Money buys premierships (Australian)

[one-eyed]

Denham mentions Richmond in a couple of parts.....

Collingwoood Magpies spend $20m to buy flag

    EXCLUSIVE Greg Denham
    From: The Australian
    May 04, 2011

AFL premierships do not come cheap and Collingwood's flag last year came at a record cost of almost $20 million.

The Magpies achieved the ultimate result after spending an extra $2.48m on their football department last year - the biggest single increase across all clubs.

According to confidential AFL figures obtained by The Australian, Collingwood's football department expenditure rose from $17.022m in 2009 to $19.5m last year.

It is certain to become the first club to break the $20m barrier in football department spending, after smaller increases of $700,000 between 2007-08 and just over $600,000 between 2008 and 2009.

While the Pies' spending rose in most areas within the club's football department, their players earned $1.12m more than in 2009 for a 2010 total of $10.7m.

Collingwood players were paid more than their counterparts at all other clubs, as fellow grand finalist St Kilda's inflated total player payments of $11.5m is understood to include anomalies, such as a one-off cash payment to sacked midfielder Andrew Lovett.

Three of the top-four spending clubs - the Magpies, Saints and Geelong - took three of the final four finishing positions.

However, the chief concern is the increasing gap in football expenditure between the competition's rich and poor.

The gap in overall football spending between Collingwood and 16th-ranked North Melbourne was $5.5m last year.

The Kangaroos increased their spend by a moderate $460,000, but still lagged behind the rest of the clubs with all-up expenditure of $14m.

The competition's average cost of operating football departments last year was $16.4m.

But six clubs - Adelaide, Melbourne, Port Adelaide, Richmond, the Western Bulldogs and North - all came in under that figure.

The gap in 2009 between the highest spender (West Coast) and the lowest (Western Bulldogs) was $3.98m.

Collingwood was also the league leader in spending on other football department investment in such areas as recruiting, list management and fitness and conditioning, outlaying $8.8m.

The Bulldogs were the least competitive club in this area, which is not capped by the AFL, spending just $4.7m, $4.1m less than the premiership club.

West Coast continued to be an anomaly because of its high football department expenditure for little result.

The rich West Australian club last year spent $18.1m, second only to Collingwood, to finish last with just four wins from the campaign.

In the past three years, the Eagles have invested $51.6m in football for a return of 16 wins and finishing positions of 16th, 11th and 15th.

During the same period, the thrifty Bulldogs played in three straight preliminary finals and won a combined 47 matches after spending $40.9m on their football department.

Total club football expenditure last year increased by $16.2m.

Richmond, which finished 15th, was the only club to record a decrease in football spending, down from $14.5m in 2009 to $14.2m last year.

In 2009, the only two clubs that had decreases in football department spending were Sydney and Melbourne. And they finished 12th and 16th.

Four clubs last year - the Tigers (down $750,000), Geelong ($460,000), Sydney ($400,000) and Hawthorn ($200,000)  spent less on their players than in the previous season.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/collingwoood-magpies-spend-20m-to-buy-flag/story-e6frg7mf-1226049430571

[Go Richo 12]

"Richmond, which finished 15th, was the only club to record a decrease in football spending, down from $14.5m in 2009 to $14.2m last year."

Is that because we replaced Wallace and Co. with relative novice coaching staff, including Dimma?

[Hard Roar Tiger]

Our issue to fix is generating revenue and finding alternatives to the supporter base for income.

[Eat_em_Alive]

West Coast is a good example of over spending and getting nothing in return.
Collingwood have spent a truck load, but theyre planning, processes and execution have obviously been spot on, they have a flag and maybe even a second this year.

The doggies prove though its not just money like "west coast example"but smarts, processes and hard work" if they had a few more dollars?? who knows what they could have done in the last 2 years?
At the end of the day its so much money and you would just hope the people using it spend it in the appropriate way

[tony_montana]

"Richmond, which finished 15th, was the only club to record a decrease in football spending, down from $14.5m in 2009 to $14.2m last year."

Is that because we replaced Wallace and Co. with relative novice coaching staff, including Dimma?

yep as well as significantly lower overrall total player payments due to the massive cleanout and influx of young draftees.

I like these articles that give the facts instead of the opinion fluff pieces we see from so called experts. WCE may be the anomaly atm but that significant footy dpt spend is why they will rebound from a bottom out after a premiership in a short 5-6 year span

[Oiafi]

... they have a falg and maybe even a second this year.

I want one of those ... 

[Hellenic Tiger]

Club culture also has alot to do with it too.Just look at the Saints. Do the new facilities in Seaford change the outside perception of that club or make them more successful moving to a new multi million dollar facility.

Lets now take a little deeper look at St Kilda and Dogs. No point spending money if you employ for the most part people who don't know how to get there despite these so called good credentials. Furthermore two flags combined in 200 years makes sad/ hilarious reading depending on which way you look at it.

I just love the fact that Hardwick, Lade, Leppitsch, all winners who have played in hightly successful teams as players and played under coaches who were driven a little left of centre and most of successful.

You can't buy success but if you get enough successful driven people in an environment that wants to succeed then eventually more often than not you will succeed and that you can't put a price on. Money can only take you so far just look at clubs like Real Madrid compred to Barcelona's home grown youth as an example outside of AFL.

[RedanTiger]

Agreed that it is not only how much money you throw at the problem.
You must have a system to evaluate your results and find better ways of spending money.

A pet hate of mine is the lack of money and effort that AFL clubs in general spend on what I call "Player welfare" but which clubs now seem to group under "Player Development".

