One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on November 28, 2010, 03:28:35 AM
-
Tigers face unrest over finances
Jon Pierik
November 28, 2010
CONCERNS over sponsorship and selling matches interstate have prompted a call for change on the Richmond board.
Tigers president Gary March and fellow board members Peggy Haines and John Matthies are up for re-election, prompting Tigers coterie member Philip Anderson and Neil McKay, part of the club's executive group and a director of the Coburg Football Club, to nominate.
The Tigers have made considerable progress under March's stewardship, although there was major agitation among potential challengers early last season about the club's on-field fortunes before the wins started to come for rookie coach Damien Hardwick.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The Tigers are in the middle of negotiations with a new major sponsor after idiot Smith and Luxbet opted to reduce their contributions.
McKay, a general manager with GE Capital, has told club members the Tigers should have greater financial stability.
''In fact, it has been a long time since Richmond has had a sustainable corporate relationship, unlike some other clubs in the competition who are deemed to be successful both on and off the field,'' he said.
''The three companies who were on our jumper and shorts in 2010 will no longer be significant supporters of the Tigers. I think that it is reasonable to ask why.''
The Tigers have struck a lucrative three-year deal to play the Gold Coast Suns in Cairns and McKay fears the club could soon become a ''nomad''.
''The board of the club has seen fit to commence selling games to interstate locations clearly to generate additional income,'' he said.
''This is income that we are not generating from corporate support and the club has been forced to seek alternative revenue streams.
''I find this trend concerning as I would hate to see the Tigers go the way of some other AFL clubs who are fast becoming 'nomads'.
''There is no real strategy in playing one game in Darwin and one in North Queensland as you will not gain additional membership from playing in a region so infrequently,'' McKay said.
The Tigers are one year into a five-year plan focused on achieving three finals appearances, no debt and 75,000 members by the end of 2014.
March recently revealed a 12-month plan to eliminate the club's $4.5 million debt. The timing of this announcement has been questioned by Anderson, the founding director of a fibre optic company.
''I congratulate them on finally taking this initiative. This has been a topic of discussion within our coterie groups for many years,'' he said.
''The only point that I would like to make is that this debt has been in place for as long as some of the candidates that are up for re-election.''
March has told members his board has delivered on three platforms - attracting the best people to run the club, upgrading facilities and providing a stable financial model.
He says he hopes to eradicate debt and achieve sustained on-field success in his next term.
Election results will be announced at the Tigers' general meeting on December 15.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-face-unrest-over-finances-20101127-18bhy.html
-
I will fess up to having voted for McKay in the board elections. I only decided to make one change with McKay in and one incumbent out. This type of story shows hes a real smart operator IMHO.
-
We need to challenge the board on revenue raising and debt. They are 2 aspects of the off field where we perform poorly compared to the good clubs. Our sponsorship program is poor. This is because our staff have been unable to build a major partner that can last beyond a year or 2. We need a sponsor who we feel can committ for 4 or 5 years as it takes the pressure off and provides a revenue cushion to get more from our secondary sponsors ie collingwood and hawks.
It is hard to build ling term relationships with sponsors when you have turnover of staff at a senior level of corporate operations/marketing.
It's even worse when you employ light weights who do not have relationships with potential sponsors.
It's the last piece in the off field puzzle the club needs to fix.
-
I will fess up to having voted for McKay in the board elections. I only decided to make one change with McKay in and one incumbent out. This type of story shows hes a real smart operator IMHO.
Actually the article highlights why I DIDN'T vote for McKay or Anderson
Fear mongering
I actually found this bit rather offensive in its fear mongering :
McKay, a general manager with GE Capital, has told club members the Tigers should have greater financial stability.
''In fact, it has been a long time since Richmond has had a sustainable corporate relationship, unlike some other clubs in the competition who are deemed to be successful both on and off the field,'' he said.
Very selective and twists something to try and make a point. Name the Clubs Neil your referring too... really disappointing to me at least
BTW Neil, why don't you get your company with 26%+ interest rates to step up to major spoinsor :help ;D
Also didn't like the comment about greater "financial stability" either but seeing it isn't a direct quote I'll refrain from being too critical.
