AFL Handout.

[mauricerioli]

Fair enough, in my opinion you've taken a simplistic view - pay off debt everything will be hunky dory. I think you'll find people like me can actually help the club reduce the debt.

The surface hasn't been re-done yet, AFL money will help us do this. And finally we're not getting $8m in a lump sum, it's $8m over 5 years so we can't just pay off debt in one hit.

Tens of thousands of Richmond members cetainly don`t think you`re superfluous, for the first time ever we are very happy with the communication from the club thanks to employing people like you.

 

[RFC_Official]

Hey RFCO is that Tony Jewell in the photo above with Brenden???

It is...old photo, only one I could find.

 

[telsor]

Tens of thousands of Richmond members cetainly don`t think you`re superfluous, for the first time ever we are very happy with the communication from the club thanks to employing people like you.

This is actually a good example of what I've said in other threads about spending money to make money.

Let's say Stig costs the club $100K/year all up (this figure is purely a round number used as an example)

Stig helps keep fans happy.

Happy fans mean more fans sign up as members, continues (or upgrades) their membership, buys merchandise and/or contributes to FTF. More members also make the club more attractive to sponsors. Hell, even getting members to sign up faster helps with the cash flow and interest payments.

If a member brings in $200 per person on average across all these categories (another made up number), then if Stig means 500 members that wouldn't have been there otherwise, that's break even...501 and the club starts to make a profit from the 'investment' in Stig.

Is the club better off 'investing' in Stig, or should that money go towards paying off the debt? I don't think you could ever say with any certainty (I doubt anybody is going to sign up solely due to Stigs's efforts), but those in charge of the club clearly think it is worth the investment, rather than the debt payment, and they are likely to have a better idea than you or I.


Other investments are even harder to determine...Like an extra set of weights in the weight room...You could never equate it directly, but if it means a tackle sticks in a closing moments of tight game meaning we just get over the line, I think we'd all say it was worth the money....but the choice will never be that clear.

 

[RFC_Official]

This is actually a good example of what I've said in other threads about spending money to make money.

Let's say Stig costs the club $100K/year all up (this figure is purely a round number used as an example)

Stig helps keep fans happy.

Happy fans mean more fans sign up as members, continues (or upgrades) their membership, buys merchandise and/or contributes to FTF. More members also make the club more attractive to sponsors. Hell, even getting members to sign up faster helps with the cash flow and interest payments.

If a member brings in $200 per person on average across all these categories (another made up number), then if Stig means 500 members that wouldn't have been there otherwise, that's break even...501 and the club starts to make a profit from the 'investment' in Stig.

Is the club better off 'investing' in Stig, or should that money go towards paying off the debt? I don't think you could ever say with any certainty (I doubt anybody is going to sign up solely due to Stigs's efforts), but those in charge of the club clearly think it is worth the investment, rather than the debt payment, and they are likely to have a better idea than you or I.

That is more along the lines which we're talking. We're also in the process of creating new positions that haven't existed before, no longer will we accept being under resourced. We want to invest for the future for all departments across the footy club.

P.S: I wish I cost $100k.

 

[THE_GUN]

That is more along the lines which we're talking. We're also in the process of creating new positions that haven't existed before, no longer will we accept being under resourced. We want to invest for the future for all departments across the footy club.

P.S: I wish I cost $100k.

We have it on good authority that stig is actually on $250k plus a BMW-M3 company car (for advertising purposes its Black with Yellow stripes)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

We have it on good authority that stig is actually on $250k plus a BMW-M3 company car (for advertising purposes its Black with Yellow stripes)

I snuck out with the camera to the RFC car pack, and sadly no M3's. I have it on good authority the last one is the Stigs

 

[THE_GUN]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Thats because Stig is working from home today !

Thats also part of the benifits , He only has to come to punt road 3 days a week.

 

[Slattery_20]

Sorry dude, but the Hawks model IS THE SAME as the Pies model.

This was published in the Australian the year after the Hawks won their flag:
...
I couldn't find their 2011 spending figure, but it is above the AFL average of $16.4m (or $2.2m above Richmond).