The point that the right personnel is critical would have to be our hiring of Dr Chris Bond from the Institute of Sport in Canberra. Most people, myself included, were over the moon that we could attract such a highly credentialled person to head up our player development. The fact he was gone so quickly points up that he was not suitable for the job for whatever reasons.

The retention of our fitness and medical staff over such a long time is another interesting area.
Have these departments kept pace with best practice? On the other hand, how much value comes from the long term relationship between player and (fitness) coach?

To me a very important part of the club and it's staff is the quality of reports going to managers (Cameron and Hardwick) and the board.
It makes up a library of "corporate knowledge" so we don't repeat mistakes every few years when the personnel have changed.  This is the first step in continuous improvement.

[gerkin greg]

good post Redan

[one-eyed]

A couple of more articles today in the media on the same topic ...


Ground deals key as revenue gap grows
Jake Niall
May 5, 2011

THE revenue gap between the AFL's richest and poorest clubs reached $21 million last year, with Port Adelaide and North Melbourne earning approximately that amount less than financial powerhouses Collingwood and West Coast.

Figures obtained by The Age show that the top-two earning clubs, Collingwood and the Eagles, each had football revenue of $45.6 million, compared to North Melbourne's $24.7 million and Port Adelaide's $24.6 million, the latter pair having the least football income of any of 2010's 16 clubs.

The difference between top and bottom clubs for revenue is for what the AFL terms ''club-sourced football revenue'' which includes membership, gate-takings, sponsorship, merchandise, corporate hospitality and all distributions from the AFL, counting the annual special distribution (ASD), the extra funding given to clubs that have smaller supporter bases or poor stadium deals.

Indeed, the figures demonstrate that the quality of a stadium deal is almost as critical to a club's earnings and overall financial heath as its level of support. Fremantle, which has a similar arrangement to West Coast, is a distant third on the cash ladder, with $34.6 million, followed by Geelong ($34.2 million), which also has control of its own stadium and reaps huge returns on relatively small crowds.

Hawthorn, fifth on the revenue ladder with $33.7 million, manages to finish above its traditionally stronger foes Carlton ($31.7 million) and Essendon ($30.6 million).

The Hawks have improved their position significantly by their lucrative deal to play four games a season in Launceston, where they receive a ''clean stadium'' along the lines of Geelong and also reap huge sponsorship dollars from the Tasmanian government.

Essendon, one of the strongest clubs in terms of support and net assets, ranked seventh for revenue last year, but the Bombers - having boosted their spending by hiring James Hird and Mark Thompson to head a high-calibre coaching panel - are on track to increase their revenue significantly this year, due to major increases in membership and other match-day earnings.

The revenue ladder is consistent with the debate about the spending gap between the likes of Collingwood and West Coast - which are one and two respectively in football department outlay - and North Melbourne, Port Adelaide, the Bulldogs and Richmond.

St Kilda finished mid-table in the revenue ladder, equal with the Brisbane Lions, at $29.8 million - numbers that are commensurate with its on-field performances. The Saints had the highest player payments last season, however, with $11.7 million, a million dollars ahead of second-placed Collingwood - a staggering figure that is believed to include the settlement to sacked recruit Andrew Lovett.

Richmond remains low on the revenue ladder, in 14th place and below the Bulldogs, despite its sizeable supporter base.

The Tigers' prolonged lack of on-field success, has seen them mired in the bottom five for revenue for much of its recent history, but all within the AFL industry agree that they have enormous financial upside if they win games.

The most surprising number, perhaps, is that Adelaide ranks 12th for revenue, behind much smaller clubs Melbourne, Sydney and St Kilda. This is obviously a reflection of the poor returns the Crows receive from Football Park, which both South Australian clubs are abandoning for the Adelaide Oval.

Since club-sourced football earnings do not include poker machines and other non-football earnings, such as investments, they can be viewed as an accurate reflection of the current earning power of the 16 clubs (with 17th club, Gold Coast, to be added to the table at year's end).

If you subtract player payments from the equation, then the bottom four for football department spending in 2010 were Melbourne (13th), Richmond (14th), North (15th) and the Bulldogs (16th). The Dogs spent $4.7 million on their football department, not counting players, compared to the $8.8 million Collingwood spent on everything besides player payments. Essendon spent $7.2 million on football, players exempted.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ground-deals-key-as-revenue-gap-grows-20110504-1e8g2.html#ixzz1LOpIJqiU

[one-eyed]

AFL clubs circle for carve-up of a lazy 1.25b TV rights

    Michael Warner
    From: Herald Sun
    May 05, 2011

THE carve-up of football's $1.25 billion TV rights bonanza begins today.

Club chief executives will meet AFL officials to discuss distribution of the Seven-Foxtel-Telstra windfall.

The day-long session will look at equalisation measures, the progress of collective bargaining agreement negotiations with players and the development of the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney franchises.

Issues to be debated include:

* INCREASING annual special distributions to struggling clubs such as North Melbourne, Port Adelaide and Western Bulldogs.

* REPLACING the total player payments scheme, additional services agreements and third-party arrangements such as Chris Judd's Visy deal with a streamlined salary cap.

* BETTER sharing of the massive gate takings, fixture favouritism and stadium arrangements enjoyed by clubs such as Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Geelong and West Coast.

Richmond president Gary March last week called on the AFL to financially compensate clubs affected by low-drawing fixtures.

Another official described the growing gulf between clubs in football department spending as the game's "elephant in the room".

"The rich are getting richer and the poor just can't keep up," the official said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-circle-for-carve-up-of-a-lazy-125b-tv-rights/story-e6frf9jf-1226050140170