Fact is from where I am sitting and knowing what I know about sporting clubs, their boards and how they work and how tough it can be... the 2010 accounts of the RFC are a very good set of numbers
-
Absolutely spot on WP.
-
I will fess up to having voted for McKay in the board elections. I only decided to make one change with McKay in and one incumbent out. This type of story shows hes a real smart operator IMHO.
Actually the article highlights why I DIDN'T vote for McKay or Anderson
Fear mongering
I actually found this bit rather offensive in its fear mongering :
well said WP, i saw right through that article, and I mean right through for what it was, a political piece of trash that's what it was
McKay, a general manager with GE Capital, has told club members the Tigers should have greater financial stability.
''In fact, it has been a long time since Richmond has had a sustainable corporate relationship, unlike some other clubs in the competition who are deemed to be successful both on and off the field,'' he said.
Very selective and twists something to try and make a point. Name the Clubs Neil your referring too... really disappointing to me at least
BTW Neil, why don't you get your company with 26%+ interest rates to step up to major spoinsor :help ;D
Also didn't like the comment about greater "financial stability" either but seeing it isn't a direct quote I'll refrain from being too critical.
Fact is from where I am sitting and knowing what I know about sporting clubs, their boards and how they work and how tough it can be... the 2010 accounts of the RFC are a very good set of numbers
-
The reason I voted for the incumbents is because coterie members trying to influence the club has been the reason we've been crap for almost 30 years. The last thing we need is them actually being on the board.
-
This just shows anyone can be a footy journo these days. Go to any supporter forum or blog then just cut and paste and add a sentence of our own spin and hey presto you have your story for the newspaper editor ::).
Anyway there's a simple reason why our corporate support is poor compared to other clubs - we suck onfield and have done so for most of the past 30 years. We can't expect to have companies banging on our door wanting to sponsor us when our season has been over within the first month of the past four years. Winning just 6 games in total from the first halves of the past four years (44 matches) shows where we've been really at onfield in recent years. People want to be associated with winners not losers.
-
I will fess up to having voted for McKay in the board elections. I only decided to make one change with McKay in and one incumbent out. This type of story shows hes a real smart operator IMHO.
Actually the article highlights why I DIDN'T vote for McKay or Anderson
Fear mongering
I actually found this bit rather offensive in its fear mongering :
McKay, a general manager with GE Capital, has told club members the Tigers should have greater financial stability.
''In fact, it has been a long time since Richmond has had a sustainable corporate relationship, unlike some other clubs in the competition who are deemed to be successful both on and off the field,'' he said.
Very selective and twists something to try and make a point. Name the Clubs Neil your referring too... really disappointing to me at least
BTW Neil, why don't you get your company with 26%+ interest rates to step up to major spoinsor :help ;D
Also didn't like the comment about greater "financial stability" either but seeing it isn't a direct quote I'll refrain from being too critical.
Fact is from where I am sitting and knowing what I know about sporting clubs, their boards and how they work and how tough it can be... the 2010 accounts of the RFC are a very good set of numbers
Geelong Collingwood Adelaide are just 3 clubs that have shown long term that they can keep sponsors. We have failed continually on this over the period. Its not offensive what he said- what he said is actually the truth! Maybe sometimes the truth isnt what we want to hear but we have continually turned over sponsors and we have continually struggled on the sponsorship front since the 1980s. McKay's criticisms may be tough - but they are factual!
-
I might also say that other clubs like Norf who we take the pee out of on this forum continually have done a heaps better job marketing and sponsorship wise and its an open secret and has been for years that other clubs dont rate our marketing efforts or strategies.
-
BTW Neil, why don't you get your company with 26%+ interest rates to step up to major spoinsor :help ;D
26% interest has nothing to do with this. People need to be financially responsible enough not to go to an electrical appliance store or something and rack up 10k in purchases on credit. I agree however that GE Capital should come to the party and sponsor the club.
-
I might also say that other clubs like Norf who we take the pee out of on this forum continually have done a heaps better job marketing......
It can't be that good if they have needed to be propped up for years.
