Magpies spend $20m to buy flag

[aker39]

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

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.

[aker39]

I had contemplated putting this article in the thread about whether Rocket should still be coach next year.

I'd suggest that with the financial restrictions that he has been working under, he's doing a pretty good job.

[LostDoggy]

I had contemplated putting this article in the thread about whether Rocket should still be coach next year.

I'd suggest that with the financial restrictions that he has been working under, he's doing a pretty good job.

Would have to agree, a39. This really puts a lot of our performances into perspective, and coupled with how much value we have gotten out of our drafting, especially with late picks and rookie picks, Rocket and his support staff must take a hell a lot of credit for the consistency of our team. We all want to take the next step and Grand Final the hell out of this list, but top 4 finishes and preliminary finals are nothing to sneeze at in this age of uber-competitiveness, especially when our off-the-field spending is the lowest of the lot. I think it's probably fair to say that the Pies bought their 8 goal last quarter for $15 million and annual high-altitude trips to Arizona -- and yet we were better than this mob for most of the last 5 years? Talk about value for money.

[LostDoggy]

Mixed emotion about this article. One hand I'm a bit proud about how well the Dogs have gone with so little, but also a crappy feeling of "how are the WBs suppose to survive in this league"?

[Ghost Dog]

Interesting article

[Ghost Dog]

Mixed emotion about this article. One hand I'm a bit proud about how well the Dogs have gone with so little, but also a crappy feeling of "how are the WBs suppose to survive in this league"?

A bit proud? Where's your passion??

I'm (CENSORED) proud of our club! :D
when it eventually comes, one premiership will be worth two of theirs, because they had double to start with.

Remember as well, this doesn't include all the eye-gouger / cardboard dynasty type arrangements of which there must be scads.

[GVGjr]

Mixed emotion about this article. One hand I'm a bit proud about how well the Dogs have gone with so little, but also a crappy feeling of "how are the WBs suppose to survive in this league"?


I don't believe that we can't be as competitive as other sides just because we don't spend the same amount of money. We are making excuses and yet we certainly didn't cut Wallace too much slack when he had vastly less resources than we do now and he didn't even have the ELC at his disposal. At times he was also asked to put together a list well under the salary cap.
The footy department has actually come along way in the last 10 years.

Sure footy department spending is a consideration but I don't except it as an excuse.
We have salary caps and drafts that have given good operators the chance to rebuild sides.

[Greystache]

I don't believe that we can't be as competitive as other sides just because we don't spend the same amount of money. We are making excuses and yet we certainly didn't cut Wallace too much slack when he had vastly less resources than we do now and he didn't even have the ELC at his disposal. At times he was also asked to put together a list well under the salary cap.
The footy department has actually come along way in the last 10 years.

Sure footy department spending is a consideration but I don't except it as an excuse.
We have salary caps and drafts that have given good operators the chance to rebuild sides.

Totally agree.

Let's have a go before we concede we can't win.

[Before I Die]

I don't believe that we can't be as competitive as other sides just because we don't spend the same amount of money. We are making excuses and yet we certainly didn't cut Wallace too much slack when he had vastly less resources than we do now and he didn't even have the ELC at his disposal. At times he was also asked to put together a list well under the salary cap.
The footy department has actually come along way in the last 10 years.

Sure footy department spending is a consideration but I don't except it as an excuse.
We have salary caps and drafts that have given good operators the chance to rebuild sides.

We are and have been competitive over the last few years with teams that spend much more than us on their football departments.

No we aren't, we are stating facts about discrepancy in resources and spending.

Once again, it is not being used aas an excuse. Rather the preceeding posts are acknowledgeing the ability of the club to be competitive despite these spending differences.

There is no control group. We don't know how well Collingwood would be doing if they didn't spend this extra money and West Coast demonstrate that football spending is not the full story with regard to success. However the success of Collingwood, St Kilda and Geelong, all big spending clubs, is strong evidence that football spending and success are linked. Rocket and the whole club should be congratulated and if they had had access to equivalent resources and spending they would have most likely experienced even greater success. Yes, quite possibly the Big One.

ps. For me the most obvious link is between spending and the successful whole team implementation of a complex game plan/structure. More coaches and more high tech resources must make the the process of developing, teaching and gaining whole club buy in an easier task.

