"Handing the keys to the AFL" - Carlton's situation

[harmesy 37]

Please.

Hawthorn's relationship with Tasmania (which the AFL does not approve of - see the push to remove us in 2010 and Gill's statement on Tasmanian football in 2014) is no different to Carlton's commercial relationship with Hyundai

Heaven forbid where Carlton would be without a major commercial partner

Whether the AFL "APPROVES of the relationship" now or not is irrelevant.

They are powerless to stop the juggernaught.

Answer me this

Was it the AFL that decided that ONE club alone would play home games in Launceston instead of a combination of clubs?


Has the Tasmanian government handed over at least 25 million to Hawthorn to play games in Launceston as a result of Hawthorn being the sole home club playing out of Launceston?

Yep, you have convinced me. The AFL treats Hawthorn really poorly. Maybe as "compensation" Carlton can receive 25 million from the AFL to make up for their "poor treatment" of Hawthorn.

 

[Hawkk]

Well if the AFL agreeing to a one club policy in Launceston was allowing Hawthorn to take over the final year of the Saints 2003-07 contract (another in the long line of St Kilda stuff ups) then maybe...

Hawthorn agreed to take home games to Launceston in 2001. St Kilda (as they always do...see Waverley Park and NZ) copied Hawthorn and took games in 2003. In characteristic fashion they stuffed the whole exercise up and now stand on the brink of bankruptcy...

Hawthorn only had 2007-2011 as the sole representative in Tasmania - when NO OTHER club saw the value in playing games in Tasmania

Some leg up

 

[Father Jack]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there wasn't a long line of clubs clamouring to play games down here.

 

[The Darkman]

I had a squiz at the 2015 financial statements thread. Carlton lost $2million (lost $1.6million in 2014) but still have around $9.6million in capital. Here's to strategizing..... The 2016 draw has six home games at the MCG including big ticket matches against West Coast, Essendon & Collingwood as well as home game against Melbourne. The drawback is no Friday night games.

I noticed North, St Kilda & Dogs run their operations on between $32million & $37million. Can Carlton bring expenses down to those levels?

 

[The_Wookie]

I had a squiz at the 2015 financial statements thread. Carlton lost $2million (lost $1.6million in 2014) but still have around $9.6million in capital. Here's to strategizing..... The 2016 draw has six home games at the MCG including big ticket matches against West Coast, Essendon & Collingwood as well as home game against Melbourne. The drawback is no Friday night games.

West Coast isnt a big ticket match.

 

[medusala]

As I said in the OP, Vic clubs apart from Essendon and Collingwood, have to sell games.

Not sure about that. Fairly sure the Hawks don't need to do so particularly when they are doing well. Under the old deal I think they were actually worse off in Tasmania. I think the Saints came to the same conclusion even though they had fewer members /crowds than Hawthorn. I think even if you are inside a club its hard to know the true cost/benefit eg how many more members in Victoria would you get if 11 home games were there and how many Tas members would drop off and how many convert to and 11 home game package vs 4. Let us also not forget that the AFL may well be keen to see the Hawks leave Tasmania as well.

Similarly do we really have any idea of how viable Melbourne actually is? Are their so called profits anything of the sort?

Lots of smoke and mirrors when it comes to club finances IMO. AFL and transparency aren't exactly great mates.

Carlton do get screwed at Etihad on the stadium deal too.

To what extent do others get screwed because of the Essendon deal?

 

[bombersfan4000]

Well if the AFL agreeing to a one club policy in Launceston was allowing Hawthorn to take over the final year of the Saints 2003-07 contract (another in the long line of St Kilda stuff ups) then maybe...

Hawthorn agreed to take home games to Launceston in 2001. St Kilda (as they always do...see Waverley Park and NZ) copied Hawthorn and took games in 2003. In characteristic fashion they stuffed the whole exercise up and now stand on the brink of bankruptcy...