-
The reason I voted for the incumbents is because coterie members trying to influence the club has been the reason we've been crap for almost 30 years. The last thing we need is them actually being on the board.
Agreed. Especially when said coterie members have offered nothing in the way of a plan to improve what they perceive to be a problem.
-
Geelong Collingwood Adelaide are just 3 clubs that have shown long term that they can keep sponsors. We have failed continually on this over the period. Its not offensive what he said- what he said is actually the truth! Maybe sometimes the truth isnt what we want to hear but we have continually turned over sponsors and we have continually struggled on the sponsorship front since the 1980s. McKay's criticisms may be tough - but they are factual!
Glad you bought it up Flags
Up until we lost the TAC because of a players stupidity they had been our major partner for over 10 years - it was at the time 2nd longest continuous partnership in the league behind the Cats. That shows we can hold to a sponsor
We had idiot Smith for 3 years & Luxbet for 2. Before that we had AFG for 3 years until the GFC hit, before that we had Motorola for 4 or 5 years so the argument that we turn them over is IMHO wrong.
Look at every club that has lacked on filed success over the last 10 years and how they have struggled to get sponsors. Case 1 - Melbourne - lost Primus and took a good 6 months to get the 2 they've got now (Hancook & Kapersky) and they've had them for only 2 years.
Look at Port Adelaide it took until the week before the 2010 season commenced before they finalised all their majors.
Sometime sit is just the nature of the beast. We are talking massive $$ here and companies rightly want value for their buck.
I hate to rain on Neil's and anyone elses parade here but he should know seeing he is already a Director at a footy club but sometimes companies just decide to cease sponsoring and it has nothing to do with the Footy Club it can simply be a case of them wanting to channel their advertsing $$$ somewhere else.
-
I might also say that other clubs like Norf who we take the pee out of on this forum continually have done a heaps better job marketing and sponsorship wise and its an open secret and has been for years that other clubs dont rate our marketing efforts or strategies.
And it took them until 2009 to post consecutive operating profits for the first time in the club's history. Must have been an absolutely smashing job of marketing and sponsorship that couldn't meet the financial needs of the club for virtually it's entire history.
-
Hawks managed to keep HSBC through the dark years, sponsorship is an issue at the club. Despite our on field issues, we have more than enough support to recruit and retain major sponsors.
North do a much better job keeping their major sponsor than Richmond - we smash them everywhere else off field due to our large supporter base.
It's not going to send us broke but a big "cgu" that collingwood have or "tassie" deal that the hawks have is crucial to our abilty to plan in the medium term.
These deals are more than sponsorships, they are partnerships that link the 2 businesses together.
We need something similar at Tigerland.
The short term stadium deals at Cairns and Darwin along with year by year deals with idiot Smith and
Luxbet show up our light weight sponsorship and marketing dept.
I personally think that they must be aiming for something like this which is tied up in the re-naming of Punt Rd as re-naming a stadium - Etihad, Visy etc requires a long term commitment from both parties.
-
North do a much better job keeping their major sponsor than Richmond - we smash them everywhere else off field due to our large supporter base.
Hard to compare unless you know the financial details of the deals
Fair chance we're after a lot more money than what North are getting
-
North do a much better job keeping their major sponsor than Richmond - we smash them everywhere else off field due to our large supporter base.
Hard to compare unless you know the financial details of the deals
Fair chance we're after a lot more money than what North are getting
Mazda re-signed as their major sponsor in mid 2009 for 2 more years @ $350k per year (that figure was quoted in US $'s so possibly closer to $400k our money). As Infamy said, I would think we are after a fair bit more than that for our major sponsor, especially since it was reported 2 years ago that the Luxbet co-major sponsor deal was reputedly around the $1mil mark. Our revenues are significantly higher than North's so keeping a major sponsor at such a reduced premium is not necessarily an indicator of more success at marketing and sponsorship. The whole idea of marketing and sponsorship is to allow the club to pay it's bills and grow the entity - something North have failed dismally at for many many years now. Innovative marketing does not equate to successful marketing if it fails to make enough $$'s.
http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/mazda_backs_north_melbourne_football_club/ (http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/mazda_backs_north_melbourne_football_club/)
-
Can anybody confirm that us and North generate the lowest corporate income of all AFL clubs?
