For those that don't have access to the Fin Review an interesting article about club finances..some snippets...

West Coast is the most profitable club. $5.4m profit on $64m revenue. Bombers $5m profit (including $3.97m in donations). WCE has paid $137m in dividends & rent to the West Australian Football commission since 1987. WCE has $21.8m of cash and $42m of fixed income and share investments. They are a seriously powerful club on the back of great stadium deals and sponsorship.

Richmond has a cash balance of $10m generating $8.6m from is Aligned Leisure Community Health Centre.

GWS and GC received $48m in funding from the AFL which according the AFL is equivalent to the extra $50m in broadcast rights it receives for having two extra teams in the comp.

If anyone is wondering why get stuffed on fixturing (including friday night games), travel (6 day breaks) or home ground against larger drawing clubs (we have been the home team against Ess once since 2005, Carl 5 times since 2005, Geel 5 times since 2005, Rich 6 times since 2005! This is largely because we are 'given' the QB game - don't ever tell me its a gift from Eddie because we pay for it in other areas such as this) its because the powerful clubs have much greater pull than we do.

Until we start winning it is difficult for us to demand better terms on these areas,. But make no mistake they are a prime cause of the disparity between rich and poor clubs. 

And just as importantly when we start winning we need to ensure we change the dynamics of our revenue. Secure good stadium deal, get serious sponsors, grow membership and demand better fixturing.

We need to embed this in the future to stop Melbourne ever being a pauper again.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

For those that don't have access to the Fin Review an interesting article about club finances..some snippets...

West Coast is the most profitable club. $5.4m profit on $64m revenue. Bombers $5m profit (including $3.97m in donations). WCE has paid $137m in dividends & rent to the West Australian Football commission since 1987. WCE has $21.8m of cash and $42m of fixed income and share investments. They are a seriously powerful club on the back of great stadium deals and sponsorship.

Richmond has a cash balance of $10m generating $8.6m from is Aligned Leisure Community Health Centre.

GWS and GC received $48m in funding from the AFL which according the AFL is equivalent to the extra $50m in broadcast rights it receives for having two extra teams in the comp.

If anyone is wondering why get stuffed on fixturing (including friday night games), travel (6 day breaks) or home ground against larger drawing clubs (we have been the home team against Ess once since 2005, Carl 5 times since 2005, Geel 5 times since 2005, Rich 6 times since 2005! This is largely because we are 'given' the QB game - don't ever tell me its a gift from Eddie because we pay for it in other areas such as this) its because the powerful clubs have much greater pull than we do.

Until we start winning it is difficult for us to demand better terms on these areas,. But make no mistake they are a prime cause of the disparity between rich and poor clubs. 

And just as importantly when we start winning we need to ensure we change the dynamics of our revenue. Secure good stadium deal, get serious sponsors, grow membership and demand better fixturing.

We need to embed this in the future to stop Melbourne ever being a pauper again.

Cheers also found an article from fin regarding our market in Victoria http://www.afr.com/business/sport/how-richmond-have-become-the-biggest-afl-club-in-victoria-20170824-gy3ekm

I know its a source of contention and it brings us cash  but I really wish we wouldn't trade games to play in NT.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

For those that don't have access to the Fin Review an interesting article about club finances..some snippets...

West Coast is the most profitable club. $5.4m profit on $64m revenue. Bombers $5m profit (including $3.97m in donations). WCE has paid $137m in dividends & rent to the West Australian Football commission since 1987. WCE has $21.8m of cash and $42m of fixed income and share investments. They are a seriously powerful club on the back of great stadium deals and sponsorship.

Richmond has a cash balance of $10m generating $8.6m from is Aligned Leisure Community Health Centre.

GWS and GC received $48m in funding from the AFL which according the AFL is equivalent to the extra $50m in broadcast rights it receives for having two extra teams in the comp.

If anyone is wondering why get stuffed on fixturing (including friday night games), travel (6 day breaks) or home ground against larger drawing clubs (we have been the home team against Ess once since 2005, Carl 5 times since 2005, Geel 5 times since 2005, Rich 6 times since 2005! This is largely because we are 'given' the QB game - don't ever tell me its a gift from Eddie because we pay for it in other areas such as this) its because the powerful clubs have much greater pull than we do.

Until we start winning it is difficult for us to demand better terms on these areas,. But make no mistake they are a prime cause of the disparity between rich and poor clubs. 

And just as importantly when we start winning we need to ensure we change the dynamics of our revenue. Secure good stadium deal, get serious sponsors, grow membership and demand better fixturing.

We need to embed this in the future to stop Melbourne ever being a pauper again.

Totally agree Jnr. There is no more excuses

winning is paramount, otherwise no one will care

It's why I think giving up our pokies assets is idiotic, unless it is costing us in other areas namely sponsorship. The evidence is that it doesn't therefore the club should maintain this key source of revenue.

