AFL Victorian clubs audit - "Richmond still laden with debt" (Age)

[one-eyed]

AFL Victorian clubs audit
February 26, 2011

THE AFL has announced yet another bumper financial year for football, the first of two new interstate clubs is on the verge of its first league game, and a new lucrative TV rights deal is in the offing.

Australia's game has changed beyond recognition over the past 20 years, but that has major ramifications for the 10 remaining clubs that carry over from the old Victorian Football League.

In the face of what the AFL calls "generational" change, business journalists Mark Hawthorne and Ben Butler have examined the annual accounts of every Victorian-based team to identify which clubs are in trouble, and which ones are best placed to compete in the expanded 18-team competition. As their investigations reveal, the gap between rich and poor has never been wider.

Richmond

THE Tigers' cash position of $7.74 million looks impressive — but most of that is already committed to their Punt Road redevelopment.

Taking away "restricted cash" of $7.42 million, cash on hand is only $312,000, less than half of last year's $785,000.

Richmond left the details of its cash position out of the short-form report published to fans on its website, but they're revealed in the full, 49-page financials available on application to the club.

While the club made an operating profit of $759,000, it admits it is dependent on the support of the AFL through a $5 million loan facility with Westpac. The facility is drawn down to about $4.5 million.

Bottom line: Still laden with debt. - BB


THE TOP 10: HOW THE VICTORIAN CLUBS STACK UP

REVENUE
Collingwood $75.2 million
Essendon $44.9 million
Geelong $44.8 million
Hawthorn $40.6 million
St Kilda $37.9 million
Carlton $35 million
Melbourne $32.8 million
Western Bulldogs $32.1 million
Richmond $31.5 million
North Melbourne $25.6 million

OPERATING PROFIT*
Hawthorn $2.2 million
St Kilda $1.7 million
Essendon $1.52 million
Geelong $1.3 million
Western Bulldogs $1 million
Collingwood $1 million
Richmond $759,000
Melbourne $724,000
North Melbourne $234,000
Carlton $125,000
* not including government grants

ASSETS
Western Bulldogs $36 million
Hawthorn $33.4 million
Geelong $29.3 million
Collingwood $27 million
Essendon $25.3 million
Richmond $23.8 million
Carlton $23.4 million
North Melbourne $16.3 million
St Kilda $14.7 million
Melbourne $4.4 million

LIABILITIES
Geelong $19.4 million
Collingwood $18.3 million
Western Bulldogs $13.6 million
Carlton $10.8 million
Richmond $10.5 million
North Melbourne $8.7 million
Hawthorn $7.5 million
St Kilda $7.4 million
Essendon $4.7 million
Melbourne $4 million

AVAILABLE CASH
Collingwood $10 million
Hawthorn $4.4 million
Western Bulldogs $3.4 million
Essendon $2.2 million
St Kilda $2.2 million
Geelong $2.1 million
Carlton $853,000
Melbourne $808,000
Richmond $312,000
North Melbourne $2749

AFL special distribution
Western Bulldogs $1.7 million
North Melbourne $1.4 million
Melbourne $1 million
Carlton $600,000
Richmond $400,000

*Figures sourced from clubs’ 2010 annual reports


All clubs summaries here:
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-victorian-clubs-audit-20110225-1b8n9.html

[Stripes]

The Fighting Tiger Fund was started for a reason I guess....

[WilliamPowell]

Very funny article to a degree- talk about spinning this to suit a purpose

 

Richmond

THE Tigers' cash position of $7.74 million looks impressive — but most of that is already committed to their Punt Road redevelopment.

Taking away "restricted cash" of $7.42 million, cash on hand is only $312,000, less than half of last year's $785,000.

Richmond left the details of its cash position out of the short-form report published to fans on its website, but they're revealed in the full, 49-page financials available on application to the club.

While the club made an operating profit of $759,000, it admits it is dependent on the support of the AFL through a $5 million loan facility with Westpac. The facility is drawn down to about $4.5 million.

Well what a bloody shock horror that final statement is

Bottom line:
[/b] Still laden with debt. - BB

If we are still laden with debt

Where does that leave Carlton, Bulldogs, St Kilda and the best of them all North Melb?