Hawthorn only had 2007-2011 as the sole representative in Tasmania - when NO OTHER club saw the value in playing games in Tasmania

Some leg up

not exactly, its who you know not what you know! the hawthorn deal was set up by old Jeff, ian dicker and another bloke. no other club could have arranged such a lucrative deal that was based on political connections

 

[Hawkk]

not exactly, its who you know not what you know! the hawthorn deal was set up by old Jeff, ian dicker and another bloke. no other club could have arranged such a lucrative deal that was based on political connections

Right

I guess we didnt have a flight plan to see us through

Like I said Brisbane13...some leg up

 

[madmug]

not exactly, its who you know not what you know! the hawthorn deal was set up by old Jeff, ian dicker and another bloke. no other club could have arranged such a lucrative deal that was based on political connections

The 'other' bloke was Tasmanian treasurer Paul Lennon. The only political connection was the Labor party desire to wedge the Tassie Liberals in the seat of Bass. I dont think Jeff & Paul were politically connected in any other way, other than for political expedience.

 

[TigerMoz1973]

The difference with the Hawks and Tigers is that they swallowed their pride and started rattling the tins.

Carlton - "who really cares, we've got Billionaire fans" Admitting you have a Massive problem, is the first step. Don't think Carlton have done that yet.

What problems? I don't see a problem at all

 

[The Darkman]

$2.7MILLION LOSS FOR 2015.

Revenue down. Running costs still high. Current asset/liability position deteriorating. Increased borrowings by $700k. Merchandise income nearly halved. A few less Carlton jerseys/beanies wandering around Melbourne. Interesting $1.7million in advance memberships. Some people are gluttons for punishment.

 

[madmug]

$2.7MILLION LOSS FOR 2015.

Revenue down. Running costs still high. Current asset/liability position deteriorating. Increased borrowings by $700k. Merchandise income nearly halved. A few less Carlton jerseys/beanies wandering around Melbourne. Interesting $1.7million in advance memberships. Some people are gluttons for punishment.

I think thats quite insensitive. Showing club colours when things are tough shows & takes a lot of heart. They are real footy supporters. I'd rather those people following my club than the latte set who are their to be seen when things are easy.

Its easy following a team thats having success, or gets lots of support from the AFL.

 

[Roylion]

Some people are gluttons for punishment.

They're also called "loyal supporters".

 

[Prince Imperial]

Carlton's Football Department's 2015 expenditure of $22.5m is pretty high. They spent $1m more than Brisbane, $1.3m more than Melbourne and a whopping $2.9m more than St Kilda in 2015.

With their list, their spending on players should fall back to 95% of the cap next season and they have little choice but to contain/reduce their expenditure given their current on-field and off-field predicament.

 

[The_Wookie]

$2.7MILLION LOSS FOR 2015.

Revenue down. Running costs still high. Current asset/liability position deteriorating. Increased borrowings by $700k. Merchandise income nearly halved. A few less Carlton jerseys/beanies wandering around Melbourne. Interesting $1.7million in advance memberships. Some people are gluttons for punishment.

Some people believe in the clubs future. Some people will also know that drops in revenue - particularly merchandise, membership, sponorship and gate takings will all be impacted by a downturn in the clubs on field form.

 

[The_Wookie]

Carlton's Football Department's 2015 expenditure of $22.5m is pretty high. They spent $1m more than Brisbane, $1.3m more than Melbourne and a whopping $2.9m more than St Kilda in 2015.

With their list, their spending on players should fall back to 95% of the cap next season and they have little choice but to contain/reduce their expenditure given their current on-field and off-field predicament.

No, now that our revenues are dropped and we're consigned to footballs fixturing basemant, we're going to hold our hand out for some of the 4 million extra in AFl handouts the Bulldogs and North get in AFL funding instead - and then have the temerity to claim a profit.

 

[Prince Imperial]

No, now that our revenues are dropped and we're consigned to footballs fixturing basemant, we're going to hold our hand out for some of the 4 million extra in AFl handouts the Bulldogs and North get in AFL funding instead - and then have the temerity to claim a profit.

