AFL study reveals spending central to success / Richmond bottom 4 in spending

[one-eyed]

League study reveals spending central to success
Damian Barrett | March 13, 2008

THE more you spend, the more you win. It sounds like an advertising slogan for a lottery, but it is the official result of a five-year analysis by the AFL of investments that clubs make in their football departments.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said yesterday the study all but proved finals success was dependent on big money being channelled to all facets of football operations.

"There is a five-year trend there telling the story," Demetriou said.

"We have seen a trend now that the teams with the highest football spend tend to win more regularly.

"The Kangaroos were the exception to the rule (in 2007), as were Hawthorn."

The analysis revealed that none of the bottom eight teams in terms of football-department expenditure in the past five years had made the Grand Final.

It also revealed the top four teams on the list - Sydney, Collingwood, Brisbane and West Coast - had an average spend in the 2003-07 seasons of $66 million, against a $54 million average of the bottom four - North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs, Richmond and St Kilda.

The top four averaged 63 wins over the five home-and-away seasons, compared with 46 for the bottom four.

"The challenge for all our clubs is to work out ways to get our clubs increasing their football spend so they can be competitive with the other clubs," Demetriou said.

"We'll sit down with the clubs and work through those issues in the coming months but there is no doubt the clubs are already into it."

Demetriou said the additions of 17th and 18th licences in coming seasons would assist struggling clubs.

Details of the AFL's work in preparing for the new teams, on the Gold Coast and in west Sydney, will be revealed to club presidents at a meeting in Melbourne today.

"I think there is good news for the struggling clubs in Melbourne to have two more teams in the competition," Demetriou said.

"I think there is more upside to the competition, which we will share with the clubs (at a meeting today)."

As has been the case since the start of the national competition in 1987, the revenue gap between the rich and poor clubs continues to widen.

After annual special distribution and non-football income is included in 2007 figures, there was a staggering $11 million difference in total net revenue generated between West Coast ($25.3 million) and North Melbourne ($14.3 million).

West Coast headed most revenue-stream lists, North Melbourne was last on most.

Other glaring gaps between those two clubs included North's $9.3 million shortfall when compared with West Coast on respective stadium deals, an $8 million shortfall on net returns from corporate investment and an $8 million shortfall in sponsorship.

Adelaide had the highest membership (50,976) and the Brisbane Lions the lowest (21,976).

Demetriou denied the drop in members of the Lions spelt doom for the AFL's ventures on the Gold Coast.

In 2007, non-football revenue streams were not the cash cow clubs had been dreaming of.

Collingwood turned over nearly $20 million of non-football revenue, mainly from its running of three hotels with gaming machines, yet profited less than $100,000 from it.

An average 98 people (players, administration, coaches) work for each AFL club, an increase of four people on 2006 figures.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23365754-19742,00.html

[richmondrules]

This is not new news. We know we have been running on a shoe string budget and have acknowledged that we have not been spending enough on the football department. The reasons for this low level of spending are well documented and are perfectly reasonable given our poor financial state for the last few years. We are slowly increasing spending as we accumulate the money to be able to do so. I for one are glad we no longer spend money we do not have and believe that a little fiscal pain now will go a long way to setting up a solid financial base.

Even so it is certainly a shame though if there is such a direct relationship between spending and success. Probably signals a fair bit more pain for us poor old supporters.

It does pee me right off that we are now grouped with those traditional basket cases North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda. Oh how the mighty have fallen. 

[Smokey]

This is not new news. We know we have been running on a shoe string budget and have acknowledged that we have not been spending enough on the football department. The reasons for this low level of spending are well documented and are perfectly reasonable given our poor financial state for the last few years. We are slowly increasing spending as we accumulate the money to be able to do so. I for one are glad we no longer spend money we do not have and believe that a little fiscal pain now will go a long way to setting up a solid financial base.

Even so it is certainly a shame though if there is such a direct relationship between spending and success. Probably signals a fair bit more pain for us poor old supporters.

It does pee me right off that we are now grouped with those traditional basket cases North Melbourne, Western Bulldogs and St Kilda. Oh how the mighty have fallen. 

And yet the 'Chicken Littles' among us would have us sack the lot and start again.  Hhhmmm, Clinton Casey and Danny Frawley sound familiar?

[Tiger Spirit]

There’s the saying that sometimes ‘you have to spend money to make money’, which probably applies to RFC in this case.

Otherwise, at what point in its existence should RFC spend money, just to get within a bull’s roar of the majority of the competition?

Before or after it runs itself into the ground, and loses more ground on the other ‘big’ Melbourne clubs?

Or when management feels the need to make it look like they know what they’re doing, and are busy doing something, even though it’s just to save their own necks?

Unless RFC is prepared to spend money then our players will never progress they way players do at other clubs.  Supporters will continue to lose hope at our lack of success and the downward spiral continues.

Seriously, if they don’t gain an understanding of how other AFL clubs operate, and why they do, and what RFC needs to do to become competitive then nothing can or will change for the better.

