Richmond second last on the sponsorship ladder [split from membership thread]

[(•))(©™]

Benny is a great negotiator.

So long as there's a perk for him, he's in.

[Harry]

ME bank fell off last year didn't they? Is that for this year or previous years?

Also, how are Freo bottom - they're in a 2-team market???

They are last years numbers

Carlton np longer sponsored by Mars. Brisbane no longer sponsored by National Storage

Some big companies in there, but we have Jeep and it's disappointing to be behind Dare and Mission. May as well be Ssangyong and Youi.

I would argue that the number is not accurate.. and I would also question if all clubs are recording the numbers the same way.

There is no way our total sponsorship revenue is only $4.7 mil. I can come with a rough figure closer to $8 million by using reported (speculated via the medis) by just looking at our 6 biggest from 2015. That's  Jeep, Bingle, ME Back, BLK, Decor, Host Plus .

My gut feel is the $4.7 mil is Jeep & Bingle only.

Questions deserved to be asked, but on the surface those numbers just dont make sense IMHO

Look at the number for the pies... that number doesnt make sense either but at the same time it lists all there "majors"

Just my take

How do you explain our low overall total revenue in comparison to our high membership and attendances? 

[(•))(©™]

Yarran's medical bill

[Harry]

Closer look at last years financials shows that our football revenue was 14m and sponsorship and marketing revenue was 25m.  Assuming football revenue is made up of memberships, gate receipts, AFL funding and merchandise then 14m is very low considering we had 71k members and record attendances last year.  However on the other hand sponsorship and marketing of 25m seems way too high considering the low amounts we get from our major sponsors.  Seems some revenue from the 4 football operations categories listed above (membership, gate, afl funding, merchandise) is being lumped into the sponsorship and marketing bucket.  Looking at other clubs financials they provide much more detail regarding their revenue, we seem to be lumping ours in these 2 buckets.  Something seems odd with the repprted numbers.  As members are we  entitled to further details on our financirals as I'd like to see more detail on the revenue numbers?

[Harry]

Comparing our financial numbers to our fellow top 3 in terms of memberships (collingwood and hawthorn) they roughly earn 20m more than us and spend almost 20m more than us.
Our earning and spending is closer to norths than it is to our fellow top 3 rivals.  This doesn't matter though as Peg is happy we are near the top of the AFL membership ladder.  If we had norths supporter and member numbers with this current board we'd be really struggling. 
In Stability We Trust.
 

[WilliamPowell]

Read the article; clear to me there is likely classification difference club by club

question I'd want answered is this after reading the article is

1 / where do the Pies & Hawks allocated their pokies revenue for example?. Hawthorn's pokie revenues is a large driver of their revenues. Much higher than ours, ditto the Pies. To me the article needs to be clearer. Are all the numbers the same. After reading the article where the numbers come from (and BTW the article is dated 20/6/2015 so the numbers are likely for season 2014) I believe some figures included all marketing components which = more than sponsorship

From the article

Hawthorn last season booked $15 million of marketing income, which includes sponsorship deals. With the addition of Audi and the hopeful retention of BUPA, a 20-year sponsor of the club, that figure could top $16 million next year. Collingwood generates more than $19 million a year in marketing revenue. At Essendon the figure $17.7 million.

In contrast, the Bulldogs booked just $7.5 million of "business development" income, which includes sponsorship. The Saints did even worse, earning just $5.5 million from sponsorship and events.

Clear to me that the article doesn't compare apples with apples. Thwey are comparing apples with watermelons

Bulldogs poke revenus for example is for memory is around $8 mil?? where's that being allocated

Yes Hawks and Pies are ahead of us.. but compare the exactly the same revenue components and you can have a real discussion but until you do it's apples -v- non apples

[Harry]

Still a big gap regardless.

Despite the classification you can still compare total revenue v total revenue.  We lag far far behind these 2 despite comparable membership.

[Francois Jackson]

an american dud and a bloke with a surname that rhymes with fail...

well what more do you expect

[🏅Dooks]

an american dud and a bloke with a surname that rhymes with fail...

well what more do you expect

 

Brendon Fail

[Harry]

When you look at the numbers we really are a minnow club off field propped up by our massive supporter base.  North has no gaming revenue so if you take this from our results our overall revenue is on par with theirs.  This further emphasises that the board haven't really capitalised on our potential in terms of sponsorship dollars also considering our base is in the heartland of AFL territory.  Seems the current board have merely sold a vision and hope which has led to record memberships and attendances and have also managed to balance the books by managing costs (you'd expect the accountants on the board to have some idea on this).  We are still miles behind clubs with similar supporter base.  Bit of a myth that they have done a fantastic job off field.

[🏅Dooks]

Confirms the members have done all the heavy lifting whilst they club employees lean on their shovels. One big gravy train.

Poot like this becomes institutional and underpins culture. No wonder our coaches and players are happy to amble along and make up the numbers.

Whoever is in charge of luring sponsorship and negotiations should be fired. That is, if they have any performance requirements or targets in their contract (which they wont because our club has nfi).

[WilliamPowell]

Still a big gap regardless.

Despite the classification you can still compare total revenue v total revenue.  We lag far far behind these 2 despite comparable membership.

Agree, cannot dispute that

But the article is about sponsorship so I just dont think the article gives a fair, accurate and balanced review of the actual numbers

And FWIW every year when the numbers come out I bang on about my concerns about the clubs rvenue streams outside their core business

[🏅Dooks]

Still a big gap regardless.

Despite the classification you can still compare total revenue v total revenue.  We lag far far behind these 2 despite comparable membership.

Agree, cannot dispute that

But the article is about sponsorship so I just dont think the article gives a fair, accurate and balanced review of the actual numbers

And FWIW every year when the numbers come out I bang on about my concerns about the clubs rvenue streams outside their core business

So is your main concern the technical inaccuracy of the article or the rightfull concern about revenue streams?

And as a forum mod, it shouldnt even get to someone like me to have to pull you off the fence.

[WilliamPowell]

So is your main concern the technical inaccuracy of the article or the rightfull concern about revenue streams?

I have an issue with the article obviously and this thread is about an article on club sponsorship isnt it?

The collective numbers are firstly 2 years old. So they are clearly not accurate in 2017.

Secondly, as I've alreasy mentioned the i dont believe the number for the RFC is right. Look at Geelong, it list Ford as it major and then quotes a figure of $16 odd million - Geelong don't receive  $16 mil a year from Ford. People are whacking the club for their sponsoship $$ dollars based on an 12 month article which is listing and comparong figures that are just not comparable.

You've described the club as being a "minnow" off field based on this article and at the same time taken another a swipe at the board. My view is our sponsorship revenue isnt what this article suggest and is significantly better than what's in the article. I think sponsoship wise we are stronger than a number of clubs despite what the article presents

As for revenue streams ive made my views on this very clear over a nimber of years. How I am sitting on the fence? Ive commented on an article.whoch IMESHO is inaccurate

And as a forum mod, it shouldnt even get to someone like me to have to pull you off the fence.

Sorry but you've lost me