One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on October 13, 2005, 04:45:44 PM
-
I had to laugh when I read this gem of an article this morning.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,16902356%255E20322,00.html
Here's some of the best bits :rollin
Million-dollar Demons
13 October 2005 Herald Sun
Mark Robinson
EXCLUSIVE
MELBOURNE will post a $1 million profit this year.Revealing the balance sheet bonanza yesterday, upbeat president Paul Gardner was adamant the club's $4 million debt would be cleared by the start of 2008.
Certainly puts the Tiger's $600k debt in prespective doesn't it
Gardner said the $1 million profit was reward for members and supporters who had continued to put money into the club.
"Now they can see a plan," he said. "We promised two years ago we'd make a million dollars and we have. Two years ago we lost $2.2 million and last year with the competitive balance fund we lost half a million and this year, once more with the competitive balance fund of $1.5 million, we'll make a million dollars."
Please give me a break - take away the AFL handout and they have again lost money. Doing my maths I believe this means that you take away the CBF $$ and they've made on their very own a $500k loss
Compare this to the Tigers in 2005 who have not got any money from the AFL's CBF and they will go from a $2.2 million loss in 2004 and are expected to make a profit in 2005 (predictions are between $20-$150k)
So tell me who should be boasting ;) :rollin
Gardner accepts the club would have made a loss without the AFL contribution, but argues every club "gets concessions of some sort".
"Geelong had some help building their stand, Brisbane have had their concessions, Sydney have had their concessions, Collingwood and Essendon get their concessions in terms of who they play, where they play, what nights they play, Adelaide and Port Adelaide get to name their ground AAMI Stadium and make something out of it," Gardner said.
"This, to us, is a version of a blockbuster game."
::) ::)
What the ............. please explain.............. the CBF money is like a blockbuster game - I don't know of any blockbuster game that generates a million bucks.
And what are our concessions exactly?
In a word DELLUDED :lol :rollin
-
When do we get our $1.5 million? ;)
-
Please give me a break - take away the AFL handout and they have again lost money. Doing my maths I believe this means that you take away the CBF $$ and they've made on their very own a $500k loss
I wonder if the Dees will pay back the $1 million to the clubs that generated it by pulling people through the gate ::).
What the ............. please explain.............. the CBF money is like a blockbuster game - I don't know of any blockbuster game that generates a million bucks.
Even Warney couldn't produce as much spin as that from Gardner. Sheesh that's right up there with Eddiespeak.
I wonder which club gets the Queen's birthday holiday blockbuster Mr Gardner? ::)
A handout is a handout! If a club is making million buck profits on the back of the CBF then the CBF should be cut. What a farce! >:(
And what are our concessions exactly?
We don't have to put up with Spud coaching us anymore ;D :thumbsup
-
And what are our concessions exactly?
We don't have to put up with Spud coaching us anymore ;D :thumbsup
That's not a concession MT - that's a blessing ;D :thumbsup :rollin
-
And what are our concessions exactly?
We don't have to put up with Spud coaching us anymore ;D :thumbsup
That's not a concession MT - that's blessing ;D :thumbsup :rollin
:rollin
-
Going by the Herald-Sun article today it looks like the Hawks are another club claiming a profit from normal operations when it seems they are ignoring a $1 million operating loss?
Donations up almost 600% (a $1.3 million increase :o ) in 12 months yet they only made a "profit" of $91k ::).
HAWTHORN has recorded a small profit of $90,937, its ninth in succession under the presidency of Ian Dicker.
Hawthorn's profit was achieved on a turnover of $29.46 million, up from $27.75 million in 2004.
One of the largest increases in revenue was from donations and special fundraising efforts: $1,582,269 in 2005, as opposed to $260,874 in 2004.
Robson said this figure was achieved from several well-publicised efforts, including a private auction staged in October.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,17272536%255E20322,00.html
-
So in other words they lost about $1.5 million dollars!
-
So in other words they lost about $1.5 million dollars!
You would need to look at their annual report to know the actual amount. However on the surface with the figures given $91k - $1.3m = a $1.21m operating loss. Add to that a large portion of that donation amount was a one-off payment to square the ledger this year. So it's not income the Hawks will be able to rely on in the future.
-
You take away all the money Dicker has spent fixing the finances to show as profits, and all that Waverly money they got, the Hawks would of been stuffed financially right about now!
