Is your AFL club in the black? (Herald-Sun)

[one-eyed]

Is your AFL club in the black?

    * Ben Butler
    * From: Herald Sun
    * January 02, 2010

HALF of Victoria's 10 AFL clubs are in financial strife despite being part of a competition that rakes in hundreds of millions every year, club annual reports show.

Auditors say there is "significant" doubt Carlton, Melbourne and North Melbourne are going concerns, while directors of the Western Bulldogs and Richmond point out that their clubs depend on the continued financial support of the AFL.

The annual reports reveal:

CARLTON faces a $6.5 million shortfall this year.

COLLINGWOOD'S disastrous foray into the pub business still threatens the club.

RICHMOND, Carlton, the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs depend on government grants to prop up their profits.

HAWTHORN is the richest Victorian club, holding $6 million in cash against just $214,000 in debt.

GEELONG spent an extra $1.1 million manufacturing memorabilia after winning last year's premiership.

Carlton's accounts, signed by chairman Stephen Kernahan, show the club has a current asset deficiency of $6.5 million and has committed to pay $2 million towards the redevelopment of its training ground, Visy Park, over the coming year.

"These factors give rise to significant uncertainty about the ability of the company to continue to operate as a going concern," the accounts say.

The total cost of the development project, which has significant government funding, has also blown out from $17.7 million to $19.4 million.

Directors of the 145-year-old club pin their hopes on a profitable 2010 season, the continued support of naming rights sponsor Visy, and Westpac and the AFL continuing to provide $6.5 million in credit.

Blues spokesman Ian Coutts said the club was forecasting positive cash flow next year.

"From a club viewpoint we haven't been in a better position for a number of years," he said.

Arch rival Collingwood has financial problems of its own as it deals with the fallout from a disastrous foray into hotel ownership.

In the coming year Collingwood must come up with $7.25 million to repay part of a Westpac loan secured against the Beach Hotel in Albert Park and the Diamond Creek Tavern.

If Collingwood cannot sell the pubs at book value, the club faces a shortfall of up to $4.4 million.

The hotel leases have been for sale since 2008 and are valued in club accounts at $9.5 million after Collingwood slashed its estimate of their sale price by $5.7 million.

There is an agreement to sell the pubs, "and the respective sales are expected to be completed by early 2010", the Pies say in their annual report.

But the club has already missed one deadline to sell the venues, with its 2008 annual report saying the sale was "expected to be completed by early 2009".

The deal has been held up awaiting approval from the Beach Hotel's freehold owners, pub industry veterans the Board family.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and director Mark Korda, who signed the accounts, could not be reached yesterday.

Auditors of struggling sides Melbourne and North Melbourne say there is "significant uncertainty" that the clubs can pay their bills when they fall due.

North chief executive Eugene Arocca said increased membership and sponsorship had improved the club's position over the past two years but it still suffered from an unfair stadium deal.

The club lacks an external source of income because it has been reluctant to get into gaming.

"It's blue sky ahead and we are working with some very good business minds to find some revenue streams for the future," Mr Arocca said.

The Demons are struggling with a net liability of $3.16 million.

Melbourne directors meet with Westpac and the AFL every month to discuss club finances and say the league has "committed to an annual funding program and, furthermore, the club expects continued support from its lenders".

The Herald Sun reviewed the 2009 annual reports of every Victorian club except St Kilda, which was to release its financial data in about a fortnight.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/is-your-afl-club-in-the-black/story-e6frf9jf-1225815357617

[Beren]

RICHMOND, Carlton, the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs depend on government grants to prop up their profits.

The Herald Sun reviewed the 2009 annual reports of every Victorian club except St Kilda, which was to release its financial data in about a fortnight.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/is-your-afl-club-in-the-black/story-e6frf9jf-1225815357617

Yet the Age has stated ages ago that St Kilda made a loss this year.
And just how, apart from one off govt grants to pay for our redevelopment are we in trouble?

