AFL's $8m loss!

[Olmy]

Would you believe it?! The organisation who was so dead set on riding itself of debt-free and financially unsound clubs has posted an $8 million loss in season 2000.

That's twice the forecast amount (according to the Mike Sheehan report in yesterday's HS).

At least they didn't decide to bail out on the dividend to clubs. (How honourable).

But it makes you wonder, a few years back the AFL, and the majority of the clubs, weren't prepared to see the AFL bail out clubs like Fitzroy (1996), and Footscray (1989) etc.

Yet, most of this $8m loss can be attributed to the AFL 'bailing out' the likes of St.Kilda and Hawthorn (for moving from Waverly), Carlton (in compensation for all the whinging they've been forced to do), as well as North (for playing in Sydney).

Perhaps the AFL should even consider bailing out the likes of Essendon for the purpose of ensuring they win the premiership the next 5 years straight!

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

I don't think this blowout can be attributed to 'bailouts' at all

The problem in the AFLs bottom line has everything to do with the Heritage listing of Waverley - its created a situation where the AFL has little hope of getting the price they want for the stadium, which is $80m.

The Heritage listing has blown a hole in their budget that nobody saw coming.

 

[Olmy]

Yeah, good point.

The article I read though, does give mention to the 'bailouts' caused by Colonial - which does make sense.

What the hell are they going to do with Waverly now anyway? Can't tear it down, don't want to use it . . .

Perhaps they should turn it into a footy museum!

 

[Olmy]

Really though, the AFL shouldn't have factored the sale of Waverly into it's budget for season 2000. After all, it would have only been a one off - and practically there was/is no security of a sale price, let alone a sale.

You also have to wonder about the effect of the $7m compensation payout that is going to be made to the caterers of the venue.

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

couldn't agree more

I'm no accountant but it just seems like good common business sense not to factor in a future 'abnormal' in your profit forecasts.

Things go wrong and you may never end up realising the windfall that you may have been hoping for.

Like whats happened with Waverley.

cheers

 

[Grendel]

The Hawks 'bailout' of Waverly as you said Olmy, was due to the fact that the AFL were the ones that wanted us to go there in the first place. Add to that they then gave us a thirty year tenancy agrement as well. What were the Hawks going to do, just walk away? Pfft to that, screw em for as much as they could like they have tried to screw any club they didnt want (Re Roys bigtime in that) and make em PAY! Of course i know the league has a long memory and they wont forget the slight, still its almost like every club in Victoria now has some grievance with them.

Who knows? Maybe soon the AFL will comprise only clubs from WA/SA/QLD/NSW and TASSIE with all the Vics clubs given the push!

That would please a few on the boards no doubt

 

[InTheBack!]

Selling Waverley without heritage listing would have been easy money - prime real estate, so I think the AFL were quite justified to think at some point that they were going to pay for their share of Docklands without any worries. The AFL must have shit themselves when Waverley was listed though.

Mabye they could dismantle the stands & rebuild them at the home of the next relocated club - e.g. Canberra or Southport he he!

 

[CJH]

The AFL were initially expecting to sell Waverley for $32m which was going to offset nicely their stake in Docklands.

They then had a report provided by some consultaancy group which suggested that the land could realise up to $80m.

So instead of placing it on the market immediately and getting a sure fire easy sale, they became greedy with the visions of big profit.

YOu know the saying - A bird in hand is safer than one overhead!

------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I read that Packer may buy Waverley if the 9/10/Foxtel AFL rights thing goes ahead. If the AFL don't want to use it, does that mean they will refuse the offer? Or is the AFL getting Packer to buy it and bail them out in return for the lengthy rights?

------------------
mens sana in corpore sano - a sound mind in a sound body

 

[Olmy]

Grendel - I say good on the Hawks for getting as much out of the AFL as possible! I was all for keeping Waverly.

 

[Pessimistic]

If the ludicrous scenario develops where channel 7 as owners od colonial make it hard for ch9 (TV rights owners) to televise games from there - Ch 9 would want waverley as a fall back venue.

If they want hawthorn to move back out there I say hit them for another lot of compensation. A deals a deal - just like the one with carlton (and probably all the interstate venues too)

 

[Frodo]

The AFL is still bailing clubs out. We need to axe two Vic clubs and format the competition so everyone plays each other twice. Then they will make profit.

How about Essendon and Collingwood