2009 Financial Report

[LostDoggy]

Did everyone else receive the 2009 Financial Report in the mail today? I did. I though I'd make a thread about it for any discussions.

Our profit for the year was $3,215,172 compared to last years $3,186,530. Our expenditure has increased from 2008. All in all it seems like all the suits at the Whitten Oval are making good strides in making our club more profitable each year.

[soupman]

Is that Profit or revenue? Because there is a massive difference between the two.

[LostDoggy]

Profit. Total revenue from in 2009 is $31,869,042 compared to $31,485,643 in 2008.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I read an article earlier this week online ( either Herald sun or The Age) that said any profit was only on paper, and that minus assistance from the AFL we'd be in some financial trouble. I'm no accountant and have trouble interpreting these sort of financial statements. Anyone who is qualified to give an interpretation of them here?

[hujsh]

I read an article earlier this week online ( either Herald sun or The Age) that said any profit was only on paper, and that minus assistance from the AFL we'd be in some financial trouble. I'm no accountant and have trouble interpreting these sort of financial statements. Anyone who is qualified to give an interpretation of them here?

That's only to compensate for our disadvantages such as the shit ES deal

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

That's only to compensate for our disadvantages such as the shit ES deal

That may well be, but it still highlights that unless this is rectified permanently then our finances and our viability remain tied to the whim and largess of the AFL.
I guess that is why it is seen as vital by Rose and Smorgon that we develop long term alternative streams of revenue, such as the Edgewater development and the Public Housing development project.

[Remi Moses]

I read an article earlier this week online ( either Herald sun or The Age) that said any profit was only on paper, and that minus assistance from the AFL we'd be in some financial trouble. I'm no accountant and have trouble interpreting these sort of financial statements. Anyone who is qualified to give an interpretation of them here?

That would be an article from the national broadsheet ''The Australian'' . Which when reading articles relating to our club appears to have some childish vendetta. Messers Smith,reilly,and the king arseclown Denham:confused:

[ledge]

The money the AFL give us is compensation, as the deal improves with the stadium this will probably lower but it will probably not be any different either way, one compensates for the other, so as much as the press want to call it money to keep us afloat its not really true its to make up for what we should be getting anyway.

The question is, are we asset rich but cash poor?

I tend to believe we are doing ok in both asset and cash, but you still have to forward think as in any successful company to survive and this is what i believe we have been doing since Rose arrived.

[GVGjr]

The money the AFL give us is compensation, as the deal improves with the stadium this will probably lower but it will probably not be any different either way, one compensates for the other, so as much as the press want to call it money to keep us afloat its not really true its to make up for what we should be getting anyway.

The question is, are we asset rich but cash poor?

I tend to believe we are doing ok in both asset and cash, but you still have to forward think as in any successful company to survive and this is what i believe we have been doing since Rose arrived.

It means that despite a number of positive outcomes for the club (sponsorship levels and improved stadium deals etc) we are still a long, long way to becoming a self sufficient club. I can't in the short term see us not needing the AFL competitive balance funds assistance. (I agree that we go a long way to earning it by taking the worst end of the draw etc)

Whilst we are recording 'paper' profits they are not at the level required to remove debt (or doubt) or to build some significant savings.

[Sockeye Salmon]

As long as the AFL has a schedule rather than a draw and as long as we help subsidise the wealthier clubs by allowing them to play more FTA games and taking that annoying Mother's Day game off their hands, we deserve all the compensation we get.

[alwaysadog]

It means that despite a number of positive outcomes for the club (sponsorship levels and improved stadium deals etc) we are still a long, long way to becoming a self sufficient club. I can't in the short term see us not needing the AFL competitive balance funds assistance. (I agree that we go a long way to earning it by taking the worst end of the draw etc)

Whilst we are recording 'paper' profits they are not at the level required to remove debt (or doubt) or to build some significant savings.

I was going to do a three year comparison of the figures to see if any trends are apparent but having opted not to receive a paper copy and to use the online version but I can't do it -the 2009 figures are not up yet on the club's website.