Did they ever get any CBF money off the AFL?
Who gets it this year? (I wouldn't mind if the tiges got a cool million for absolutely no reason! :rollin)
-
You take away all the money Dicker has spent fixing the finances to show as profits, and all that Waverly money they got, the Hawks would of been stuffed financially right about now!
Did they ever get any CBF money off the AFL?
Who gets it this year? (I wouldn't mind if the tiges got a cool million for absolutely no reason! :rollin)
Nah the Hawks haven't got any CBF money but as you've said they have for 5 years received "compensation" from the AFL for leaving Waverley.
Melbourne, Roos and Doggies receive CBF. Doggies still made loss this year though despite it. Without it the Bullies would have made a loss of over $2 million.
I'm glad we've never gone down that path and said no instead.
-
There is no way Victoria can handle 10 AFL clubs anymore.
You have 3 that would be dead right now (Dogs, Roos, Dees) without the CBF, you have Carlton who are basically stuffed right now and Hawthorn who without aformentioned allowances would be dead in the ground.
Richmond is struggling financially.
Thats 6 clubs.
Geelong have only recently come out of (severe) debt, thanks mainly to the fact that they have their own ground.
IIRC Saints were really struggling aswell going back a few years, but have managed to fix that up recently aswell, Moorabbin Oval is still a D-U-M-P though!
Essendon and Collingwood would have loaded up the coffers the last few years (you'd think!) and won't have to worry about money, although wasn't Collingwood in a fair bit of strife before McGuire took over?
The way i see it, the Roos and Dogs are living on borrowed time.
If push came to shove, i reckon Melbourne have enough richies as supporters to save their arses, although i could be wrong!
I mean its very easy for certain groups of supporters (see PRE) to knock our financial situation, but when you look at other clubs, we probably rate in the middle of all the Victorian clubs financially!
All the interstate clubs are laughing financially, no matter where they finish on the ladder.
West Coast have got so much dough, that they want/need to renovate Subiaco so they can sell more memberships! :o
-
I agree 10 clubs in Victoria is too many but then who gets the chop and which club's supporters are the AFL willing to lose? Even the Dogs, Roos and Dees have 20,000 members each.
Virtually every Vic club has struggled financially at one time or another. Probably Essendon are the only ones who haven't had to resort to rattling tins given they've been continually successful and well managed since footy or at least the VFL went fully professional in the 80s. Of course it's easier to make money when your winning games and making the finals regularly. We can only imagine how enormous a club the Tiges would be now if we had had the on-field success the Dons have had over the last 25 years :-\.
Even the Pies have been in strife a couple of times in the past two decades. In the mid 80s under the "new magpies" admin when us and them were sending each other broke with crazy $$$ trades :banghead. Then former president Alan McAllister bought up properties around Vic Park which the Pies lost a fair bit of dough on. Most recently prior to Eddie taking over the reigns in 1999, the Pies made a $1 million loss and had 5000 members less than Richmond did.
Clubs with a large supporter base like Richmond have been able to get out out of a financial mire on our own accord.
I don't have a problem with the CBF helping out financially struggling clubs except when it gives clubs receiving it an advantage over those who are surviving on their own means. Such as Melbourne claiming they made a $1 million profit this year or North paying 98% of the salary cap and trading for high profile players like Thomson and Hay as quick fixes.
-
That is a good point, maybe a good idea would be for the CBF to cover what the teams losses are for the season and thats it.
For example, Melbourne lost 500k this year, so only give them 500k.
Then again, that would only encourage clubs to spend recklessly knowing they'll be backed up by the AFL.
Personally i think it should be phased out, if a club cannot survive on its own it shouldn't be in existance, sure the occasional handout from the AFL is perfectly fine, but getting $1.5 million every year to cover costs is just ridiculous.
If the AFL pulled the CBF tomorrow, how would the Roo's, Dee's and Dogs go come this time next year financially?
As for which clubs should go, obviously the aformentioned 3 are the likely suspects.
Hawks, Tigers and Blues probably have big enough supporter bases to save them if push came to shove, Demons might be in the sameboat aswell.
Kanga's and Dogs should merge, they'd have a dam good team and a ton of supporters, quite simple actually.
