AFL 2010 Club Financial Reports Summary

[Little Boris]

So, you would think this would shut up the flogs who slam clubs like North and the Bulldogs as financial basket cases...but it won't.

The Bulldogs in particular seemed to have a great year financially through maximizing membership dollars and now have some strong assets.

 

[greennick]

I like it how most of the clubs include grants as part of their profit. No doubt they will then capitalise the costs of building the facilities and amortise the cost over many years. This will effectively give them abnormally high profits the year they get the grant, then lower the rest of the time as they amortise the new assets (even though they were paid for by someone else).

I realise this is in line with the accounting standards, however it is rather distortionary. Take out the grants and the Dogs and Saints drop down to barely breaking even.

Also, here are some figures for WC:
Profit = $4,801,419
Royalties to the WAFC = $2,040,846
Profit retained = $2,760,573

http://www.***************.com.au/articles/2010/12/17/eagles-announce-bumper-profit/

Nothing on revenue, football spending or anything else.

Edit: the stars are:
sports
news
first

Apparently BF has blocked links to that site.

 

[greennick]

So, you would think this would shut up the flogs who slam clubs like North and the Bulldogs as financial basket cases...but it won't.

The Bulldogs in particular seemed to have a great year financially through maximizing membership dollars and now have some strong assets.

That is almost entirely based on the grant they received though.

 

[crimson]

They'd have to do them. ASIC would be all over them if they didn't.

Members can request a copy.

http://mm.afl.com.au/afl_archive/cp2/c2/webi/article/275179aw.pdf
Sydney Swans Constitution

58. Financial records
58.1 The Club must keep the financial records required by the Corporations Act.
58.2 The financial records must be audited as required by the Corporations Act.
58.3 A copy of the most recent financial report of the Club will be provided to a member on request.

http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2010/09/21-1018-5591.html

This list tracks the board diversity and financials of AFL clubs.

 

[Little Boris]

That is almost entirely based on the grant they received though.

Having the third highest average $ per member and $36M in assets is based almost entirely on the grant they received?

Huh?

 

[Rob]

Having the third highest average $ per member and $36M in assets is based almost entirely on the grant they received?

Huh?

The bulk of their 'assets' are buildings (funded by the grants) situated on land they don't own. Therefore have no resale value because they can't be sold. Their book value adds nothing to the real strength (or weakness) of their financial position.

Which isn't to say they aren't correct in including them as assets, but it shows you sometimes you have to look deeper than just the raw figures to draw a conclusion.

 

[The_Wookie]

Guess you didn't look hard enough for Geelong's financial reports.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/portals/0/cats_docs/GFC_2010_concise financial report.pdf

This is what I could glean from the reports just by browsing through them:

Revenue: $44,824,045

Assets: $29,329,374

Liabilities: $19,391,106

Net Assets: $9,938,268

Reported Profit: $1,284,509

Damn it. thanks for that.

Puts geelong 3rd for revenue, 3rd for football spending, 3rd for assets, 1st for liabilities.

 

[Linda Crescent]

Wow Hawks must have A LOT of 3-4 game members.

No, the HFC does not have many "3-4 game members". Unlike Collingwood, Hawthorn did not offer a 'three game membership' until the latter half of last year.

Present tally on the HFC website is 42,355.

 

[Prince Imperial]

The bulk of their 'assets' are buildings (funded by the grants) situated on land they don't own. Therefore have no resale value because they can't be sold. Their book value adds nothing to the real strength (or weakness) of their financial position.

Which isn't to say they aren't correct in including them as assets, but it shows you sometimes you have to look deeper than just the raw figures to draw a conclusion.

To a certain extent you are right, but these buildings now house subtenants (the child care centre, cafe, office space for the Dept of Education, Western Regional Football League, Physioplus etc) who have recently started paying rental income to the club. I can't give you the details but to a fair degree they are income producing assets and do reflect in part the financial position.

You might not be aware but the WB Forever Foundation raised nearly $6m for the redevelopment with much of that coming from supporters' donations. So it wasn't all money from grants that funded the new buildings.

 

[Rob]

To a certain extent you are right, but these buildings now house subtenants (the child care centre, cafe, office space for the Dept of Education, Western Regional Football League, Physioplus etc) who have recently started paying rental income to the club. I can't give you the details but to a fair degree they are income producing assets and do reflect in part the financial position.