I think GVG you are pointing to the need for an analysis of the nature of our liabilities and the current and projected revenue sources. Has someone with a copy the chance to do some work on the figures and to put this up.

In spite of that some general comments can be made about the bottom line. 2009 was going to be an interesting year financially as we have yet to receive major income from the WO redevelopment and nothing from the improved stadium deal.

Given these considerations our position looks more half full than half empty, especially when you consider we have spent more on the football dept.. It would be good to reduce our liabilities but to do this at the expense of undermining progress in the football area would be self defeating, apart from disappointing everyone who posts on this board.

I think we are balancing the two conflicting demands nicely. Revenue is growing, we are trading in the black, the football dept is no longer the poor man of the AFL and we have legitimate expectations of a fairly steep growth in revenue, even better if the boys do the right thing next September.

Managing debt should become less of a problem in the short to near term future.

[Rocco Jones]

As long as the AFL has a schedule rather than a draw and as long as we help subsidise the wealthier clubs by allowing them to play more FTA games and taking that annoying Mother's Day game off their hands, we deserve all the compensation we get.

Pretty much exactly how I would put it.

[alwaysadog]

When I grew up there was no such thing as the draw as such, there was a rotation, one knew from season to season who you would be playing each round of the next season, where and when. All games were on Saturday afternoon and the then 12 Victorian clubs played 18 rounds in order: the six you didn’t play twice in the current season were the first six you played next season and in order. Over 2 seasons everyone played everyone 3 times and there was no sense of injustice or inequality.

Besides football wasn’t such a money centered business; there was a cap on how much a player got paid, in fact they all got the same match payment. Yes the world was different then, pubs were shut on Sundays so were cinemas, in some years the trains didn’t run either and bread wasn’t baked. Yes, it was a quaint and strange existence, but within living memory.

Even before the national competition VFL Park, Waverley came along and while it didn’t affect the draw as such, the “hot game” of each round would be scheduled for Waverley. Then there was the match of the round and the shifting of big games to the MCG. But by the end of the 80s football was stagnating, the shift of the Swans to Sydney hadn’t worked and they were leaking money big time and the VFL wasn’t flush with cash. A lot of the initiatives that are part of the game came out of that crisis or rather the realization that they just couldn’t go on the way they were.

Then slowly the national competition grew and media interest increased and money began to flow. But there was a price to pay. The game had to be modified to suit the medium and slowly this began and is happening still. Next bums on seats became an imperative. It indicates how valuable a sport is to sponsors and this drives the visual media. Equally they didn’t want a roster of games that no one would watch, they demand and got a draw which allows them to exploit the most marketable aspects of the competition. It’s sold to us as crowd drawing blockbusters but one only has to think briefly to realize that it serves another purpose as well.

This has produced a very lopsided product and required some justice for clubs that lost opportunities to make money and promote themselves: some acknowledgement that the money made by the rich clubs was only possible if there was a competition to which the others contribute and which most importantly wouldn’t be possible without them. A point nearly all the critics overlook.

So the AFL has struck a deal with the clubs to organize the draw to maximise revenues which largely means satisfying the visual media by playing the most popular teams at key times. It is also recognized that this gives them an immediate advantage revenue wise, and in the shorter and medium term an advantage in terms of membership and sponsorship.

So the AFL has an equalization component, not a handout, to redress the inequalities that permit the code to prosper. While I can accept that lunatic supporters from some of the big clubs can’t grasp the concepts involved I am less than impressed when significant journalists don’t.

While they are at liberty to point out the degree to which some clubs depend on this money, to present it as handouts is a gross oversimplification, especially when they make no attempt to assess how much of the better off clubs revenue is produced from advantages produced by an unequal draw and preferential access to the televising of games.

[ledge]

I think Carlton is now receiving funds and they are a so called big club why arent they mentioned as much as we are.
Does anyone know who all the clubs are that receive this and is it the same amount for all?
Must be figures somewhere on this.