-
If the Dees had ended up with a couple of 100k ahead then you wouldn't care. In fact it would be an incentive to a club receiving CBF money to run more efficiently if the AFL said you get to keep any monies over. The following year the AFL could then reduce the CBF handout and so on and help the club towards being self-sufficient. To be fair to Melbourne I think that's what they are trying to do in the next couple of years. And from a tradition viewpoint it would be sad to see one of the oldest if not the oldest football club in the world die. However the Dees ending up with a whole $1 million over is ridiculous and an abuse of the CBF just as them selling home games to Brisbane is a farce ::).
The Dogs would be stuffed now without the CBF as they made a substancial loss even with the handout. They would have made over $2 million loss this year on their own on top of losses the previous years. I think the Doggies are hoping the $20m redevelopment of the Western/Whitten Oval, a more favourable deal at the Dome and increased membership over time will make them basically self-sufficient in the future. Time will tell but they have always lived on a knife edge financially.
The Roos on the other hand made a "profit" with the CBF this year IIRC but their finanical belt is so tight it affects on-field decisons such as recruiting. They're too frightened to finish down the bottom and rebuild properly that they go the quick fix and trade top picks for rejects. A bit like what we did with our recruiting in the 90s and early 00s :scream. The Roos are using the CBF to tread water without a plan to go anywhere.
Kanga's and Dogs should merge, they'd have a dam good team and a ton of supporters, quite simple actually.
Ross Oakley might disagree with the simple part after trying to merge Footscray with Fitzroy back in 1989 ;). Doggie supporters still have their "up your Oakley" stickers and badges. As we know they don't let go of their grudges [waves at Terry and Browny :lol ].
The other point to Victorian clubs merging is that the other Vic clubs most likely wouldn't agree to it. You'd be creating a superclub in your direct market. IIRC we and others opposed North trying to merging with Fitzroy in 1996 for that reason. In the end the Bears "merged" with Fitzroy instead. Relocation seems more palatable for the AFL to merging or extinction.
-
Relocation wouldn't work, for the simple fact that most of any Victorian teams players are from Victoria, thats why i didn't suggest it!
There are options, obviously QLD or NSW could have a 2nd team or NT and Tasmania could start a team.
If two Vic clubs merge, then that makes 15 teams so a new one could be sprouted up.
I think Tassie is the most likely, as its realy close to Victoria (hence the travelling isnt THAT bad, compared to a NT team), and they seem to be churning out a fair few AFL draftees lately, although a few of them have been busts (See: Gilmour, Morrison, Shackleton).
Also there are a number of players in the AFL originally from Tassie, maybe a few would be keen to move back there if the opportunity arose?
Obviously York Park would need an upgrade, but that only requires money (See: AFL, Govenment) and time.
-
I don't have a problem with the CBF helping out financially struggling clubs except when it gives clubs receiving it an advantage over those who are surviving on their own means. Such as Melbourne claiming they made a $1 million profit this year or North paying 98% of the salary cap and trading for high profile players like Thomson and Hay as quick fixes.
My thoughts exactly MT. :)
I also can't fathom how the Kangaroos and Bulldogs can have 2 veterans outside their main list when they're receiving CBF money. That gives them an advantage over Richmond and a few other clubs who are sensibly budgeting and only have 1 veteran outside. I don't understand why these 2 clubs can have a bigger list than us and think it's very unfair.
-
Relocation wouldn't work, for the simple fact that most of any Victorian teams players are from Victoria, thats why i didn't suggest it!
There are options, obviously QLD or NSW could have a 2nd team or NT and Tasmania could start a team.
If two Vic clubs merge, then that makes 15 teams so a new one could be sprouted up.
The Swans are a relocated club. South Melbourne, including its players and coach who were Victorians, packed up and flew north to Sydney at the end of the 1981 season. So it can work (eventually).
In any case whether Vic clubs merge or relocate, there still has to be 16 clubs in the competition as the tv rights deal requires 8 games a weekend. So if two Vic clubs merge, the AFL would have to put together a new interstate club from scratch like it did with the Bears. At least with relocation the "new" interstate club will retain some of its Melbourne based supporters as well as a bit of tradition while it finds its feet in a new city and starts to attract local support and more importantly members and corporate dollars.
The hard part is where?
Tassie despite being a traditional Aussie rules state doesn't have the size to support an AFL club as its footy population is split between Hobart and Launceston. York Park crowds when Hawthorn and St Kilda play down there are only around the 13,000 mark. Likewise Darwin is small.