(not) funny that the report indicates that the cost of running gc17 and gw$ is net-revenue neutral as the extra revenue they bring in in terms of broadcast rights is merely lost in propping em up

The AFL is also completely disengenuous claiming the extra $50m in media rights revenue is solely due to having GC & GWS in the comp. The rights would have continued skyrocketing regardless. 

Channel 7 values these expansion clubs so highly that they schedule their games on secondary channels in their home markets. Foxtel would have seen maybe a 0.1% growth in NSW & QLD subscriptions due to the expansion clubs. 

I don't really have an issue with the financial support of the expansion clubs (the academies are another matter) but the AFL's justification is absurd.

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The AFL is also completely disengenuous claiming the extra $50m in media rights revenue is solely due to having GC & GWS in the comp. The rights would have continued skyrocketing regardless. 

Channel 7 values these expansion clubs so highly that they schedule their games on secondary channels in their home markets. Foxtel would have seen maybe a 0.1% growth in NSW & QLD subscriptions due to the expansion clubs. 

I don't really have an issue with the financial support of the expansion clubs (the academies are another matter) but the AFL's justification is absurd.

sort of - having two teams in there means that afl is on free to air weekly, regardless of whether or not it's on the main or a subsidiary channel

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The AFL is also completely disengenuous claiming the extra $50m in media rights revenue is solely due to having GC & GWS in the comp. The rights would have continued skyrocketing regardless. 

Channel 7 values these expansion clubs so highly that they schedule their games on secondary channels in their home markets. Foxtel would have seen maybe a 0.1% growth in NSW & QLD subscriptions due to the expansion clubs. 

I don't really have an issue with the financial support of the expansion clubs (the academies are another matter) but the AFL's justification is absurd.

Correct but it looks good on the books 

$50 Million thrown away whilst Melbourne clubs are given shocking stadium deals at Etihad and basically told to deal with it

5 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

sort of - having two teams in there means that afl is on free to air weekly, regardless of whether or not it's on the main or a subsidiary channel

It's not the reason for the increased rights deals though. That's a plus for the AFL not channel 7.

Edited March 12, 20187 yr by Dr. Gonzo

25 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

(not) funny that the report indicates that the cost of running gc17 and gw$ is net-revenue neutral as the extra revenue they bring in in terms of broadcast rights is merely lost in propping em up

The AFL spin seems to be :

NSW and Sth QLD are important markets for us to expand. Its revenue neutral at the moment but in future when these teams are embedded then the pie increases...

The price of failure will be very high however....

The best thing that could happen going forward, is a rivalry built between The MFC and Sydney. By that i mean a rivalry built in September, not contrived. 

We need the MCG and SCG to be sell outs each year

Melbourne will have a larger population very soon, we must remind them each year...

1 hour ago, DemonAndrew said:

sort of - having two teams in there means that afl is on free to air weekly, regardless of whether or not it's on the main or a subsidiary channel

Think that’s a very good point  - in the heartland of NRL AFL footy is on TV weekly therefore appealing to National Sponsors.

Plus you get Vic, SA, WA and Queensland coverage again weekly but obviously the NRL is not as strong in those states. 

If I was.an International sponsor looking for a foothold in Australia I’m 90% of the time going AFL. Importantly often the AFL will pass these sponsors back to clubland where possible. 

Edited March 12, 20187 yr by DaveyDee

11 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

Think that’s a very good point  - in the heartland of NRL AFL footy is on TV weekly therefore appealing to National Sponsors.

Plus you get Vic, SA, WA and Queensland coverage again weekly but obviously the NRL is not as strong in those states. 

If I was.an International sponsor looking for a foothold in Australia I’m 90% of the time going AFL. Importantly often the AFL will pass these sponsors back to clubland where possible. 

60% of all ad dollars come from nsw and qld....it ain't rocket science. Follow the money...

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

60% of all ad dollars come from nsw and qld....it ain't rocket science. Follow the money...

I’m with you all the way - but try explain that to some around here who constantly complain about our National Competition & the AFL. 

 

13 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

I know its a source of contention and it brings us cash  but I really wish we wouldn't trade games to play in NT.

What is the alternative source of income you are suggesting then ?  If you advocate the removal of one income stream you need an alternative - post constructive comments in below thread

 

 

Edited March 12, 20187 yr by DaveyDee

57 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

60% of all ad dollars come from nsw and qld....it ain't rocket science. Follow the money...

ratings in NSW and Qld are very low and show no signs of increase.

Ratings =advertisers

Bears have now been in Brisbane around 30 years and the media penetration is low in a city where it only competes with one NRL club.

If it wasn't for pay TV who use AFL as a loss leader the TV rights would be lucky to increase at all. Foxtel pay around 60% if not more of the rights fees.

What national competition?  Oh you mean the MFL  Mainland Football League.  Tassie is part and a state of Australia, so until it has a team the AFL is the MFL.

Most club sponserships  are from overseas companies, including owe own.  So local money isn't the be all and end all.   