[one-eyed]

HERALD Sun journalist Ben Butler dives into Victorian AFL clubs' annual reports to assess all the figures. Who's in the black?


RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.


GEELONG

Profit: $650,800
Last year: $52,600
Revenue: $40.8 million
Football department costs: $17.2 million
Membership income: $9.41 million
Sponsorship income: $13.7 million
Gaming, food and beverage income: $6.87 million


PHOTOS of the Premiership Cup adorn the Cats' annual report, but while taking home the flag boosted the club's payment from the AFL to $7.9 million it has also caused some financial indigestion.

Producing extra memorabilia left the club with a $1.16 million bill. Directors say they expect to overcome the deficiency in the next three months through membership and sponsorship sales.


NORTH MELBOURNE

Profit: $5.78 million
Last year: $6 million
Revenue: $29.4 million
Football operations costs: $13.69 million
Membership income: $4.65 million
Sponsorship income: $5.6 million
Gaming income: not disclosed

THE Shinboners are another club dependent on government grants - take away the $5.9 million in Arden St redevelopment funding and operating profit was just $60,000.

Current liabilities of $8.2 million far outstrip current assets of $4.4 million and auditors Grant Thornton say there is "a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt" on the club's "ability to continue as a going concern" and pay its debts.


COLLINGWOOD

Profit: $594,000
Last year: $3.27 million
Revenue: $62.7 million
Football expenses: $17 million
Membership income: $9.58 million
Sponsorship income: $15.1 million
Social club and gaming income: $22.7 million

COLLINGWOOD is under financial pressure, with profit slumping and $7.25 million in debt run up on its ill-fated hotel investments due to be paid off before the end of October 2010.

The hotels are valued at $9.5 million and if the Magpies cannot sell them before the debt falls due the club faces a $4.4 million shortfall. Despite the problems with the hotels auditors KPMG have given Collingwood a clean bill of health.


WESTERN BULLDOGS

Profit: $3.21 million
Last year: $3.18 million
Revenue: $31.8 million
Football department costs: $13.3 million
Membership income: $4.84 million
Sponsorship income: not disclosed
Gaming income: not disclosed


WITH $12.5 million owing to Westpac falling due this year, and just $5.6 million in current assets, the Bulldogs need either a loan extension or a big cash injection.

Directors say the club depends on the continued support of the AFL. Take away $2.9 million in government money for the redevelopment of the Whitten Oval and the Bulldogs operating profit was $820,000.


HAWTHORN

Profit: $2.7 million
Last year: $4 million
Revenue: $40.5 million
Employee and player expenses: $19.9 million
Membership income: $7.3 million
Marketing income: $13.2 million
Gaming and bar income: $4.9 million


WITH cash in the bank - about $6 million - and a miserly $214,000 in debt, the Hawks are a financial powerhouse.

Unlike some clubs, they're not dependent on government handouts or AFL support, clawing in millions from memberships, marketing and hotel operations.

This year the club agreed to pump $2.15 million into a joint venture with developers the Gauci Group that is developing pokies pub the West Waters Hotel in Caroline Springs.


MELBOURNE

Profit: $587,000
Last year: loss of $549,000
Revenue: $26.1 million
Football department costs: $13.5 million
Membership income: $4.2 million
Marketing income: $6.8 million
Gaming and social club income: $3 million

THE Demons' financial position is even more hellish than it appears at first glance because the club's profit includes $567,000 raised as part of its "debt demolition" campaign.

Counting only football operations the club made a wafer-thin profit of $20,000, and despite raising $3 million over the past two years to pay down debt it still carries liabilities worth $5 million.

Directors Jim Stynes and Stuart Grimshaw say the Demons "still have a long way to go" and auditors Ernst & Young say there is "significant uncertainty" the club will "be able to pay its debts as and when they become due and payable".