Good luck! You had a dream commercial draw handed to you by the AFL this year despite an ordinary 2014 and still have the opening game of the season. You get plenty of MCG home games too, where the financial returns to home teams are heavily inflated by the annual $6m+ payment made by the AFL to the stadium.

Even with Fitz the Chairman, I think you'll be told to cut your spending or have another fundraiser at Raheen !

 

[western royboy]

They're also called "loyal supporters".

Some people believe in the clubs future. Some people will also know that drops in revenue - particularly merchandise, membership, sponorship and gate takings will all be impacted by a downturn in the clubs on field form.

Was the latest Raheen show a pre emptive strike to keep the AFL seaway from the controls?

 

[Rob]

Good luck! You had a dream commercial draw handed to you by the AFL this year despite an ordinary 2014 and still have the opening game of the season.

Just shows that there isn't as much correlation between Friday nights and profits as many would try to have you believe.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just shows that there isn't as much correlation between Friday nights and profits as many would try to have you believe.

The Blues promise to be an interesting test case of this theory in the next season or two thats for sure.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Just shows that there isn't as much correlation between Friday nights and profits as many would try to have you believe.

Maybe, but that's hard to tell from one year, especially one that was as bad on-field as it was for Carlton. Carlton suffered big falls in net membership and gaming returns which were unrelated to its very favourable commercial draw.

The real value of that timeslot (and FTA generally and the Saturday night timeslot to a lesser extent) is that sponsors love them for the brand exposure they provide and will pay a lot more if they think or know that a club will be allocated these matches.

 

[Rob]

Maybe, but that's hard to tell from one year, especially one that was as bad on-field as it was for Carlton. Carlton suffered big falls in net membership and gaming returns which were unrelated to its very favourable commercial draw.

The real value of that timeslot (and FTA generally and the Saturday night timeslot to a lesser extent) is that sponsors love them for the brand exposure they provide and will pay a lot more if they think or know that a club will be allocated these matches.

Not many clubs are in that position. Maybe Collingwood and that's it.

 

[UpTheGuts]

Will likely get worse before getting better.

They will play for free in R1 this year, though maybe fewer games under Friday night lights might be a good thing. It was look away footy when Carlton played in 2015.

 

[The Darkman]

I think thats quite insensitive. Showing club colours when things are tough shows & takes a lot of heart. They are real footy supporters. I'd rather those people following my club than the latte set who are their to be seen when things are easy.

Its easy following a team thats having success, or gets lots of support from the AFL.

I know. I've followed the Penrith Panthers for 35 years. I thought latte set was the definition of a Carlton supporter.

They're also called "loyal supporters".

Or..... It could be some members have realised paying membership upfront is cheaper than paying through monthly increments. For example, Carlton's $260 upfront could be paid by a monthly debit of $23.63. Have a guess which one is cheaper.

Some people believe in the clubs future. Some people will also know that drops in revenue - particularly merchandise, membership, sponorship and gate takings will all be impacted by a downturn in the clubs on field form.

Yeah, well some people believe in The Tooth Fairy & a fat man in a red suit will show up at everybody's house in three weeks time. I'd rather get my own house in order & not rely on any future gravy train. Hasn't the AFL projected a loss of $20m in 2016?

 

[The_Wookie]

Or..... It could be some members have realised paying membership upfront is cheaper than paying through monthly increments. For example, Carlton's $260 upfront could be paid by a monthly debit of $23.63. Have a guess which one is cheaper.

If you know the reason, then dont make stupid statements about them being gluttons for punishment.

Yeah, well some people believe in The Tooth Fairy & a fat man in a red suit will show up at everybody's house in three weeks time. I'd rather get my own house in order & not rely on any future gravy train. Hasn't the AFL projected a loss of $20m in 2016?

Yes. And it made a multimillion loss two years ago. And its predicting a loss a year before its revenue climbs by another 100 million. Hell i think ill wait until the actual result comes out in 2016 before manning the lifeboats.