35 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

ratings in NSW and Qld are very low and show no signs of increase.

Ratings =advertisers

Bears have now been in Brisbane around 30 years and the media penetration is low in a city where it only competes with one NRL club.

If it wasn't for pay TV who use AFL as a loss leader the TV rights would be lucky to increase at all. Foxtel pay around 60% if not more of the rights fees.

I don't disagree that ratings = advertisers per se but there are broader metrics than that including column inches in newspapers and the online equivalent. And while not defending the AFL move to NSW and QLD, if you don't have coverage there National Sponsers may not even look at the product. We don't know what the sponsors / broadcasters are saying but its a fair bet that extra games and penetration into those key ad markets is ovetrall a positive. 

The proof of the pudding I guess is the escalation in broadcast rights revenue. At least that's what Gil would say 

25 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't disagree that ratings = advertisers per se but there are broader metrics than that including column inches in newspapers and the online equivalent. And while not defending the AFL move to NSW and QLD, if you don't have coverage there National Sponsers may not even look at the product. We don't know what the sponsors / broadcasters are saying but its a fair bet that extra games and penetration into those key ad markets is ovetrall a positive. 

The proof of the pudding I guess is the escalation in broadcast rights revenue. At least that's what Gil would say 

Having read some documents that were circulated throughout TV Stations, the main drive in AFL expansion is to have NSW exposure every week, now 7mate is fairly hidden, but it is there. So the AFL will say the strategy has been met. 

What makes me angry is that Victorian Clubs are still in massive debt, whilst NSW  is being showered in cas$h, and i don’t think NSW will ever care in great numbers. 

How long do we wait for results? and how many Vic clubs will go under in that same time frame

1 hour ago, ex52k2 said:

What national competition?  Oh you mean the MFL  Mainland Football League.  Tassie is part and a state of Australia, so until it has a team the AFL is the MFL.

Most club sponserships  are from overseas companies, including owe own.  So local money isn't the be all and end all.   

Well said , you have to consider both National & International sponsors. 

I too would like to see a full time team in Tasmania - what club do you suggest?

47 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I don't disagree that ratings = advertisers per se but there are broader metrics than that including column inches in newspapers and the online equivalent. And while not defending the AFL move to NSW and QLD, if you don't have coverage there National Sponsers may not even look at the product. We don't know what the sponsors / broadcasters are saying but its a fair bet that extra games and penetration into those key ad markets is ovetrall a positive. 

The proof of the pudding I guess is the escalation in broadcast rights revenue. At least that's what Gil would say 

Well said TV rights are the biggest component of the equation but not all of the equation. Long-term online rights IMHO are going to surpass TV rights. 

Edited March 13, 20187 yr by DaveyDee

Whatever you think of Jeff Kennett it is refreshing to see a contrary view:

Kennett says he told the Hawks players not to expect him to ever approve them playing for points overseas, adding they have an obligation to their members to do whatever they can to win a premiership.

The former Victorian premier would prefer officials stabilise the local game before all else.

He took issue with minnows like St Kilda needing league help to balance their books.

In 2016, the Saints received $18.6 million in league handouts while Hawthorn were among seven clubs to get between $10-12 million.

"Most of the clubs are financially dependent on the AFL to open their doors," he said.

"For goodness sake, surely we should be concentrating on making the game here self-supporting."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-s-expansion-into-china-india-a-waste-of-money-kennett-20180313-p4z43p.html

16 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Whatever you think of Jeff Kennett it is refreshing to see a contrary view:

Kennett says he told the Hawks players not to expect him to ever approve them playing for points overseas, adding they have an obligation to their members to do whatever they can to win a premiership.

The former Victorian premier would prefer officials stabilise the local game before all else.

He took issue with minnows like St Kilda needing league help to balance their books.

In 2016, the Saints received $18.6 million in league handouts while Hawthorn were among seven clubs to get between $10-12 million.

"Most of the clubs are financially dependent on the AFL to open their doors," he said.

"For goodness sake, surely we should be concentrating on making the game here self-supporting."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-s-expansion-into-china-india-a-waste-of-money-kennett-20180313-p4z43p.html

It’s just madness to try to expand like this when clubs have so much debt

43 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s just madness to try to expand like this when clubs have so much debt

Australia is the only country it happens in. AFL, NBL, NRL, A-league. Each have a history of expansion when the existent teams are already struggling. The overall pie is positive because of a few teams holding up everyone else, but when you expand too quickly you destablise everything and end up having to dip into the coffers even more. I feel the NBL is on the right track atm, although they are teasing a second Melbourne team, and I don't think that's the right idea.

As soulless and corporate as the NBA and NFL are, at least when a team is struggling they move it, rather than just keep it going *and* expand into new markets. Vancouver to Memphis. Seattle to OKC (although the team could've stayed in Seattle if not for a greedy owner...), Charlotte to New Orleans. 

North should have moved to the GC. And GWS shouldn't have a team.