Other progressive clubs continually look to gain an edge over their rivals, while we’ve been conservative and sent ourselves backwards over the past 10 or more years.

[mightytiges]

Hhhmmm, Clinton Casey and Danny Frawley sound familiar?

Yep we lost $2m pumping more money than we could generate as revenue into Spud's footy dept hoping and wishing more money would turn around our fortunes which of course it didn't . Thank gawd for Steve Wright coming on board as CEO.

[Tiger Spirit]

Hhhmmm, Clinton Casey and Danny Frawley sound familiar?

Yep we lost $2m pumping more money than we could generate as revenue into Spud's footy dept hoping and wishing more money would turn around our fortunes which of course it didn't . Thank gawd for Steve Wright coming on board as CEO.

The only reason it could be useless to pump money into the footy department is if those who are in charge don’t know why they’re spending the money or what to spend it on, in terms of the resources they bring in.

Otherwise, it’s an investment that will pay itself many times over.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it’s near killing our footy club.

[Rodgerramjet]

The only reason it could be useless to pump money into the footy department is if those who are in charge don’t know why they’re spending the money or what to spend it on, in terms of the resources they bring in.

The above is crucial.

I will add this, spending "IS NOT" central to success. Aquiring the correct people and equipment IS central to success. Getting these things cost effectively is a goal of management.

Steve Wright has done a great job at richmond, ROI is what your looking for.

[Little Jackie]

Terry Wallet. $600,000 for 5 years, now thats spending.
Alsatair Clackson gets half of that, thats smart!

[Rodgerramjet]

Terry Wallet. $600,000 for 5 years, now thats spending.
Alsatair Clackson gets half of that, thats smart!

Correct, that's actually a good example of what I was saying.

The amount spent isn't the defining factor, it's what is bought with it.

Terry still has two years though Jack to turn that around, but I will agree with you that on current ROI Alistair is well in front.

[Smokey]

Terry Wallet. $600,000 for 5 years, now thats spending.
Alsatair Clackson gets half of that, thats smart!

Correct, that's actually a good example of what I was saying.

The amount spent isn't the defining factor, it's what is bought with it.

Terry still has two years though Jack to turn that around, but I will agree with you that on current ROI Alistair is well in front.

I disagree with you.  Clarkson making the finals once in 3 years after starting with a substantially stronger list makes their ROI "well in front"?  Sorry.

It really gets under my skin when people compare the 2 clubs and start off with the disclaimer: "both clubs were in the same position but since then...".  This is unresearched and extremely ignorant.  We DID NOT start from the same position and the results thus far are  EXACTLY what could have been expected given the different start points.  Lets judge Clarkson at the end of 2009 when he has 'lost' the crutch of a strong core and is forced to rely on their recent recruiting prowess to carry the burden.  I know who will be displaying many many more traits of potential success in 2010.

[Little Jackie]

Your kidding arent you,? you must be .
Wallet choose the Tigers over hawthorn.-fact
hawthorns list is so far better than Richmonds its nearly laughable.. They have developed and improved so much in the past 2 years it aint funny.
I expect them to play finals for several years ahead.

[1965]

Your kidding arent you,? you must be .
Wallet choose the Tigers over hawthorn.-fact
hawthorns list is so far better than Richmonds its nearly laughable.. They have developed and improved so much in the past 2 years it aint funny.
I expect them to play finals for several years ahead.

 

[Smokey]

Your kidding arent you,? you must be .

Couldn't be more serious if I tried.

Wallet choose the Tigers over hawthorn.-fact

Good reason for it - fact

hawthorns list is so far better than Richmonds its nearly laughable.. They have developed and improved so much in the past 2 years it aint funny.

It ain't funny - it was entirely reasonable.

I expect them to play finals for several years ahead.

I don't.  They will be lucky to make the 8 this year and I bet the silence from those that choose to compare today is deafening.

[Little Jackie]

Your kidding arent you,? you must be .

Couldn't be more serious if I tried.

Wallet choose the Tigers over hawthorn.-fact

Good reason for it - fact

hawthorns list is so far better than Richmonds its nearly laughable.. They have developed and improved so much in the past 2 years it aint funny.

It ain't funny - it was entirely reasonable.

I expect them to play finals for several years ahead.

I don't.  They will be lucky to make the 8 this year and I bet the silence from those that choose to compare today is deafening.

Oh dear, you must be completely one eyed
Hawthorn are so much better than richmond and you cannot see that

[1965]

Your kidding arent you,? you must be .

Couldn't be more serious if I tried.

Wallet choose the Tigers over hawthorn.-fact

Good reason for it - fact

hawthorns list is so far better than Richmonds its nearly laughable.. They have developed and improved so much in the past 2 years it aint funny.

It ain't funny - it was entirely reasonable.

I expect them to play finals for several years ahead.

I don't.  They will be lucky to make the 8 this year and I bet the silence from those that choose to compare today is deafening.

Oh dear, you must be completely one eyed
Hawthorn are so much better than richmond and you cannot see that