You might not be aware but the WB Forever Foundation raised nearly $6m for the redevelopment with much of that coming from supporters' donations. So it wasn't all money from grants that funded the new buildings.

I wasn't questioning the inclusion of the buildings in the balance sheet, it is most likely a legitimate asset for accounting purposes, particularly if it's income generating. Just making the point that sometimes a figure like 'net assets' isn't all about the number. If those assets were cash (for instance), then the club would be a far, far better position financially, yet the number itself would be exactly the same.

 

[loki04]

No, the HFC does not have many "3-4 game members". Unlike Collingwood, Hawthorn did not offer a 'three game membership' until the latter half of last year.

Present tally on the HFC website is 42,355.

Membership
1. Collingwood (57,617)
2. Hawthorn (53,951)

Membership revenue (only 6 clubs list this)
1. Collingwood (11.7 million)
2. Hawthorn (7.5 million)

This ^^ begs to differ, not that it really matters as long as you make a profit which you guys have.

 

[telsor]

The bulk of their 'assets' are buildings (funded by the grants) situated on land they don't own. Therefore have no resale value because they can't be sold. Their book value adds nothing to the real strength (or weakness) of their financial position.

Which isn't to say they aren't correct in including them as assets, but it shows you sometimes you have to look deeper than just the raw figures to draw a conclusion.

Agreed, and some things that 'should' be assets don't count at all...

eg. Richmond has a (very) long term lease at a ridiculously cheap rate on Punt Road Oval ( Actually held by the Richmond Cricket Club, but the football club majority owns the CC )... True, they can't sell it, but the can sell services related to it, so they can sell advertising there ( visible to one of the busiest roads & busiest rail stations in Melbourne + crowds walking from the station to/from the MCG), the capacity to have events there ( from sausage sizzles on game days to massive marquis holding grand final day lunches ) and a club store that a lot of people walk past on gamedays ( as opposed to a caravan near the ground ) makes the lease itself a very valuable asset...But it doesn't count as such.

 

[telsor]

I wasn't questioning the inclusion of the buildings in the balance sheet, it is most likely a legitimate asset for accounting purposes, particularly if it's income generating. Just making the point that sometimes a figure like 'net assets' isn't all about the number. If those assets were cash (for instance), then the club would be a far, far better position financially, yet the number itself would be exactly the same.

Yes and no.

To use an example, Club A has a well appointed training facility which cost $10 Million, weights rooms, video playback, lecture rooms, recovery facilities, etc etc.. Operating said facility costs a further $1 million/year.

So yes, this doesn't earn any revenue, indeed, it makes a loss, and is for all practical purposes unsellable.

It's still a valuable asset as it helps the football club achieve it's stated purpose...Winning games! While profitability is important in the medium-long term success of the club, that's not why the club exists.

 

[magic_johnson!]

No, the HFC does not have many "3-4 game members".

How many tasmania members do you have?
How many matches do they have access to?

 

[Rob]

Yes and no.

To use an example, Club A has a well appointed training facility which cost $10 Million, weights rooms, video playback, lecture rooms, recovery facilities, etc etc.. Operating said facility costs a further $1 million/year.

So yes, this doesn't earn any revenue, indeed, it makes a loss, and is for all practical purposes unsellable.

It's still a valuable asset as it helps the football club achieve it's stated purpose...Winning games! While profitability is important in the medium-long term success of the club, that's not why the club exists.

Agree with all of that - bear in mind Club A is still getting a financial benefit - that being use of the facilities that would otherwise cost money if they were renting them off someone else.

But it's also relevant that in the case of Club A having a couple of bad years and losing, say, $2m each year, those facilities are at best worthless, and at worst a financial millstone, when it comes to finding the resources to cover the losses. You obviously can't sell them and banks won't lend against them. You can't point to your books showing an asset of $10 million and expect anyone's going to care. Which was my point - it adds virtually nothing to the financial strength of the club.

 

[MightyHawks]

How many tasmania members do you have?
How many matches do they have access to?

