Analysis AFC finances - Rich Club, Poor Club?

[Pdub]

Same deal here by and large.

Except the clubs have to pay for it.

 

[fabs33]

And then the license purchase costs of $1m or so will be gone in a dozen years. I know Fagan was trying to get that tax scrapped, I wasn't aware that he'd succeeded.

It was scrapped in favour of a new AFL funds distribution model and a rise in the football department cap tax from 37.5% to 70%.

 

[hey shorty]

Except the clubs have to pay for it.

How else will our state government look good by announcing a 'surplus'. They are desperate for good news.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

But why does this scheme exist in the first place? Does the state government want to protect the North Adelaide residents from gridlock on match days, from people not wanting to pay for train/bus, so they chose to drive instead? Surely easier and cheaper access into the city is reason enough for supporters to catch public transport, why then does the government impose the subsidy on Port and Crows to make it free on match day?

Encourage less congestion in the city. More people would drive if they had to pay for their public transport.

 

[ad victoriam]

But why does this scheme exist in the first place? Does the state government want to protect the North Adelaide residents from gridlock on match days, from people not wanting to pay for train/bus, so they chose to drive instead? Surely easier and cheaper access into the city is reason enough for supporters to catch public transport, why then does the government impose the subsidy on Port and Crows to make it free on match day?

The Government does not impose the Levy and the Crows can pull out of the deal anytime.
The Crows do it for their supporters, over half the supporter base that travels to game use Public transport,
Also, the fee is built into the tickets I think we pay about $6 levy on a season ticket and $3.30 levy on a game day ticket, Same as it built into other major event ticketing prices, Like today free travel to and from Clipsal 500.

By the way, we are not the only State or country to do this. I would go so far to say Victoria is the odd one out in this area. Major sports and event around the world are adopting or have already had this system of free public transport.

 

[ad victoriam]

Except the clubs have to pay for it.

The State Government Pick up the surplus cost which is over 1.4mill,

 

[MRB37]

And then the license purchase costs of $1m or so will be gone in a dozen years. I know Fagan was trying to get that tax scrapped, I wasn't aware that he'd succeeded.

I dunno if it was he alone. Clubs like Geelong were in the same boat as us and they complained also and once the Hawks and Pies got involved i'm sure it was the end.

In response they've upped the tax on footy department spending massively, which was originally 37.5% is now

The penalty on football department spending will now be extreme. Any expenditure over the cap and up to $500,000 could draw a levy of 100 per cent; from $500,000 to $1m it will be 150 per cent and a spend over more than $1m will be slugged with a 200 per cent levy.

So from what I've read, instead of taking and then giving, the AFL has just set up a fund where the most profitable clubs get given the least and the least profitable ones get the most

The discretionary fund to distribute money to the clubs will use this year’s most successful club — Hawthorn — as its base. On the back of the past three premierships, the current league leader has recorded a combined net operating profit of $7.73m over the past two years. Under the new competitive balance measure, the Hawks will receive a base annual dividend from the league. The rest of the competition will receive funding depending on how dire their bank balances are. All other clubs will have their dividend adjusted upwards from what the Hawks receive. The system will benefit Hawthorn above the base payment only if they begin to slip and are less financially successful. And in reverse, when Brisbane and other struggling clubs improve their financial status, AFL money will be reduced.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The Government does not impose the Levy and the Crows can pull out of the deal anytime.
The Crows do it for their supporters, over half the supporter base that travels to game use Public transport,
Also, the fee is built into the tickets I think we pay about $6 levy on a season ticket and $3.30 levy on a game day ticket, Same as it built into other major event ticketing prices, Like today free travel to and from Clipsal 500.

By the way, we are not the only State or country to do this. I would go so far to say Victoria is the odd one out in this area. Major sports and event around the world are adopting or have already had this system of free public transport.

Melbourne transport is free for the F1.

 

[1970crow]

I dunno if it was he alone. Clubs like Geelong were in the same boat as us and they complained also and once the Hawks and Pies got involved i'm sure it was the end.

In response they've upped the tax on footy department spending massively, which was originally 37.5% is now



So from what I've read, instead of taking and then giving, the AFL has just set up a fund where the most profitable clubs get given the least and the least profitable ones get the most

From memory only 2 clubs breached the spending cap last year and only minimally. The AFL were making out like bandits on the crowd equalisation charge, if they've replaced it with the extra spend tax rate, they're a fair way behind.