I mean seriously... in the Bulldogs:

The article says the Bulldogs still have a $5mil debt and then goes onto say in the "bottom line" area they are "still battlers but doing better" (pg18 Age sports liftout 26/2/2011). What the  It also mentions that the club directors believe the club is a going concern because "it can depend on an additional $1.7mil from the AFL" in 2011 (pg18)

As for North.... what's the point 

[smasha]

The article made Richmond look the worst lol.


More BS by the media.

Move on.

[Fishfinger]

AFL special distribution
Western Bulldogs $1.7 million
North Melbourne $1.4 million
Melbourne $1 million
Carlton $600,000
Richmond $400,000

*Figures sourced from clubs’ 2010 annual reports

It looks as though Richmond's compensation for poor stadia deals has been lumped in with what North, Bulldogs and Melbourne get so they can operate.

It was reported in the same paper last week that North receive $700,000 compensation for poor stadia deals on top of the $1.4m from the AFL.
Bulldogs, according to Arocca, get more than North so it looks like their compensation for poor stadia deals is not counted.
Doesn't look as though Melbourne's is either.

I'm wondering if the new facilities at Punt Rd are counted, seeing the grants to fund it are not. One or the other has to be counted.
I'm betting the facilities at Whitten Oval are counted, financed by grants.

[WilliamPowell]

I'm wondering if the new facilities at Punt Rd are counted, seeing the grants to fund it are not. One or the other has to be counted.
I'm betting the facilities at Whitten Oval are counted, financed by grants.

Not sure what you mean here Fish    as everything that should be included in the accounts are their 

The grant monies the Tiger's rec'd for Punt Road were included in the 2010 annual accounts. The Club made a net profit of $2.9 mil including the grants and an operating proifit of $759k which excludes the grant monies

On the balance sheet our cash & cash equivalents was $7.735mil as opposed to $14.560mil in 2009 - again this includes the cash grants being held for the re-development

However the asset category Property plant & Equipment is now (end 2010) $13.188mil compared to $4.917mil which takes into account the actual completed building works.

Our total assets as per our accounts (which = the amount in this silly Age report) is $23,762,775. This amount includes all assets including cash

As for the Bulldogs their total assets would include the facilities at the Whitten Oval and any other assets they hold @ 31/10/10. this would be the same for any club.

The problem with this "report" in the Age is how they interpreted things.

[Fishfinger]

I'm wondering if the new facilities at Punt Rd are counted, seeing the grants to fund it are not. One or the other has to be counted.
I'm betting the facilities at Whitten Oval are counted, financed by grants.

Not sure what you mean here Fish   as everything that should be included in the accounts are their  

The grant monies the Tiger's rec'd for Punt Road were included in the 2010 annual accounts. The Club made a net profit of $2.9 mil including the grants and an operating proifit of $759k which excludes the grant monies

Yeah, all included in the accounts. I mean not included by these 2 journalists. They've excluded the gov't grant .
My question is, have they included the new facilities in Richmond's assets? If not, then surely the gov't grant should be included because it's going towards them. I'm sure the Bulldogs new facilities are included in their assets because they are completed.

[WilliamPowell]

My question is, have they included the new facilities in Richmond's assets? If not, then surely the gov't grant should be included because it's going towards them. I'm sure the Bulldogs new facilities are included in their assets because they are completed.

Yes they have fish - as I posted the completed building works are included in total assets as is the Cash being held from the grant monies received.

What they have done (correctly) is exclude the grant monies when looking at clubs operating profits 

[gerkin greg]

available cash
North Melbourne $2749
 

[Fishfinger]

Yes they have fish - as I posted the completed building works are included in total assets as is the Cash being held from the grant monies received.

What they have done (correctly) is exclude the grant monies when looking at clubs operating profits 

Thanks WP.
i was so outraged with the welfare sucking Bulldogs being portrayed as in a better financial position that I hadn't properly read your reply.

As a non-accounting person, that article has me wondering why the Bulldogs are able to get $1.7m in AFL assistance per year when they've apparently got $12.2m more in assets and $3m more in available cash than Richmond.

I trust that the Bulldogs need the AFL assistance which leaves me of the opinion that the 2 blokes who concocted the article are not particularly astute business journalists.