CARLTON

Profit: $8.67 million
Last year: $6.31 million
Revenue: $34.1 million
Football department costs: $16.1 million
Membership income: $7.65 million
Sponsorship income: $11.4 million
Gaming income: $2.8 million

WHILE their headline profit looks good, a $6.5 million shortfall projected for the coming year means the Blues are deep in red ink.

They have also committed to find a further $2 million towards the redevelopment of Visy Park.

Blowouts blamed on "design changes" have increased the cost of the project, a joint venture between Carlton, the AFL, and local, state and federal governments, from $17.7 million to $19.4 million.

The project brought in $7.9 million in government grants this year, and without that money the operating profit would have been reduced to $750,000.


ESSENDON

Profit: $2.85 million
Last year: $755,000
Revenue: $41.3 million
Football costs: $13.9 million
Membership income: $6.4 million
Marketing income: $11.2 millon
Gaming income: not disclosed

MERGING with the Melton Country Club has given the Bombers a windfall of about $2 million; excluding the one-off payment operating profit was a little better than last year, at $760,000.

But the club's financial position would have been healthy in any case; it is debt-free and has banked about $1.9 million in cash.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-financial-premiership-stakes/story-e6frf9jf-1225815392261

[WilliamPowell]

Yet the Age has stated ages ago that St Kilda made a loss this year.
And just how, apart from one off govt grants to pay for our redevelopment are we in trouble?

yeah but the Saints haven't officially presented their figures - so there isn't any annual report ot look at 

I wouldn't say we are in trouble but the fact is for 2009 at least without the State Govt money this year the club made an operating loss.

What i find amusing is the JDF reference - again FACT (and I don't know hopw many times I have to say it) the Club is required by LAW to declare that money as income so media nuffers get over it 

Thing is with these types of stories is you can make it read anyway you like.

Look at the Bulldogs it says take away the govt handouts they made an $820k profit - I say take away the AFL $1.5 mil and they made another $700k loss. Ditto Melb and North.

Look at Geelong what was it 7-8 years ago if it wasn't for the generosity of its bankers when they accepted laon repayments of 20-30 cents in the dollar the doors would have been closed years ago.

The clubs I see as being in trouble are the obvious ones Melb (in particular), North (Gold Coast anyone), Bulldogs (didn't know about that $12.5 mil loan being due and low current assets = major concern) and Carlton - that's not a good place to be to be honest 


Makes our $4.5 mil debt seem ...well...er... minor 

[yellowandback]

I would say the reason there is focus on excluding govt and jd revenue is less to with disclosure on the books and more linked to underlying sustainable revenue streams being compared to costs. And fact is, club needs to carefully manage this part of the club finances.  Making operating losses (excluding one off revenue streams used for one off projects) will result in potential operating cost cutting. We all know what happened 6-8 years ago the last time we manage on a shoe string. The other key area of the clubs finances that I'm interested in understanding is it's cash flow - this is the life blood of any organization and in some ways is even more important that making smallish losses.

[mightytiges]

HERALD Sun journalist Ben Butler dives into Victorian AFL clubs' annual reports to assess all the figures. Who's in the black?


RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.

What a coincidence we were listed first  .

The Club shouldn't just let such exaggeration and misleading info about the RFC go unanswered. I know all these anomalies (JDF etc) have been answered by the Club publicly at the AGM with the $800k extra for 2009 from the new stadia deal not included until next year's annual report. However for the Herald-Sun to make out we depend on handouts for operating purposes is not only a load of crap but not good for the Club's image  .

The only thing this story shows is how far we are still behind in generating revenue. $31m is at the bottom end alongside the Blues, Dogs and Roos with only the Dees far worse off than us. Interesting to see what Benny Gale has planned to generate extra revenue that he mentioned at the AGM.

As for the Pies - $62m - what the hell do they do with all that money to still be perennial pretenders?! 

[yellowandback]

RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.

[/quote]
What a coincidence we were listed first  .

