News Lions record a loss for 2012

[PattyKwasagun]

Really interesting looking at the merch figures. I'd hazard a guess that the increase had more to do with the success than anything else. People are more likely to spend up on club gear and proudly wear it if that club is winning.

 

[whatboutbob]

Really interesting looking at the merch figures. I'd hazard a guess that the increase had more to do with the success than anything else. People are more likely to spend up on club gear and proudly wear it if that club is winning.

How many HoF guernseys did we end up selling? I've got 600 in my head. * $169 = $101k revenue, or >2/3 the increase.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

How many HoF guernseys did we end up selling? I've got 600 in my head. * $169 = $101k revenue, or >2/3 the increase.

That's probably about right, but those who did buy HoF jumpers probably didn't buy other merch they might've if not for that special guernsey. Obviously there's the old guernsey loyalists who bought the HoF because it didn't have the paddlepop on it and otherwise wouldn't have gotten a guernsey, but for the majority who are a bit more ambivalent I would've thought a HoF guernsey would have just been instead of a club shirt purchase, or normal home and away guernsey purchase, rather than as well as. Could be wrong on that though.

 

[whatboutbob]

That's probably about right, but those who did buy HoF jumpers probably didn't buy other merch they might've if not for that special guernsey. Obviously there's the old guernsey loyalists who bought the HoF because it didn't have the paddlepop on it and otherwise wouldn't have gotten a guernsey, but for the majority who are a bit more ambivalent I would've thought a HoF guernsey would have just been instead of a club shirt purchase, or normal home and away guernsey purchase, rather than as well as. Could be wrong on that though.

So you're suggesting the club would have received most of that money regardless?

I can only speak for the 14 people I know who bought it because they hadn't had a better option for a few years - and that includes a handful of 'Average Joe' randoms I chatted with at the Gabba.

 

[POBT]

Interesting to note that we increased expenditure on marketing, membership costs and football expenses. Only administration expenses went down significantly. In the "gotta spend money to make money" environment which is the AFL currently, I kinda support us focusing our spending on the things that will improve memberships, crowd numbers and how we actually perform.

But......at some point, we need to be bringing in enough money to support that. I was comforted to see that our revenue went up by $1.5M....until I realised that $1M of that was from the AFL distribution.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

So you're suggesting the club would have received most of that money regardless?

I can only speak for the 14 people I know who bought it because they hadn't had a better option for a few years - and that includes a handful of 'Average Joe' randoms I chatted with at the Gabba.

I spose I haven't done the studies, but I just assumed 6 more wins and a more positive vibe around the club would've likely resulted in some sort of an increase in merchandise sales, so I'm not sure I agree with the thought that the increase was just 100% due to the HoF guernsey.

 

[whatboutbob]

...so I'm not sure I agree with the thought that the increase was just 100% due to the HoF guernsey.

I didn't write (nor think) that.

I have no doubt it padded the figures though, on a still fairly anaemic increase from a record low.

FWIW, Holmes completely rejected my suggestion that many people bought the HoF guernsey in preference to the paddlepop, or that it could signal a latent disliking of the latter.

 

[chopperduck]

I'm someone who simply won't buy a new jumper, not with the paddle pop on it. Any merch i do buy, is the old logo stuff from the first 18 range as well. I'm definitely in the camp of buying a one off jumper because there is nothing else. Didn't get a HoF one this year, but will be looking to jump on board the next one.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I didn't write (nor think) that.

I have no doubt it padded the figures though, on a still fairly anaemic increase from a record low.

FWIW, Holmes completely rejected my suggestion that many people bought the HoF guernsey in preference to the paddlepop, or that it could signal a latent disliking of the latter.

I had a late night last night so was a bit out of it, sorry Bob - didn't mean to insinuate that you were. I think both of your comments in the final sentence are accurate, but I think that even without the HoF guernsey we would've sold more merch this year.

 

[Fatcat08]

Where is everyone getting the figures from? Can someone send them to me?

 

[Fenway]

It's on the lions website under "club documents".

 

[Pancho Gonzales]

Meanwhile...Melbourne have posted their fourth consecutive profit:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/152010/default.aspx

The killer quote? "They backed up their financial success of the past three seasons despite investing an additional $1.674 million into their football department in 2012."

 

[Fatcat08]

Meanwhile...Melbourne have posted their fourth consecutive profit:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/152010/default.aspx

The killer quote? "They backed up their financial success of the past three seasons despite investing an additional $1.674 million into their football department in 2012."

I thought this was a good one too

The Melbourne Cricket Club again provided significant funding in 2012.

