far the biggest sports business in Australia.

You seem a bit defensive and abrasive

so Richmond contributes 106/905 = > 10% of all afl revenue from one club?

So Richmond has the highest turnover in AFL history

 

[blaisee]

no.

There are rubgy league clubs that turn over more due to much larger pokie operations. Which in Richmonds case is particularly relevant since a very significant chunk if your revenue doesnt come from Football.

Canterbury turned over 108m, Penrith 145m last year.

The Swans reported total revenue of 108m last year, but almost half was grants for its development.

From pure football operations, no one is close to West Coast.

but on turnover for an AFL club, no club is close to Richmond, Richmond is the biggest by far.

 

[owen87]

Richmond supporters desperate need for attention is a real fall from winning a GF a few years ago.

 

[The_Wookie]

You seem a bit defensive and abrasive

You come into my thread on my board every time you think Richmond are better than everyone else and act like a tool. Go back to your club board, i dont want you here. You give Richmond supporters a bad name on this board.

so Richmond contributes 106/905 = > 10% of all afl revenue from one club?

no thats AFL HQ revenue only. Richmond doesnt contribute to it from its revenue.

So Richmond has the highest turnover in AFL history

but on turnover for an AFL club, no club is close to Richmond, Richmond is the biggest by far.

And as explained, The Swans had a higher turnover last year, when all revenues are considered.

As a football club, no one beats West Cost.

 

[dave10]

Is $106m the biggest turnover by any club in any sport in Australian history ?

It’s a bit of a curious one this year. $40M that figure is derived from a leisure business making a financial loss the last 12 months (~$1.5M). I’m a big advocate for these opportunities but they need to contribute to the consolidated profit. They need to turn this around. As your Prez said in his report, governments grants aside, it was a challenging year. But, Richmond isn’t alone in this respect.

I think 2024 will be interesting for Richmond. Its membership in this cycle is maxed out and it’s been handed a commercially crap fixture. Its trading performance in 2024 could be even more difficult and a watch I’d say.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

As promised by the Dogs to members today they have released theirs.

The Western Bulldogs have completed the 2023 financial year with a total profit of $26,275,951 (2022: $5,188,421).

Bulldogs announce 2023 financial result…
Bulldogs announce 2023 financial result

 

[Danw0w]

Richmond supporters desperate need for attention is a real fall from winning a GF a few years ago.

What are we just not allowed to talk about our club in a public forum?

 

[dave10]

but on turnover for an AFL club, no club is close to Richmond, Richmond is the biggest by far.

What are we just not allowed to talk about our club in a public forum?

Not the point. There’s a minority of posters who take the p15s and stir up trouble. There’s a distinct difference. This isn’t bay 13.

 

[Rob]

As promised by the Dogs to members today they have released theirs.

The Western Bulldogs have completed the 2023 financial year with a total profit of $26,275,951 (2022: $5,188,421).

Bulldogs announce 2023 financial result…
Bulldogs announce 2023 financial result

Well that's probably the most interesting, and paradoxical, financial report ever released by an AFL club.

It's also a good lesson in why accounts can't be narrowed to just one number.

 

[boncer34]

What are we just not allowed to talk about our club in a public forum?

Sure but when you ask if you're the biggest ever of any club in Australia and get told no you're not even the biggest in the AFL, to then come back and still bang on about being the biggest in the AFL..... seems like a desperate need for validation to me.

Or trolling. Either or.

 

[boncer34]

Well that's probably the most interesting, and paradoxical, financial report ever released by an AFL club.

It's also a good lesson in why accounts can't be narrowed to just one number.

It's a real tricky one for the Dogs but smart. Include the payout figure this year but declare you're appealing to minimise the impact when read by members.

That way should your appeal fail, won't hurt the bottom line your reporting in future because you've sunk the cost already.

 

[The_Wookie]

What are we just not allowed to talk about our club in a public forum?

You can. You cant be a jackass about it. WE get the same thing every year from the same people

 

[Danw0w]

Not the point. There’s a minority of posters who take the p15s and stir up trouble. There’s a distinct difference. This isn’t bay 13.

Sure but when you ask if you're the biggest ever of any club in Australia and get told no you're not even the biggest in the AFL, to then come back and still bang on about being the biggest in the AFL..... seems like a desperate need for validation to me.

Or trolling. Either or.

You can. You cant be a jackass about it. WE get the same thing every year from the same people

5 people out of 100,000 and somehow that equals all "Richmond supporters".

Essendon fans should especially know better than to generalise.

 

[The_Wookie]

5 people out of 100,000 and somehow that equals all "Richmond supporters".

Essendon fans should especially know better than to generalise.

No one said it dd equal all richmond supporters dude. settle down. This isnt the thread for bay 13 type rubbish. end of story

 

[Bjo187]

Greg Swan said the lions are going to post their biggest ever profit this year and will release it in a few weeks. They are doing really well as the past two seasons they have posted over 2 million each year. Im interested to see how big the figure is this year and it's been a great turn around for a club that was previously struggling.

 

[Engimal v3]

$26 million profit for the Bulldogs. Clearly the biggest club now.

 

[Prince Imperial]

A couple of new reports appeared on club websites today:

The Saints announced a total profit of $1.7m. This though included $2.6m of government grants for their Moorabbin redevelopment. Having said that, they do have a whopping $2.2m depreciation expense on their facilities which impacts the total result. The AFL reduced their variable funding by 700k and their bank borrowings of $6m remained the same. Kudos to them and North for being the only clubs to regularly clearly report their variable funding.