NSW IMO will only be a one AFL team state at least for the foreseeable future. Outside the seaboard eastern suburbs of Sydney there is hardly any Aussie rules supporters. Rugby League dominates the ever-growing western suburbs :o. Similarly Canberra isn't viable for AFL with the Raiders and Brumbies already there plus there only being a small population. I spent a couple of months in Canberra for work/study back in 1995 :P and its a Aussie rules ghost-town. Just look at the Manaka's crowds when the Roos play there.
Possibly the Gold Coast is next but not for another 5-10 years at the very least IMV. It's alot bigger place now than it was when the Bears were there and it has a fast growing population. I read somewhere its 500,000. Plus there are a plenty of ex-Vics living up there (waves at Julz :) ) and Southport footy club is one of the wealthiest clubs in the land due to pokie revenue.
This of course is just speculation. The new $700m tv rights deal will go to 2011 so the Doggies, Roos and Dees are probably safe for the meantime.
-
I don't have a problem with the CBF helping out financially struggling clubs except when it gives clubs receiving it an advantage over those who are surviving on their own means. Such as Melbourne claiming they made a $1 million profit this year or North paying 98% of the salary cap and trading for high profile players like Thomson and Hay as quick fixes.
My thoughts exactly MT. :)
I also can't fathom how the Kangaroos and Bulldogs can have 2 veterans outside their main list when they're receiving CBF money. That gives them an advantage over Richmond and a few other clubs who are sensibly budgeting and only have 1 veteran outside. I don't understand why these 2 clubs can have a bigger list than us and think it's very unfair.
I might be wrong FF but I think the AFL altered its thinking with regard to the CBF and the salary cap in the last year or two. It use to be that a club receiving money from the CBF had to stay near the minimum of 92.5% in TPP. But now these clubs are allowed to use their salary cap quota under the argument that these clubs will have a better chance of being successful on-field and so generate more revenue in the long run off it.
That still doesn't make it fair when as you've mentioned FF other clubs like Richmond have made cuts to get their financial matters in order on their own. And I don't see the Roos being successful on-field when under Laidley they trade top draft picks away each year for mature recycled ex-Hawks.
-
Harris (Melbourne's CEO) said that while the club made a $500,000 loss this year before accounting for the AFL's competitive balance fund dividend, next year the club budgeted to break even before receiving the AFL dividend. For the next three years the club will receive a reduced equalisation dividend from the AFL of $1 million.
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/01/17/1137466989210.html
This is becoming even more a joke. The Dees will still be able to claim the CBF even if they don't make a loss this year or in the following two years :banghead.
-
The Dees are once again using their dodgy calculators to claim a "profit" ::).
MELBOURNE Football Club has recorded a profit for the third consecutive year.
While the club had predicted a million-dollar profit for the second year in a row, it said this year's result -- $790,797 -- was lower than expected because of several factors.
The club, which will announce its financial results at its annual general meeting on December 20, has cut debt by more than $3 million in the past three years from $5.5m to $2.1m.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20884745%255E20322,00.html
-
The Dees are once again using their dodgy calculators to claim a "profit" ::).
MELBOURNE Football Club has recorded a profit for the third consecutive year.
While the club had predicted a million-dollar profit for the second year in a row, it said this year's result -- $790,797 -- was lower than expected because of several factors.
The club, which will announce its financial results at its annual general meeting on December 20, has cut debt by more than $3 million in the past three years from $5.5m to $2.1m.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,20884745%255E20322,00.html
So in 2006 they have again made a LOSS but because of their AFL handout they've made a profit :wallywink
-
And with this "profit" they are going to pump more money into their footy department which gives them a unfair advantage over those clubs like Richmond who are trading themselves out of trouble. Why doesn't the AFL make the Dees use this "profit" to reduce their debt further so they won't need the CBF in the first place?! It's not like the Dees have been poor on-field over the last 10 years with 6 or so finals appearances.
-
So in 2006 they have again made a LOSS but because of their AFL handout they've made a profit :wallywink
All in the wording, I suppose. :-\
They've made about 20 losses in a row. They've recorded a profit the last 3 years.
I'm at a loss to understand how they can brag about it as though they've done something outstanding. ::)