The Club shouldn't just let such exaggeration and misleading info about the RFC go unanswered. I know all these anomalies (JDF etc) have been answered by the Club publicly at the AGM with the $800k extra for

2009 from the new stadia deal not included until next year's annual report. However for the Herald-Sun to make out we depend on handouts for operating purposes is not only a load of crap but not good for the Club's image  .

The only thing this story shows is how far we are still behind in generating revenue. $31m is at the bottom end alongside the Blues, Dogs and Roos with only the Dees far worse off than us. Interesting to see what Benny Gale has planned to generate extra revenue that he mentioned at the AGM.

As for the Pies - $62m - what the hell do they do with all that money to still be perennial pretenders?! 
[/quote]

the handout comment is missing the point. Revenue is a concern and excluding one offs to fund the training facility is relevant because it will not assist the ongoing running of the club.
Low revenue makes us a club that needs to cut corners to stay viable - to penny pinch. The more successful clubs are able to invest in recruiting, conditioning and development of playing along with technology to assist making the most of a players potential. It's not 2000 where battlers like the Roos got away with "shinboner spirit" to compensate for a low cost operation. The stadium deal helps all clubs so the relative revenues between clubs will remain as we currently see them. The club vision for alternative revenue is critical, we need that is an advantage to begin being a progressive club as opposed to continually catching up.

[bojangles17]

there's an old saying the only thing you can believe in the newspaper is the date and the price however what alarmed me most if I was to accept any of this and I dont really have a reason not to was that our revenue was 30% behind the Victorian pacesetters...that is a genuine worry...the good news is that both Geelong and Hawthorn were not in such lofty company 4-5 years ago...a product of quality management and a fair dose of success builds momentum and $upport

[mightytiges]

RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.

What a coincidence we were listed first  .

The Club shouldn't just let such exaggeration and misleading info about the RFC go unanswered. I know all these anomalies (JDF etc) have been answered by the Club publicly at the AGM with the $800k extra for

2009 from the new stadia deal not included until next year's annual report. However for the Herald-Sun to make out we depend on handouts for operating purposes is not only a load of crap but not good for the Club's image  .

The only thing this story shows is how far we are still behind in generating revenue. $31m is at the bottom end alongside the Blues, Dogs and Roos with only the Dees far worse off than us. Interesting to see what Benny Gale has planned to generate extra revenue that he mentioned at the AGM.

As for the Pies - $62m - what the hell do they do with all that money to still be perennial pretenders?! 

the handout comment is missing the point. Revenue is a concern and excluding one offs to fund the training facility is relevant because it will not assist the ongoing running of the club.
Low revenue makes us a club that needs to cut corners to stay viable - to penny pinch. The more successful clubs are able to invest in recruiting, conditioning and development of playing along with technology to assist making the most of a players potential. It's not 2000 where battlers like the Roos got away with "shinboner spirit" to compensate for a low cost operation. The stadium deal helps all clubs so the relative revenues between clubs will remain as we currently see them. The club vision for alternative revenue is critical, we need that is an advantage to begin being a progressive club as opposed to continually catching up.

Not disagreeing with what you've said there Y&B especially the importance of revenue to the footy dept. but the $800k extra from the new stadia deal at the MCG (No. of MCG homes games x $100k) will be ongoing revenue. It was that missing 2009 revenue that the article left out when judging out financial position because it won't appear in our annual report until next year.

[Infamy]

RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.

What a coincidence we were listed first  .

The Club shouldn't just let such exaggeration and misleading info about the RFC go unanswered. I know all these anomalies (JDF etc) have been answered by the Club publicly at the AGM with the $800k extra for

2009 from the new stadia deal not included until next year's annual report. However for the Herald-Sun to make out we depend on handouts for operating purposes is not only a load of crap but not good for the Club's image  .

The only thing this story shows is how far we are still behind in generating revenue. $31m is at the bottom end alongside the Blues, Dogs and Roos with only the Dees far worse off than us. Interesting to see what Benny Gale has planned to generate extra revenue that he mentioned at the AGM.