[Prince Imperial]

I too elected not to receive a hardcopy of the report (to save the club the printing costs!). For those who have, can you please tell us what the operating profit (not including Whitten Oval funding) was? The $3.2m figure cited above would have included that. That NZ article last week suggested it was just under 800k.

[Prince Imperial]

I think Carlton is now receiving funds and they are a so called big club why arent they mentioned as much as we are.
Does anyone know who all the clubs are that receive this and is it the same amount for all?
Must be figures somewhere on this.

I don't know the 2009 figures but this is available in the 2008 AFL Report:

WB - $1.7m
NM - $1.4m
Melb - $1.0m
Syd - $0.7m
Carl - $0.6m
Rich - $0.4m
Haw - $0.25m
PA - $0.25m

I doubt that these figures would have changed much in 2009.

http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/annual_reports/2008/p86-95-Finance_and_Legal.pdf

[EasternWest]

That may well be, but it still highlights that unless this is rectified permanently then our finances and our viability remain tied to the whim and largess of the AFL.
I guess that is why it is seen as vital by Rose and Smorgon that we develop long term alternative streams of revenue, such as the Edgewater development and the Public Housing development project.

Jeff Tweedy is right. We've got to make our own money via other avenues. I'm so sick of hearing about how we're being propped up by the league. I want us to dominate in all facets, so there can be no excuses when we win it all.

[ledge]

I don't know the 2009 figures but this is available in the 2008 AFL Report:

WB - $1.7m
NM - $1.4m
Melb - $1.0m
Syd - $0.7m
Carl - $0.6m
Rich - $0.4m
Haw - $0.25m
PA - $0.25m

I doubt that these figures would have changed much in 2009.

http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/annual_reports/2008/p86-95-Finance_and_Legal.pdf

That surprises me that we get the most.

[bornadog]

That surprises me that we get the most.

We get screwed the most with stadium deals

[LostDoggy]

i too elected not to receive a hardcopy of the report (to save the club the printing costs!). For those who have, can you please tell us what the operating profit (not including whitten oval funding) was? The $3.2m figure cited above would have included that. That nz article last week suggested it was just under 800k.

$820,204

[alwaysadog]

Some perspective is needed on this figure of $820,204, yes we are still a long way from where we would all like us to be and until we can trade at a profit on our own and look at debt reduction we shouldn't be satisfied. But we came from a long way back; the year before Cam took over we lost a cool $1m, couldn't pay for adequate football dept. staff and our facilities were cactus. The latter two of those points have been addressed and we are trading $1.8m better as well.

If I had posted 6-7 years ago that we would have rebuilt the WO, could pay the full salary cap and expand football dept. costs someone I'm sure would have made an appointment for me with a psychiatrist, not that that isn't still necessary, but not for these reasons.

And might I repeat things should get better from here, as I noted earlier we have a better stadium deal, we have VU rent on facilities to come in the near future, and if the Edgewater devt goes ahead even more revenue to come.

So there has been an imaginative and bold plan to rejuvenate facilities, maximise existing revenue streams and to create new sources.To have come to where we are now is an enormous effort and a great credit to the current admin. While there is no cause for complacency there is cause for optimism.

[alwaysadog]

I don't know the 2009 figures but this is available in the 2008 AFL Report:

WB - $1.7m
NM - $1.4m
Melb - $1.0m
Syd - $0.7m
Carl - $0.6m
Rich - $0.4m
Haw - $0.25m
PA - $0.25m

I doubt that these figures would have changed much in 2009.

http://www.afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/annual_reports/2008/p86-95-Finance_and_Legal.pdf

Port will get more and I think Brizzie is either getting some or about to.

[alwaysadog]

Jeff Tweedy is right. We've got to make our own money via other avenues. I'm so sick of hearing about how we're being propped up by the league. I want us to dominate in all facets, so there can be no excuses when we win it all.

