Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Its a bit hard to believe, the spin this time of year is for the true believers, not cynics like me.
Back of the beer coaster calculations are limited to the Eagles at this point & its about AFL distributions.
Do they even know the extent of their losses/non revenue yet?
Yeah I reckon it is not hard to believe at all and there is no reason to seriously doubt it.
The figures ($40M for the AFL and $60M for the clubs) was put (by Caro) directly to somebody in the meeting (eddie).
For what purpose would Caro and Eddie be part of a big conspiracy to lie to the "true believers" that the losses are smaller than they actually are?
If all they really lost was gate revenue and had no drops in other areas, this is theoretically possible.
More than "theoretically" possible. They also stood down the bulk of the staff for at least part of the year across the AFL and clubs on job keeper
I would say that there is no reason to believe otherwise.
the original money the afl had access to was a line of credit of 500 million. it was the max they could access it doesnt mean they maxed it out. they had cut backs of expenture and employee wise along with apparent wage cuts in propanda house .Its a bit hard to believe, the spin this time of year is for the true believers, not cynics like me.
Back of the beer coaster calculations are limited to the Eagles at this point & its about AFL distributions.
Its a bit hard to believe, the spin this time of year is for the true believers, not cynics like me.
Back of the beer coaster calculations are limited to the Eagles at this point & its about AFL distributions.
According to our Chairman, we will turn a profit this year, despite no games in Tasmania and none of that revenue, we didn't need to borrow any money from the AFL and have reduced what little existing debt we had down further.
I think the AFL wastes too much money. Broadcasting rights alone would have allowed the AFL to distribute $23m to each club and broadcasting rights is about half of the AFL's revenue. I think the Swan's chairman is on the money, we need an major review of the AFL and it's operation. This economic downturn caused by the pandmeic should have been a blip on the radar if the AFL distributed the vast majority of the revenue generated back to the clubs.
Given the revenue the clubs generate, they should be getting in the ball park of $30m each, we see barely half that, other clubs are lucky to see more than a third. It is insane that this farce has been allowed to go on.
Full letter below, have bolded the finances bit.The Eagles are going to battle to break even ..... is that the letter from Ben Buckley in the last 24 hours you are referring to? If so can you post it.
According to our Chairman, we will turn a profit this year, despite no games in Tasmania and none of that revenue, we didn't need to borrow any money from the AFL and have reduced what little existing debt we had down further.
I think the AFL wastes too much money. Broadcasting rights alone would have allowed the AFL to distribute $23m to each club and broadcasting rights is about half of the AFL's revenue.
I think the Swan's chairman is on the money, we need an major review of the AFL and it's operation. This economic downturn caused by the pandmeic should have been a blip on the radar if the AFL distributed the vast majority of the revenue generated back to the clubs.
Who needs to borrow money when you get a handout through the disequalisation fund?
The Australian C. Walsh 23.10
Mc Lachlan said 23.10
"...the industry loss between the Clubs & AFL will be something under $100m. It will be significantly lower...".
Because Mc Lachlan said also, on 23.10, in March 2020 the "loss" was feared to be $965m (clearly revenues only- not a P & L actual net loss), the $100m loss to the AFL clearly relates to lost revenues only.
NoCookies | The Australian
www.theaustralian.com.au
What is the equivalent number to the $100m ? Is it just revenue as suggested in the quote ?
or is it 'the industry as a whole loss will total $100 mil' refers to the P & L number?
It would definitely be P&L bottom line not just revenue. Still a remarkable number
1. I applied the Latin maxim noscitur-a-sociis Rule of Legal Interpretation to McLachlan's comments.It would definitely be P&L bottom line not just revenue. Still a remarkable number
Quick look at last years club results, total accumulated operating profits were $30 mil, reported profits $60 mil.
The AFL reported $28 mil profit.
note: approx numbers from http://www.footyindustry.com/
To me that reads as industry profit last year of $60mil, but I understand some will read it as $90 mil.
So if the industry is down $100 mil, what does that really tell us?