As for the Pies - $62m - what the hell do they do with all that money to still be perennial pretenders?! 

the handout comment is missing the point. Revenue is a concern and excluding one offs to fund the training facility is relevant because it will not assist the ongoing running of the club.
Low revenue makes us a club that needs to cut corners to stay viable - to penny pinch. The more successful clubs are able to invest in recruiting, conditioning and development of playing along with technology to assist making the most of a players potential. It's not 2000 where battlers like the Roos got away with "shinboner spirit" to compensate for a low cost operation. The stadium deal helps all clubs so the relative revenues between clubs will remain as we currently see them. The club vision for alternative revenue is critical, we need that is an advantage to begin being a progressive club as opposed to continually catching up.

Not disagreeing with what you've said there Y&B especially the importance of revenue to the footy dept. but the $800k extra from the new stadia deal at the MCG (No. of MCG homes games x $100k) will be ongoing revenue. It was that missing 2009 revenue that the article left out when judging out financial position because it won't appear in our annual report until next year.

Its probably been left out for all clubs though

[mightytiges]

RICHMOND

Profit: $1.59 million
Last year: $8 million
Revenue: $31.6 million
Employee costs: $16.4 million
Membership income: undisclosed
Marketing income: $13.5 million
Gaming and social club income: $5.5 million

HANDOUTS prop up the Tigers, who would have made an $84,000 loss if it were not for $1.675 million in government money towards the redevelopment of Punt Rd oval.

And in a crisis the club would also not be able to count on $500,000 received from the Jack Dyer Foundation, which is earmarked for the project.

What a coincidence we were listed first  .

The Club shouldn't just let such exaggeration and misleading info about the RFC go unanswered. I know all these anomalies (JDF etc) have been answered by the Club publicly at the AGM with the $800k extra for

2009 from the new stadia deal not included until next year's annual report. However for the Herald-Sun to make out we depend on handouts for operating purposes is not only a load of crap but not good for the Club's image  .

The only thing this story shows is how far we are still behind in generating revenue. $31m is at the bottom end alongside the Blues, Dogs and Roos with only the Dees far worse off than us. Interesting to see what Benny Gale has planned to generate extra revenue that he mentioned at the AGM.

As for the Pies - $62m - what the hell do they do with all that money to still be perennial pretenders?! 

the handout comment is missing the point. Revenue is a concern and excluding one offs to fund the training facility is relevant because it will not assist the ongoing running of the club.
Low revenue makes us a club that needs to cut corners to stay viable - to penny pinch. The more successful clubs are able to invest in recruiting, conditioning and development of playing along with technology to assist making the most of a players potential. It's not 2000 where battlers like the Roos got away with "shinboner spirit" to compensate for a low cost operation. The stadium deal helps all clubs so the relative revenues between clubs will remain as we currently see them. The club vision for alternative revenue is critical, we need that is an advantage to begin being a progressive club as opposed to continually catching up.

Not disagreeing with what you've said there Y&B especially the importance of revenue to the footy dept. but the $800k extra from the new stadia deal at the MCG (No. of MCG homes games x $100k) will be ongoing revenue. It was that missing 2009 revenue that the article left out when judging out financial position because it won't appear in our annual report until next year.

Its probably been left out for all clubs though

Yes for all the MCG tenants it would have as all these clubs needed to wait for the Government to tick off the new deal before receiving the money and that was after Oct 31 when the annual reports were completed. So the Herald-Sun article above doesn't include the whole facts in its conclusions.

In any case what annoyed me most about the article was saying we relied on handouts. Well applying for Government grants to assist in building new sporting infrastructure is commonplace. I have a friend who is VP at his tennis club and two years ago he applied for and successfully obtained a Government grant to make his club more water efficient (rain runoff stored in tanks so it could then be used to water the courts) plus money for some basic facility  improvements. One off grants for new or improved infrastructure are not handouts to keep clubs alive  .