So in other words, following the Hawthorn model means increasing our footy dept spend by at least $2.2m a year

Before that, though, the Hawks had about 7(?) years under Dicker, and he reigned spending in at all levels after the club was shockingly run through the 90s, pretty much a boys club with a lot of party boys & a fair few hangers on.
In a lot of ways, he set the foundations for the expansive Kennett admin to sell the club, sign deals, spend & achieve.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Before that, though, the Hawks had about 7(?) years under Dicker, and he reigned spending in at all levels after the club was shockingly run through the 90s, pretty much a boys club with a lot of party boys & a fair few hangers on.
In a lot of ways, he set the foundations for the expansive Kennett admin to sell the club, sign deals, spend & achieve.

thats where we are at though, cleaned up after the fiasco at the turn of the century, and expanding expenditure as our income is rising.

main point was to put paid to the myth the Hawks did it without increasing their spend - 25%+ is big by any measure

 

[KiwiTiger]

We have it on good authority that stig is actually on $250k plus a BMW-M3 company car (for advertising purposes its Black with Yellow stripes)

Your shout next time I see you Stig!

Haere Ra

 

[RFC_Official]

Your shout next time I see you Stig!

Haere Ra

Lies all lies!

 

[telsor]

P.S: I wish I cost $100k.

Super, payroll tax, electricity for your computer...Although as you do IT stuff, the bulk of the cost is probably in caffeine....Those IV drips don't come cheap.

 

[captain blood 17]

Odds are Stig has one of those fancy garages too, while the rest of us park our cars in our car holes.

 

[Mr Magic]

Sorry dude, but the Hawks model IS THE SAME as the Pies model.

This was published in the Australian the year after the Hawks won their flag:

PREMIERSHIPS may come ahead of schedule, as Hawthorn's did last year, but they rarely come cheaply.
By their own admission, the Hawks' 2008 flag was not in their initial five-year planning set almost two years earlier, but the premiership was set up by a $3million boost in football department spending.
Hawthorn, which also made a record $4 million profit last year, was by far the leader in increased football department expenditure.
It spent $12.3million in 2007 before adding another $2.9million to its main football department resources last year, according to confidential AFL figures obtained by The Australian.
The Hawks spent $10.9million on their football department in 2006 - $1.2million below the league average - when they won nine games.
The following year, spending increased by $1.4million and the result was 14 wins and the club's first finals appearance since 2001.


I couldn't find their 2011 spending figure, but it is above the AFL average of $16.4m (or $2.2m above Richmond).

So in other words, following the Hawthorn model means increasing our footy dept spend by at least $2.2m a year

The point is Hawthorn spent because they could afford it!!!

The issue is we cannot afford it!!!

If we could afford it KB would not need to get punching bags from another gym to help the team out in physically.

So we need to afford it before we spend.

People saying spend before getting rid of the debt are putting the cart before the horse particularly when a downturn occurs.

Someone posted about millionaires spending in a recession to make big money. Well we are not in a recession so how about we clean up the debt anchor that is holding us back so when the downturn comes we can clean up making moves we are capable of while the other clubs fall. We do not want to let the likes of KB down again!!!

Just on Hawthorn v Collingwood. IMO Hawks should have won on the weekend, to me they do this smarter. Collingwood could have lost to St Kilda last year in the draw . They ripped the guts out of the Saints with L Ball and similarly on the trade table with Freo in the past. To me their model is huff and puff and unsustainable!! If a downturn hits Collingwoods revenue and sponsorship it relies on will come crashing down IMO. Collingwood are no panacea!!!

Because Hawthorn run a leaner ship with less excess when the going gets tough they are more likely to succeed long term IMO particularly after they faced merger a few years back to keep them in perspective.

So if RFC runs a leaner nimble ship for the next few years it will hold us in good stead as we can lash out later when we get the big guns via free agency to join Cotch, Dusty etc....

We need to be nimble and quick like Cyril to position ourselves right for attack rather than restrict ourselves with a big barge of debt going forward IMO!!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

you are aware KB is no longer the coach, we have a brand new gym, and we are profitable?

its not 1988 anymore!! live in the now

 

[MaddAdam]

he's half ****en crazy but you know he makes a bit of sense, indeed hawthorn are an excellant example of a club that has invested heavily in creating revenue streams to finance increases in expenditure

And also sell a third of their home games.

Sorry to intrude but I have a quick question:

My understanding is the AFL have said - I may be wrong - that maximum debt payments from this will be 10 per cent. Dunno if that is ten percent of a club's debt or ten per cent of the payment.

That wouldn't clear your debt either way and it would leave a significant pool left over.

What does that get used on?

 

[telsor]

And also sell a third of their home games.

Sorry to intrude but I have a quick question:

My understanding is the AFL have said - I may be wrong - that maximum debt payments from this will be 10 per cent. Dunno if that is ten percent of a club's debt or ten per cent of the payment.