-
I can confirm that I face severe unrest when I think about Caroline Wilson before bedtime
-
I can confirm that I face severe unrest when I think about Caroline Wilson before bedtime
You seem to be a very sordid individual gerkin!
-
I can confirm that I face severe unrest when I think about Caroline Wilson before bedtime
If you didn't have pictures of her on your ceiling then you wouldn't think about her at that time...as often.
-
I can confirm that I face severe unrest when I think about Caroline Wilson before bedtime
You seem to be a very sordid individual gerkin!
Greggy is disgusting.
-
very true, very true
trying to stop thinking about her is like trying to dislodge england with a wet tennis ball
i hope she tips some coin into this debt demolition, i hear she's been putting in extra shifts at the docks
-
It is hard to build ling term relationships with sponsors when you have turnover of staff at a senior level of corporate operations/marketing.
It's even worse when you employ light weights who do not have relationships with potential sponsors.
It's the last piece in the off field puzzle the club needs to fix.
Maybe someone can explain the responsibilities of the various people at the club cos I just don't follow.
When this subject arose after we lost idiot Smith and Luxbet as major sponsors I thought that the new guy in "Commercial Operations", Simon Derrick, may have been an improvement in this area.
When I looked at the club website I saw that listed under "Sponsorship" was the "Marketing and Brand Manager", Cameron Morris. So I assumed he was in charge of finding sponsors.
Not so apparently. In his interview with the fan sites, Gary March has said that
Re: Sponsor. Simon Derrick and Brendan Gale have been working on negotiations with a number of parties regarding major sponsor and potential naming rights for PRO and are confident we will announce those before Christmas.
Simon Derrick and his team have been diligent in putting proposals infront of nearly every major company in Australia including Tiger, unfortunately some organisations like Tiger airlines do not see AFL football as part of their brand development.
This is the sort of stuff that infuriates me about the club.
It seems that titles and duties are so jumbled as to seem a deliberate attempt to confuse and misdirect members so they don't know who is reponsible for any actions
Simon Derrick is listed as Commercial Operations but not under Sponsorship or Marketing or Brand Management, yet is responsible for these areas?
His assistant is Dale Weightman (who seems to move all over the place), who March said in the interview was handling player appearances at clinics. ???
"Siomon Derrick and his team" means what? That he has taken over the sponsorship area and they now work for him?
-
Simon Derrick is also Tom Derrickx
-
Derr!
-
Simon Derrick is also Tom Derrickx
Derick-X
-
North do a much better job keeping their major sponsor than Richmond - we smash them everywhere else off field due to our large supporter base.
Hard to compare unless you know the financial details of the deals
Fair chance we're after a lot more money than what North are getting
it's not the $, it's the principle that is worth comparing. Swans with QBE, Lions CUB, Cats Ford They have long term sponsors and it frees them up to screw down better deals with secondary sponsors look at the Pies- if they can get a 7 year deal worth $14m for a 2nd major surely we can get something worth 1-1.5m for 5 years for a primary sponsor?
It is a missing link at the club and we don't do it well enough - I do think we have a brilliant CEO but he needs better cattle at an Ops level taking from being "in" the running of the business to being "on" it.
The fact Benny Gale is involved tells me that they don't have the right people in the role. He is the CEO, not the sponsorship manager!
-
Can anybody confirm that us and North generate the lowest corporate income of all AFL clubs?
They generate the lowest total income of the Vic clubs .........
