Tigers face unrest over finances (Age)

[mightytiges]

Earning less revenue that the Dogs is a little bit embarrassing  .

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   for a few years while rebuilding again.

[WilliamPowell]

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  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 

As for St Kilda - they have nothing until they move to Seaford and their numbers don't surpsie me at all 

[Smokey]

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! 

[wayne]

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. 

[gerkin greg]

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.

[Carvels Ring]

Kaybee can get stuffed