That wouldn't clear your debt either way and it would leave a significant pool left over.

What does that get used on?

We're raising enough money through the FTF that we can pay off the debt anyway. So what the source is doesn't really matter.

The money will go to the same 4 things as any other club.
1) administration ( particularly membership/sponsor support )
2) football debt ( more coaches, specialists )
3) facilities.
4) debt reduction.

(OK, some clubs have a 5th, investments, but lets keep this realistic )

The order/priority will be up to management, but the top of the list at the moment is resurfacing the punt road oval (well, after we hired a new assistant coach which we're already done).

 

[MightyTiger]

Just for the people who haven't seen this I'm going to re-post it.

Big Thank you must go to Rosy23 for this, she took her time to email the club and this is what Gale replied with in return.

Dear Rosy,

Firstly, thankyou for your outstanding support of the FTF. To raise $8000 thus far, in addition to your existing support is a terrific effort and one that is greatly valued. Could you please pass on my appreciation to all your Punt Road End subscribers.

Your question is a valid one and I would be only too happy to clarify our position.

I have consistently stated that the FTF is a collective, concerted effort to raise funds in order to retire debt and invest in our football program. Importantly, these objectives aren’t mutually exclusive in that we don’t have to pay down debt entirely before we can make the investments in football we need. Simply stated we will do both simultaneously hence the 1:1 debt/football ratio.

The “0” in the 3-0-75 Strategic Plan contemplates being debt free by 2014. The FTF launched just over 5 weeks ago will see us make significant inroads into the debt and lessen the interest burden. However, to direct all monies into debt at the expense of extremely important “mission critical” important investments in football is considered counter-productive.

Furthermore by reducing debt we reduce our annual interest expense and therefore free up further funds for future re-investment.

Our priorities in football are:

1. The redevelopment of the PRO.

· the historic relocation of the Richmond Cricket Club after 150 years at PRO means that we have access to the oval 365 days a year, 24/7

· also means that we have an opportunity to redevelop PRO into an elite, fit for purpose football facility both on and off field which is a massive benefit to our coaching staff and players

· redevelopment works will include removal of all cricket wicket tables, widen and lengthen oval, improve drainage and soil profile, laser level and resurface

· the works are estimated to cost in the vicinity of $1.5 million which is not budgeted for in the Club’s 2011 budget.

2. Pre-payment of TPP

· We are currently paying at the lower end of the salary cap as you would expect with a young and developing team. However, at the moment we are in a position where we could be pre-paying players’ salaries (i.e. paying a portion of the players’ 2012 salaries in 2011). By not prepaying salaries we are “wasting” the difference between our current player payments and the salary cap. That is, this increment is lost and not made available for us in future years.

· Should we prepay salaries in this way we are freeing up room in our salary cap in future years. This places us in an excellent position to both retain our emerging playing list and attract elite players to our Club. This is particularly relevant at the current time as pressure to retain players intensifies in light of the introduction of the Gold Coast Suns and Greater Western Sydney, and the introduction of “free agency”.


1. A RFC reserves team

· Our alignment with Coburg is a very strong one. The Coburg Football Club is well governed by Bill Balakis and his administration. However, we believe that to best prepare our young players for the elite AFL standard of competition we need to control their development in every way. Accordingly, we believe having a standalone team in the VFL competition ensures that the players are exclusively educated in our game style, not that of another VFL Club with its own set of needs / circumstances / objectives / etc. Furthermore, by having a standalone VFL side we can ensure that none of our listed / rookie listed players are forced to play in the VFL Reserves competition which is a long way from AFL standard.


2. High performance

· Whilst the Football Department have relocated into our state of the art Punt Road Oval facilities, we believe that there are further improvements that can be made in terms of high performance standards. Additional resources in terms of human capital and equipment have been identified that would complement our desire to provide the best possible high performance culture in the AFL.

The diagram below gives broad indication of what might be achieved given different levels of funds raised over the course of the campaign.

Finally, in response to your question, all proceeds raised through the FTF will be re-invested in the 50;50 debt / football ratio, not just those proceeds raised on Thursday night.



Warm regards

Brendon

I hope this clears a few things up for some people.

 

[MaddAdam]

We're raising enough money through the FTF that we can pay off the debt anyway. So what the source is doesn't really matter.

The money will go to the same 4 things as any other club.
1) administration ( particularly membership/sponsor support )
2) football debt ( more coaches, specialists )
3) facilities.
4) debt reduction.