In a year that they made finals and started the season brilliantly and cashed in on their 150th anniversary with a big game at the MCG against the Bombers and impressive merchandise sales, it's probably an OK or decent result, overall. Not great, not bad.

https://resources.saints.com.au/aflc-stk/document/2023/11/27/96d95025-7f72-4e97-ade7-18532edfb57f/231117-2023-Annual-Report-Draft-5.pdf

The Cats have announced a profit of $760k. Capacity constraints due to the redevelopment of their ground affected their operations but as they point out this was partially offset by compensation from the Kardinia Park Stadium Trust (i.e. the Victorian Taxpayer).

Given they were coming off a brilliant premiership and enjoyed big merchandise sales and all the other benefits, it's probably another OK or decent result, overall.

https://resources.geelongcats.com.au/aflc-geel/document/2023/11/28/a357b6ab-5f3f-46b2-b528-41d17cddf550/GC-2023-FIN-Consolidated-Financial-Statements-Final-Signed.pdf

 

[Bjo187]

I think we need to exclude any government funding from teams reported results and therefore only post the true profit or loss. A lot of these reports are intentionally misleading.

 

[Prince Imperial]

I think we need to exclude any government funding from teams reported results and therefore only post the true profit or loss. A lot of these reports are intentionally misleading.

As long as clubs are transparent in the whole of reports (as the Saints have been), I think it's fine to include them but I agree some are misleading particularly with their website articles.

One off government funding to build facilities is on one view not part of the "true" profit or loss, but these facilities also depreciate (or amortise) every year afterwards and this negatively affects (often quite substantially) the published profit or loss result so there would be an argument not to include this depreciation amount if you excluded the initial grant. Ultimately, you've just got to read the whole of the report to try and work out what's happening in the company.

My club gets 800k annually from the state government to run community programs but it would be unreasonable to exclude this given we would not have also incurred expenditure of around this amount without the funding.

 

[Bjo187]

As long as clubs are transparent in the whole of reports (as the Saints have been), I think it's fine to include them but I agree some are misleading particularly with their website articles.

One off government funding to build facilities is on one view not part of the "true" profit or loss, but these facilities also depreciate (or amortise) every year afterwards and this negatively affects (often quite substantially) the published profit or loss result so there would be an argument not to include this depreciation amount if you excluded the initial grant. Ultimately, you've just got to read the whole of the report to try and work out what's happening in the company.

My club gets 800k annually from the state government to run community programs but it would be unreasonable to exclude this given we would not have also incurred expenditure of around this amount without the funding.

Yes I always struggle to understand these financial reports in full, with all the depreciation etc, which doesn't make sense as to it affecting the profit to me, as it's a non actually a tangible thing.

Profit should simply be how much money came in, compared to how much came out for that financial year. Excluding one off payments, I agree annual payments like your bulldogs one should be included in the profits, as it's a regular annual money maker for the club.

 

[The Educator]

Yes I always struggle to understand these financial reports in full, with all the depreciation etc, which doesn't make sense as to it affecting the profit to me, as it's a non actually a tangible thing.

Profit should simply be how much money came in, compared to how much came out for that financial year. Excluding one off payments, I agree annual payments like your bulldogs one should be included in the profits, as it's a regular annual money maker for the club.

Thinks about if you bought a $20,000 car just to start an Uber business

Over, say, the ten years of the life of the car, you would need to factor in what you paid upfront for it in addition to fuel, maintenance and your pay. Basic "straight line" depreciation we mean that you have an expense each year of $2,000

Imagine, instead, if the government bought you the car. You would still have that depreciation item as an expenditure each year even though you personally didn't pay it.

This is why you really need to consider it holistically. If people want to insist on completely ignoring the profit that included the grant funding when the asset was being built than you would need to reflect that in your analysis of financial reports in subsequent years when the asset that grant money paid for is expended (i.e depreciated)

I think clubs all do this transparently

 

[Rob]

I think we need to exclude any government funding from teams reported results and therefore only post the true profit or loss. A lot of these reports are intentionally misleading.

No, you just have to read the financial report beyond the headline figure.
Usually there's an operating profit/loss result that would exclude one offs like government grants.

Net assets is another beauty....so many clubs have huge leasehold improvements (I.e buildings on land they don't own) on their balance sheet which make their net assets look impressive, but its effectively assets they can't sell nor borrow against.

 

[Bjo187]

Thinks about if you bought a $20,000 car just to start an Uber business

Over, say, the ten years of the life of the car, you would need to factor in what you paid upfront for it in addition to fuel, maintenance and your pay. Basic "straight line" depreciation we mean that you have an expense each year of $2,000

Imagine, instead, if the government bought you the car. You would still have that depreciation item as an expenditure each year even though you personally didn't pay it.

This is why you really need to consider it holistically. If people want to insist on completely ignoring the profit that included the grant funding when the asset was being built than you would need to reflect that in your analysis of financial reports in subsequent years when the asset that grant money paid for is expended (i.e depreciated)

I think clubs all do this transparently

Appreciate the explanation and excuse my naivety, but why is depreciation even considered in profits is my question?

Shouldn't it just be considered like assets and money in the bank, so not accounted for when talking 'annual' profits into account.

To me profits should simply be how much did we spend on running the business, how much revenue did we make, the gap in between that.