Couldn't agree more, but I'm fed up with those jealous of our current and likely successes who use this as an excuse to cover their envy. This and the suggestion that we don't play fair are the two most evident and frequently used envy strategies.

Remember also if they support any of NM, Melb, Syd, Carl, Rich, Haw or PA the pot is calling the kettle black.

In fact I'd be interested to know if there is a single club that hasn't received a "Handout"at some stage .

[Prince Imperial]

$820,204

Thanks. This is a really good result and now means we have made $2m in operating profits in the last 3 years with the figure increasing every year. Still a lot of variables but with Whitten Oval subleasing rental income, the new Kooga sponsorship and the improved stadium deal this all bodes well for 2010.

I

[EasternWest]

Couldn't agree more, but I'm fed up with those jealous of our current and likely successes who use this as an excuse to cover their envy. This and the suggestion that we don't play fair are the two most evident and frequently used envy strategies.

Remember also if they support any of NM, Melb, Syd, Carl, Rich, Haw or PA the pot is calling the kettle black.

In fact I'd be interested to know if there is a single club that hasn't received a "Handout"at some stage .

I've never heard that. In reference to what?

[LongWait]

Couldn't agree more, but I'm fed up with those jealous of our current and likely successes who use this as an excuse to cover their envy. This and the suggestion that we don't play fair are the two most evident and frequently used envy strategies.

Remember also if they support any of NM, Melb, Syd, Carl, Rich, Haw or PA the pot is calling the kettle black.

In fact I'd be interested to know if there is a single club that hasn't received a "Handout"at some stage .

Clubs like Collingwood receive a "handout" several times a year by way of playing in the various blockbusters, by fixturing them to gain premium free-to-air TV slots and by infrequently travelling interstate.

Unless the AFL has a draw which is purely blind (random) and unless the AFL negotiates the stadium deals and then splits the proceeds between all clubs (as with the broadcast rights) we will forever have a competition in which all clubs receive "handouts" without there being any transparency about the benefits that some clubs, like Collingwood, receive.

Without transparency we will always be a soft target for ill-informed sniping.

[Murphy'sLore]

That would be an article from the national broadsheet ''The Australian'' . Which when reading articles relating to our club appears to have some childish vendetta. Messers Smith,reilly,and the king arseclown Denham

Does anyone have a link to this "Australian" article? I be interested to have a look at it.

[LostDoggy]

As long as the AFL has a schedule rather than a draw and as long as we help subsidise the wealthier clubs by allowing them to play more FTA games and taking that annoying Mother's Day game off their hands, we deserve all the compensation we get.

I guess we can think of it as a handling fee.

[alwaysadog]

I've never heard that. In reference to what?

There is a long history of accusing us of sharp practice no matter what the ocasion. I argue that it goes back to the 1920s and possibly earlier. I'm not saying we are squeeky clean but we are no worse and probably a lot better than most.

Any one who looks at the incredible conditions that were placed on our original entry into the VFL which included banning our then president and benefactor and various of our best players. The fact that it took so long to get in while St Kilda a perrenial under achiever got in much earlier, points to the lack of veracity in the historic claims that entry was performance based.

There are many more, they crop up each time we have looked like succeeding the most recent examples being in the late 1990s when our success under Terry Wallace was largely attributed to cheating etc, and earlier this year when Carro wrote a nasty piece which suggested that we cheated in getting Mission Foods on board a as sponsor over the Dees.

Of course she is now on side as Susan A has gone in to bat for her and women in football.

This undermining of our credibility and morale doesn't appear obvious until it's pointed out as it was to me as a fairly young child, but it's there nevertheless and it's impact is on going.

[bornadog]

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.

I pointed this out last year and was worried. This is a big concern and needs to be eradicated.

[GVGjr]

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.

I pointed this out last year and was worried. This is a big concern and needs to be eradicated.


We have also been mentioning this position in this thread (http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=132205#post132205) from post #53

[bornadog]

We have also been mentioning this position in this thread (http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=132205#post132205) from post #53

Ok, didn't expect that in a thread with that title:p