(OK, some clubs have a 5th, investments, but lets keep this realistic )

The order/priority will be up to management, but the top of the list at the moment is resurfacing the punt road oval (well, after we hired a new assistant coach which we're already done).

I don't think it is. All the "disequal" money being distributed is clearly earmarked for certain things and clubs will be accountable on it. That's what Demetriou said. It isn't just a no strings cash injection.

 

[dwwaino]

I don't think it is. All the "disequal" money being distributed is clearly earmarked for certain things and clubs will be accountable on it. That's what Demetriou said. It isn't just a no strings cash injection.

That's correct. I can't find the link because I'm on my phone currently but a poster on another Richmond forum posted a link to what some of the clubs have been approved to spend the cash on. Ours was simply to reduce debt and grow supporter base through the north (I imagine of Melbourne). I can't remember what the Roos' was exactly but I remember reading a part of it was to grow through the west of Melbourne and into Ballarat as well as Tasmania. So I'm pretty sure we're OK to dump cash on our club debt. The AFL will definitely be keeping tabs on it as Brayshaw was saying on Triple M on Monday arvo that at very regular and specific intervals they (the clubs) will have to show the AFL the money is in fact going where intended.

 

[jihg]

That's correct. I can't find the link because I'm on my phone currently but a poster on another Richmond forum posted a link to what some of the clubs have been approved to spend the cash on. Ours was simply to reduce debt and grow supporter base through the north (I imagine of Melbourne). I can't remember what the Roos' was exactly but I remember reading a part of it was to grow through the west of Melbourne and into Ballarat as well as Tasmania. So I'm pretty sure we're OK to dump cash on our club debt. The AFL will definitely be keeping tabs on it as Brayshaw was saying on Triple M on Monday arvo that at very regular and specific intervals they (the clubs) will have to show the AFL the money is in fact going where intended.

If ours is intended to go to removing our debt then wouldn't it make sense to give it to us or pay the debt themselves immediately and not over 4 years.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

If ours is intended to go to removing our debt then wouldn't it make sense to give it to us or pay the debt themselves immediately and not over 4 years.

Seven don't pay their money in one hit, but year by year. Afl would therefore pay out as they receive it to manage their own cash flows

 

[Slattery_20]

Just on Hawthorn v Collingwood. IMO Hawks should have won on the weekend, to me they do this smarter. Collingwood could have lost to St Kilda last year in the draw . They ripped the guts out of the Saints with L Ball and similarly on the trade table with Freo in the past. To me their model is huff and puff and unsustainable!! If a downturn hits Collingwoods revenue and sponsorship it relies on will come crashing down IMO. Collingwood are no panacea!!!

Because Hawthorn run a leaner ship with less excess when the going gets tough they are more likely to succeed long term IMO particularly after they faced merger a few years back to keep them in perspective.

FWIW I agree, I don't think people realise that Collingwood are only renting @ Melbourne park; if their revenues cop a big hit (unlikely over the short term but entirely possible over 10 or 15 years) they're right where Melbourne are, trying to find a home.

I don't think it is. All the "disequal" money being distributed is clearly earmarked for certain things and clubs will be accountable on it. That's what Demetriou said. It isn't just a no strings cash injection.

I'm assuming, though, it's still set by mgmt and then decided yes or no, then signed off on (and subsequently audited etc) by the AFL people.

I know the original plan for the Rich 2s instead of Coburg has been pushed back

 

[RFC_Official]

Brendon wrote this today on the website..

An open letter to all RFC supporters re: AFL money.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/124373/default.aspx

 

[telsor]

I don't think it is. All the "disequal" money being distributed is clearly earmarked for certain things and clubs will be accountable on it. That's what Demetriou said. It isn't just a no strings cash injection.

Yes an no.

Lets say the AFL puts in $4Million tied to specific areas, and FTF raises another $4Million

If the club wants $2Million to resurface PRO ( not sure what the real figure is ), and the AFL 'only' want to put 400K into improved facilities such as this. We take 1.6 M from the FTF, and required funds are available.

At the same time, the AFL thinks debt eduction is a priority, so insist that half their money ($2Million) goes to that...well, the FTF was partly to pay the debt off anyway, so rather than putting $3Million in there to pay all our remaining debt, we 'only' put in 1 which, coupled with the AFLs contribution mean all or debts wil be paid and $2Million from the FTF will be freed up for other activities.

Having 2 sources of additional funding gives the club a lot of flexibility, even if one of those sources is 'directed'.