[tony_montana]

Unfortunately for as long as I can remember (and took any interest in this side of footy) we have always lagged significantly in terms of revenue and corporate/sponsorship dollar. Is this directly tied in with the fact we are perenially crapola? Winners are grinners? once we start getting sustained positive resuts will we shoot up the revenue ladder? Truth b told Would be bloody hard to sell the benefits of the organstion when we are always crap, there are only so many times you can play the sleeping giant card 

[mightytiges]

Unfortunately for as long as I can remember (and took any interest in this side of footy) we have always lagged significantly in terms of revenue and corporate/sponsorship dollar. Is this directly tied in with the fact we are perenially crapola? Winners are grinners? once we start getting sustained positive resuts will we shoot up the revenue ladder? Truth b told Would be bloody hard to sell the benefits of the organstion when we are always crap, there are only so many times you can play the sleeping giant card 

Yep winners are grinners. The Hawks gave basically double their membership in the 5 years  .

The problem for us has always been we never made heaps of dough when we were successful and then disasterous admins sent us broke in the 80s from which we are only now starting to recover from and even now we have a long way to go . When we were successful too being a member wasn't the big deal it is now nor was it necessary if you were a Tiger supporter as we played at the 'G where everyone especially in those days could get a good seat anywhere in the ground (excluding the MCC) even when we were averaging 50k to home games. The round 1 game last year showed what can happen when there's a buzz about the Tigers but we continually stuff-up on-field with false dawns and our latent supporter base goes back in hibernation waiting for the next dawn  .

[Ramps]

Unfortunately for as long as I can remember (and took any interest in this side of footy) we have always lagged significantly in terms of revenue and corporate/sponsorship dollar. Is this directly tied in with the fact we are perenially crapola? Winners are grinners? once we start getting sustained positive resuts will we shoot up the revenue ladder? Truth b told Would be bloody hard to sell the benefits of the organstion when we are always crap, there are only so many times you can play the sleeping giant card 

This is true and in the past the gap was wider. Its a massive concern however that we are $30 million behind Collingwood in annual revenues- how many flags have they won in the past 50 years? Its also a well known fact in footy that very few other clubs have rated our marketing team and that criticism goes back atleast 15 years from what I can recall- and I dont think that view has really changed. So what are options- 1) is to head hunt new marketing people and see what they can do with the brand going forward- (and thats something we should do anyway) or 2) Richmond needs to start operating businesses which are seperate to the football club and away from the football club.

[yellowandback]

Unfortunately for as long as I can remember (and took any interest in this side of footy) we have always lagged significantly in terms of revenue and corporate/sponsorship dollar. Is this directly tied in with the fact we are perenially crapola? Winners are grinners? once we start getting sustained positive resuts will we shoot up the revenue ladder? Truth b told Would be bloody hard to sell the benefits of the organstion when we are always crap, there are only so many times you can play the sleeping giant card 

This is true and in the past the gap was wider. Its a massive concern however that we are $30 million behind Collingwood in annual revenues- how many flags have they won in the past 50 years? Its also a well known fact in footy that very few other clubs have rated our marketing team and that criticism goes back
atleast 15 years from what I can recall- and I dont think that view has really changed. So what are options- 1) is to head hunt new marketing people and see what they can do with the brand going forward- (and thats something we should do anyway) or 2) Richmond needs to start operating businesses which are seperate to the football club and away from the football club.

Good point Ramps. This was definitely the case - I remember getting a call from Richmond marketing 10 years ago selling GF tickets (the breakfast package) for $300. That was about a grand less that he quoted months earlier and this was the day before the game. Unbelievable. Whether you agree with corporate
packages or not for the GF, this was a valuable source of revenue (and one that is pretty much price inelastic if you are planned) and here we were hawking tickets like desperate scalpers.
I heard we sacked the GM of marketing last year (after being in the job less than 12 months) which is a worry. FWIW I have a mate at another very, very successful club who reckons we are a bit of an off field rabble and mentioned we might be a bit tight on the salaries in marketing. He did say Benny Gale was a great appointment. Smart cookie apparently.