[bornadog]

I was fortunate enough to have a personal tour of the ELC with Rocket last year and we spoke about the ELC and facilities. I asked him if he was happy with what we had and he said there are a number of things that could help the football department more, such as equipment, extra physio's and other staff, such as recruitment etc. For example the GPS's we use on the players during a game are borrowed from Vic Uni and they only have , I think he said 12. Most clubs have one for each player but at $4k a pop we can't afford them. Susan Alberti donated the exercise equipment and there is more that is needed. This is just in the training facilities let alone recruitment professionals seeking out the best young talent, doctors, physios, recovery staff etc etc .

The club is slowing getting there, and coming from a long way back, however, once the debt is eradicated then more can be spent on the football department.

[LostDoggy]

I don't believe that we can't be as competitive as other sides just because we don't spend the same amount of money. We are making excuses and yet we certainly didn't cut Wallace too much slack when he had vastly less resources than we do now and he didn't even have the ELC at his disposal. At times he was also asked to put together a list well under the salary cap.
The footy department has actually come along way in the last 10 years.

Sure footy department spending is a consideration but I don't except it as an excuse.
We have salary caps and drafts that have given good operators the chance to rebuild sides.


Totally agree.

Let's have a go before we concede we can't win.

I don't think any of us are saying "We can't win or be competitive".
Football is much more about the business now a days. And to the Demetriou's of this world smaller weaker financial clubs (or companies as he would view them) should be either chewed up or moved on to where a buck can be made.

[azabob]

I don't think any of us are saying "We can't win or be competitive".
Football is much more about the business now a days. And to the Demetriou's of this world smaller weaker financial clubs (or companies as he would view them) should be either chewed up or moved on to where a buck can be made.

Not sure about that. If Demetriu wanted us or Nth Melb gone we would be. The AFL wouldn't subsidise our poor draw etc by providing AFL funding.

[Ghost Dog]

I don't believe that we can't be as competitive as other sides just because we don't spend the same amount of money. We are making excuses and yet we certainly didn't cut Wallace too much slack when he had vastly less resources than we do now and he didn't even have the ELC at his disposal. At times he was also asked to put together a list well under the salary cap.
The footy department has actually come along way in the last 10 years.

Sure footy department spending is a consideration but I don't except it as an excuse.
We have salary caps and drafts that have given good operators the chance to rebuild sides.

Can't agree with this. Olympics is an example. The developed countries always do miles better. Marathon is an exception of course. Being emaciated seems to be an advantage for the spindly Ethiopians. ' Sticks with lungs' is how a trainer of mine once used to describe them.
20 Million in a year is quite a gap between the have and have nots of AFL.

[Mantis]

20 Million in a year is quite a gap between the have and have nots of AFL.

The gap between the have & have nots is about $5-6mil.

[bornadog]

The gap between the have & have nots is about $5-6mil.

Collingwood currently have a debt of $10 million. They dont mind spending the money on the footy department rather than paying off debts as they believe they can cover the debt in the future.

[Mantis]

Collingwood currently have a debt of $10 million. They dont mind spending the money on the footy department rather than paying off debts as they believe they can cover the debt in the future.

By winning a flag they have probably added this amount to their revenue in the selling of merchandise & signing on approx. 20,000 more members.

[bornadog]

By winning a flag they have probably added this amount to their revenue in the selling of merchandise & signing on approx. 20,000 more members.

Yes, like an investment.

[Ghost Dog]

The gap between the have & have nots is about $5-6mil.

"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"

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ground-deals-key-as-revenue-gap-grows-20110504-1e8g2.html#ixzz1LQjd7prM

Not according to our friend Jake.

[Mantis]

Yes, like an investment.

What's the old saying... You have to spend money to make money.

[Sockeye Salmon]

"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"

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ground-deals-key-as-revenue-gap-grows-20110504-1e8g2.html#ixzz1LQjd7prM

Not according to our friend Jake.

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"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."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

[Ghost Dog]

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"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."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

Footy dept is not the only aspect of a club to give on field playing a boost.
Besides
The suspect part of me reckons that not all spending on their football dept is listed for public analysis.
Clubs have and always will use 'gifts' and undocumented spending to further their goals.
The more money they have, the greater the temptation to do it.
Carlton - Capt Gouger -cardboard dynasty arrangments et al.

[LostDoggy]

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"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."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

I would think our figures are diluted to some degree by the sponsorship (partnership) arrangement we have with Victoria University