 

[Geoffa32]

So we increased revenue (including an increase in corporate sponsorship), more than halved our debt and increaed football department spend whilst maintaining a stable cash position.

Take all the reporting guff out and that looks like a pretty good year for an entity who's core business is to win games of footy and Premierships. Not make profits.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[ad victoriam]

Melbourne transport is free for the F1.

thanks Did not know that, I wonder why they don't do that for the Football then.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

thanks Did not know that, I wonder why they don't do that for the Football then.

Not sure.

Perhaps most people already use public transport for AFL... but with F1 many visitors, so want to make sure they can get around easily without a car.

 

[GreyCrow]

Not sure.

Perhaps most people already use public transport for AFL... but with F1 many visitors, so want to make sure they can get around easily without a car.

Which is ironic

 

[Rabman]

The biggest problem is the Scoreboard. Its Heritage Listed as are the Moreton Bay Figs. The Trees wont be going anywhere without being poisoned. But I still suggest a stand can incorporate the Scoreboard ie build around and above it and have the Scoreboard Alcove as such.

I note your other points

They could slightly extend the eastern stand a bit more. For me I want the western stand bulldozed, absolute eyesore that is out of sync with the overall design of the stadium. I know it was built prior to the footy being brought back but even with the roof u can still get wet and if your on the sides u cant even see part of the overall due to the structure supports plus its takes a while to get out. Stadium should at least be 65,000 we could easily pack it out.

 

[Deaneus!]

Screenshots from the video
View attachment 342131


View attachment 342133

View attachment 342139

View attachment 342142

View attachment 342143

View attachment 342146
View attachment 342147

Some great graphs in here to explain stuff to non-financial people.

 

[Pdub]

Someone on the port board is posting my screenshots, I'm an idiot I forgot to put ©PDub fotografy on it so i could tell them to take it down.

 

[Sanders]

So we increased revenue (including an increase in corporate sponsorship), more than halved our debt and increaed football department spend whilst maintaining a stable cash position.

Take all the reporting guff out and that looks like a pretty good year for an entity who's core business is to win games of footy and Premierships. Not make profits.

Except we lost a shitload of money to do it.

That's not high five time

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Someone on the port board is posting my screenshots, I'm an idiot I forgot to put ©PDub fotografy on it so i could tell them to take it down.

That's outrageous

 

[Iron]

Some great graphs in here to explain stuff to non-financial people.

Waterfall graphs aren't used nearly enough. They're fantastic.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Waterfall graphs aren't used nearly enough. They're fantastic.

Can be overused though. Don't want to go chasing waterfalls. Sometimes better to stick to the bar graphs you're used to.

 

[Iron]

Can be overused though. Don't want to go chasing waterfalls. Sometimes better to stick to the bar graphs you're used to.

Great point. I also find some carefully deployed word art and comic sans keeps things fresh and playful.

 

[Geoffa32]

Except we lost a shitload of money to do it.

That's not high five time

Did we lose money?

Remember we are a Not for Profit organisation. Profitability is not our core business.

What does a profit serve when debt has been cut by more than half, expenditure in the core business (Football Department) has increased, revenue increased and cash position is stable?



Would you be happier if we made profit, increased our debt and cut expenditure in the Football Department to do so?

Who gets the profit? Yes we would re-invest into the club and increase our cash position. But clearing $2.5m of debt and thus drastically lowering interest expense is a far better outcome than just investing a profit back into the business as cash.


I am not saying our Financials are great, we are not WCE by any stretch but we have been responsible and are looking to grow.

 

[Sanders]

Did we lose money?

Remember we are a Not for Profit organisation. Profitability is not our core business.

What does a profit serve when debt has been cut by more than half, expenditure in the core business (Football Department) has increased, revenue increased and cash position is stable?



Would you be happier if we made profit, increased our debt and cut expenditure in the Football Department to do so?

Who gets the profit? Yes we would re-invest into the club and increase our cash position. But clearing $2.5m of debt and thus drastically lowering interest expense is a far better outcome than just investing a profit back into the business as cash.


I am not saying our Financials are great, we are not WCE by any stretch but we have been responsible and are looking to grow.

yes we lost money

 

[BRL121]

Someone on the port board is posting my screenshots, I'm an idiot I forgot to put ©PDub fotografy on it so i could tell them to take it down.

Surely, it's copyright AFC?

 

[Geoffa32]

yes we lost money