 

[Last of the Roys]

As has been pointed out, the 2012 financial statements are now on the Club's website:
http://www.lions.com.au/annual reports/tabid/5226/default.aspx

I have had a look through them, here are some things of interest:

• Revenue was up $1.6m or 3.7%. That includes AFL distributions up $1m, Corporate sales up $0.7m, Social Club up $1.1m, memberships & ticket sales down $0.8m suprisingly, all other revenue combined down $0.4m
• Admin expenses were slashed by $0.8m or just under 20%
• Football department expenses were up $1.2m or over 7% to $17.2m (I am not sure how we compare to other clubs - that would be interesting to know)
• Marketing expenses up $1.3m or 27%, which seems pretty strange
• All other expenses up about $0.6m
• The overall result was a loss of $2.5m, compared to a loss of $1.8m last year
• Again the auditors point out the significant uncertainty that the Club will continue as a going-concern given $3.1m of accumulated deficits (all of our accumulated profits during the glory years have now been eroded and we have now accumulated a large deficit) and a current asset deficiency of $10.5m. We are clearly dependent on the good will of the AFL to survive.

Also it is briefly noted that the Club has narrowed down the search for its new training and admin facilities to two preferred sites (which are not named), and it seems to suggest a decision will be made soon.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Good breakdown LotR. I'd suggest the marketing had a fair bit to do with both giving tickets away to a few games as well as the increased spend in video equipment (and the construction of a makeshift studio at our offices).

 

[Slax]

What we really need is a better ground deal, the current deal is killing us and until this changes we are little chance to ever record a profit unless we are regularly playing finals.

 

[jackess]

Get the QLD government to build us a new footy stadium/training facility similar to what's happening in SA and WA.

 

[Viceregal]

What we really need is a better ground deal, the current deal is killing us and until this changes we are little chance to ever record a profit unless we are regularly playing finals.

Not sure if this a question for here or numpty - but what kind of a deal *do* we have with the 'Gabba (apart from being the secondary tenants of course)

 

[dlanod]

What we really need is a better ground deal, the current deal is killing us and until this changes we are little chance to ever record a profit unless we are regularly playing finals.

I've heard that the Gabba deal is quite generous compared to other stadiums deals (Etihad/MCG dictating terms to their residents, the AAMI Stadium letting SANFL double dip out of the Crows and Power), especially since we reportedly get a "clean" (no pre-existing advertising) stadium.

 

[charles202]

LOTR has nailedall the major points.

Cash is up 350k but this improvement is more than wiped out by the increase in trade payables of $0.7M.

It looks like that these losses are being funded from that Westpac Bill which is drawn 3.7M on a limit of $5M. We can't sustain another big loss next year through this facility.

1.7M of the 2.5M loss appears to be attributable to depreciation and amortisation.

Its good to see that the club has been through the administration expenses, however part of the drop in membership revenue could be attribtable to this costs cutting.

The club really cant take another year like this, we will have to hope that a strong finish to season 2012 will help the football revenue figures for next year, otherwise there will have to be further cost cutting measures taken.

To finish on a positive the social club really is a big achievement and if we can build the 'pure football' revenue to a breakeven point this really could be the cream each year that the club needs.

 

[Slax]

I've heard that the Gabba deal is quite generous compared to other stadiums deals (Etihad/MCG dictating terms to their residents, the AAMI Stadium letting SANFL double dip out of the Crows and Power), especially since we reportedly get a "clean" (no pre-existing advertising) stadium.

The AAMI stadium deal is daylight robbery which is why both SA clubs dumped it and are moving to the Adelaide Oval in 2014 as the SACA wants them there to help pay for the redevlopment and offered good terms. It is supposed to be making up to a $2M difference in the bottom line for both clubs.

Etihad deals are not as good as the MCG deals, but both have improved massively on where they wer 3-4 years ago.

 

[Cousin Jed]

LOTR has nailedall the major points.

Cash is up 350k but this improvement is more than wiped out by the increase in trade payables of $0.7M.

It looks like that these losses are being funded from that Westpac Bill which is drawn 3.7M on a limit of $5M. We can't sustain another big loss next year through this facility.

And the $3m we owe the AFL

 

[charles202]

And the $3m we owe the AFL

Must admit only flicked through the reports, where was the extra $3M?

 

[patfullfankezz]

$13 million tonight, $30 million on Saturday night. Should be enough to keep the Club out of trouble and keep me living a comfortable lifestyle (if invested well lol).

 

[Cousin Jed]

Must admit only flicked through the reports, where was the extra $3M?

It's part of the trade payables. In note 1b (about the 4th last bullet point)