Revenue Net Assets
Collingwood $75m
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/portals/0/magpies_docs/CFC_annual_report_2010.pdf [ File wouldn't open properly for me ??? ]
Essendon $44.7m* $20.6m
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/club/2010AnnualReport.pdf
Geelong $40.9m $8.6m
http://www.geelongcats.com.au/Portals/0/cats_docs/GFC_Financial_Report_2009.pdf [2009]
Hawthorn $40.5m $25.9m
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/Portals/0/hawks_docs/10_annualreport.pdf
Carlton: $35m $12.6m
http://www.rippledirect.com.au/images/carltonfc/cfc_stat_accts_2010.pdf
W.Bulldogs $32m* $22.4m
http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/Portals/0/bulldogs_docs/2010FinReport.pdf
Richmond $31.5m* $13.2m
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/portals/0/richmond_docs/RFC%20Concise%20Financial%20Report%202010.pdf
St Kilda $27.6m -$125k
http://www.saints.com.au/portals/0/saints_docs/pdf09/annualreport_saints_web.pdf [2009]
Melbourne $26.1 -$3.2m ...... probably closer to even now they've wiped out their debt.
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Portals/0/demons_docs/MFC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf [2009]
North: $23.5m* $7m
http://cms.kangaroos.com.au/Portals/0/2009%20Financial%20Report.pdf [2009]
* revenue from operating activities
-
Earning less revenue that the Dogs is a little bit embarrassing :P.
Unless I'm misreading it, the Saints are in a poor position financially compared to what you'd expect for a club that's played finals for most of the past 7 seasons. I still find it hard to understand how a club could lose money in a season where they made the GF (2009) ???. If they haven't made a large profit in 2010 on the back of back-to-back-to-back GFs then when will they make a large profit?! Their list is ageing so the window is closing if not closed. What's their finances going to be like when they are back to their traditional wooden spoon possie ;D for a few years while rebuilding again.
-
They generate the lowest total income of the Vic clubs .........
Revenue Net Assets
Collingwood $75m
http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/portals/0/magpies_docs/CFC_annual_report_2010.pdf [ File wouldn't open properly for me ??? ]
Essendon $44.7m* $20.6m
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/club/2010AnnualReport.pdf
Geelong $40.9m $8.6m
http://www.geelongcats.com.au/Portals/0/cats_docs/GFC_Financial_Report_2009.pdf [2009]
Hawthorn $40.5m $25.9m
http://www.hawthornfc.com.au/Portals/0/hawks_docs/10_annualreport.pdf
Carlton: $35m $12.6m
http://www.rippledirect.com.au/images/carltonfc/cfc_stat_accts_2010.pdf
W.Bulldogs $32m* $22.4m
http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/Portals/0/bulldogs_docs/2010FinReport.pdf
Richmond $31.5m* $13.2m
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/portals/0/richmond_docs/RFC%20Concise%20Financial%20Report%202010.pdf
St Kilda $27.6m -$125k
http://www.saints.com.au/portals/0/saints_docs/pdf09/annualreport_saints_web.pdf [2009]
Melbourne $26.1 -$3.2m ...... probably closer to even now they've wiped out their debt.
http://www.melbournefc.com.au/Portals/0/demons_docs/MFC-Annual-Report-Final.pdf [2009]
North: $23.5m* $7m
http://cms.kangaroos.com.au/Portals/0/2009%20Financial%20Report.pdf [2009]
* revenue from operating activities
The only thing I will say about these numbers is and it actually highlights some thing important and that is you can be in a strong "Net Asset" position but still be carry debt.
From that list we know that the Bulldogs, C'wood, Geelong (I think), Carlton, North all carry debt (loans etc) but there books say they are asset positive.... hmmm who does that remind you of ;D yep the RFC
As for Melb - just becasue their "debt" has been repaid wont necessarily they are Asset positive - they are "nomads" in a sense that they don't have a "ground" with buildings ;D
As for St Kilda - they have nothing until they move to Seaford and their numbers don't surpsie me at all :rollin
-
If they haven't made a large profit in 2010 on the back of back-to-back-to-back GFs then when will they make a large profit?!
That's a terrible stutter you have there MT! ;D
-
KB on SEN just said he heard a rumour that Skoda were going to sponsor us and Denham says that the AFL scuttled that and you will find that Skoda will sponsor GWS or GC Suns. >:(
-
Skoda ARE major sponsors of GWS as well as naming rights holder of their new ground at Homebush - Skoda Stadium. Great pick up after the fact by Denham ::)
Wouldn't surprise me one bit though if the AFL stuffed us, it's de rigueur these days.
-
Kaybee can get stuffed :banghead