They have access to the 4 matches in Tassie plus (I think) 4 matches in Melbourne as well.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Collingwood make about 3.5 million from their "rank and file members - including their 8000 '3' game Victorian, and Interstate.

Hawthorn made about 3.3 million - including their 8000 Tasmanian and Interstate members.

The difference was <$10 (per member)

Collingwood made almost triple the amount from reserved seating. The cost of reserved seating for Collingwood is much higher (18 games reserved seat), than at Hawthorn (7 game reserved seat, 10 game reserved "area") - about double in fact.

They also have about 15% extra seating made available to them.

 

[legend166]

The Swans released some snippets of our finanical report a week ago.

Basically:

$549,819 loss

Taking away depreciation, the actual cash loss was $60,000

$500,000 was spent establishing the Swans Academy.

I'd be interested to look and see if we were getting any AFL assistance on the Academy. I'd like to hope so.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Guys the Saints on $88 per member can't be right can it?

Is that a missprint for $188?

Honestly I have no idea how a fugure that low can possibly be true. Any ideas.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

all I can think of (presuming not a mis-print) is they apportion their membership revenue differently - perhaps seperating out the reserved seats/upgrades from GA or something similar.

 

[dapto]

The AFL makes so much money from our game that they can afford to prop up all the clubs, so what if AD loses a zero or two off his paycheque!

A widely held belief with some merit....until the times changes. ATM the flow of funds is good, and sharing the revenues mutually beneficial to all. But club expenses are rising and clubs are getting seriously competitive off field with infrastructure and diversifying their home bases. Their financial commitments to future reveue stream are getting trickier and more complex.

Which brings me to this

Agree with all of that - bear in mind Club A is still getting a financial benefit - that being use of the facilities that would otherwise cost money if they were renting them off someone else.

But it's also relevant that in the case of Club A having a couple of bad years and losing, say, $2m each year, those facilities are at best worthless, and at worst a financial millstone, when it comes to finding the resources to cover the losses. You obviously can't sell them and banks won't lend against them. You can't point to your books showing an asset of $10 million and expect anyone's going to care. Which was my point - it adds virtually nothing to the financial strength of the club.

Clubs' ability to ensure appropriate corporate governance into the not near but far future is critical. The timing of a bottom out such as Richmond's current fighting fund is fortuitous but notwithstanding some clubs may not be so lucky with member bases and timing into the future.

I truly wonder how some boards have been able to make such terrible planning and financial commitments seemingly without better bona fides to the longer term viability of the said club. Like all boards, they are responsible for their charters but there are some weird assemblies of non wizened business people playing out their fantasies in the AFL with little or no come back to them.

Greater corporate governance should be paramount .

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Guys the Saints on $88 per member can't be right can it?

Is that a missprint for $188?

Honestly I have no idea how a fugure that low can possibly be true. Any ideas.

From last year the memberships for under 15s has been $40 or lower, and junior memberships (15-18yrs) are only $85.

Adult 11 is around $185 and Concession is $115

So depending on the number of under 15 years olds is could bump down the price.

The club might not include reserved seat / upgrades like social club revenue in that figure though only the basic membership.

My membership cost is just over $500 but that is for Adult with Level 1 Reserved Seat and Social Club

 

[HyperAgressiveDonk]

My membership cost is just over $500 but that is for Adult with Level 1 Reserved Seat and Social Club

Is that for 11 games? Do you get GF tickets as well

I have a 17 game one where I get a premium reserved seat level 1, 6 rows from the front, next to players interchange at MCG for home games and general admin for away games. I also get guaranteed GF tickets if my side makes it. Mine is only $432 for all that.

$500 seems steep if it's only for 11 games.

 

[legend166]

Is that for 11 games? Do you get GF tickets as well

I have a 17 game one where I get a premium reserved seat level 1, 6 rows from the front, next to players interchange at MCG for home games and general admin for away games. I also get guaranteed GF tickets if my side makes it. Mine is only $432 for all that.

$500 seems steep if it's only for 11 games.

The Swans platinum package (11 games, best seats, etc) costs $460. You pay extra on top of that if you want guaranteed Grand Final tickets.

You've got it good.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

HAD, it's (one of the reasons) why the Hawthorn membership revenue is so low - our premium package prices are WAY below the other clubs.