The club will announce a small profit an the demon's off our logo says Paul Gardner.

"In the end, we're quite pleased to deliver a profit to our members"

But isn't in effect a $900,000 loss if you factor in the $1 million special assistance from the AFL?

Plus the $500,000 you get for playing a home game in Brisbane. Or is that included in the $1 million?

  Bring-Back-Powell said:

But isn't in effect a $900,000 loss if you factor in the $1 million special assistance from the AFL?

No. You don't discount revenue streams no matter how much you dislike the way you got it. It's just like saying, "well gee, it would've been a loss if we'd had 20,000 less members this year".

Besides, through the AFL distribution of funds, I'm lead to believe we actually get less money than clubs such as Carlton and Collingwood anyway, not to mention the disfavourable TV broadcast schedule that greatly impede on our ability to draw sponsorship.

Given the abysmal year we had on the field, if our P&L statement for this year is in the black then the board have done an incredible job.

No. In accordance with Australian Accouting rules, the AFL assistance money is to be taken into consideration in determining the annual profit/loss. That goes for any special deals for selling home games.

I agree with Nasher's assessment on the outcome.

  Rhino Richards said:

No. In accordance with Australian Accouting rules, the AFL assistance money is to be taken into consideration in determining the annual profit/loss. That goes for any special deals for selling home games.

I agree with Nasher's assessment on the outcome.

The only question I still have is this: Gardner said during the year and after round 10 that the club should still be in the position to make a $750K - $1M profit. Now he is saying that our disastrous year on field is the reason we are 500K - 900K short. That doesn't reconcile.

  Choko said:

The only question I still have is this: Gardner said during the year and after round 10 that the club should still be in the position to make a $750K - $1M profit. Now he is saying that our disastrous year on field is the reason we are 500K - 900K short. That doesn't reconcile.

It is probably reconciled by "hope". He was hoping things would improve both on and off the field in the second half of the year.

  Rhino Richards said:

No. In accordance with Australian Accouting rules, the AFL assistance money is to be taken into consideration in determining the annual profit/loss. That goes for any special deals for selling home games.

Regardless of the technicalities of accounting, I think the point 'Bring-Back-Powell' makes is a valid one.

  Rogue said:

Regardless of the technicalities of accounting, I think the point 'Bring-Back-Powell' makes is a valid one.

If you're going to discount money given to us by the AFL as part of "that fund" then you have to discount all the money given to all clubs by the AFL if you want to apply consistent standards. Then we can sit back and watch the joy of 16 clubs recording multi-million dollar losses instead of most of them (including ours) being profitable.

  Nasher said:

If you're going to discount money given to us by the AFL as part of "that fund" then you have to discount all the money given to all clubs by the AFL if you want to apply consistent standards. Then we can sit back and watch the joy of 16 clubs recording multi-million dollar losses instead of most of them (including ours) being profitable.

Agreed.

two words

Annus Horribilus

  Nasher said:

If you're going to discount money given to us by the AFL as part of "that fund" then you have to discount all the money given to all clubs by the AFL if you want to apply consistent standards. Then we can sit back and watch the joy of 16 clubs recording multi-million dollar losses instead of most of them (including ours) being profitable.

Yeah but aren't we one of three clubs (Roos and WB the others) that are getting "special assistance" on top of the TV rights and Waverley park proceeds (if that still exists) etc. that the other 13 clubs recieve.

Without the special assistance, wouldn't our revenue still include TV rights distribution monies that all other clubs are receiving.

The special assistance seems to be a key factor in keeping us out of the gutter.

  Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yeah but aren't we one of three clubs (Roos and WB the others) that are getting "special assistance" on top of the TV rights and Waverley park proceeds (if that still exists) etc. that the other 13 clubs recieve.

Without the special assistance, wouldn't our revenue still include TV rights distribution monies that all other clubs are receiving.

The special assistance seems to be a key factor in keeping us out of the gutter.

Yes, we receive "special" assistance, but we get less money from general AFL distributions than many of the clubs anyway. Counting the $1m we get from that fund, we still get less money than clubs such as Carlton and in the general ballpark of Collingwood (this is all from memory -- I am trying to get my hands on the true figures). In reality, we are not propped up by the AFL any more than any other club is.

  Bring-Back-Powell said:

Yeah but aren't we one of three clubs (Roos and WB the others) that are getting "special assistance" on top of the TV rights and Waverley park proceeds (if that still exists) etc. that the other 13 clubs recieve.

Without the special assistance, wouldn't our revenue still include TV rights distribution monies that all other clubs are receiving.

The special assistance seems to be a key factor in keeping us out of the gutter.

That's the impression I have.

In recent threads, several people have pointed to the 'special assistance' given to the clubs you've mentioned as an indication that they're the most likely to be candidates for relocation etc.

  Nasher said:

Yes, we receive "special" assistance, but we get less money from general AFL distributions than many of the clubs anyway. Counting the $1m we get from that fund, we still get less money than clubs such as Carlton and in the general ballpark of Collingwood (this is all from memory -- I am trying to get my hands on the true figures). In reality, we are not propped up by the AFL any more than any other club is.

I'd love to see the figures.

If you're right, it flies in the face of the general conception about MFC, Kangaroos, and the like being 'propped up' espoused by fans and the media.

  Nasher said:

Yes, we receive "special" assistance, but we get less money from general AFL distributions than many of the clubs anyway. Counting the $1m we get from that fund, we still get less money than clubs such as Carlton and in the general ballpark of Collingwood (this is all from memory -- I am trying to get my hands on the true figures). In reality, we are not propped up by the AFL any more than any other club is.

I understood the "special assistance" allowance was paid, in part, to compensate inequities in the draw compared with the bigger clubs eg blockbusters, Friday nights, inequitable travelling interstate etc etc - just loook at the deals handed to Collingwood, essendon ( and unbelievably Carlton on the back running dead for the last 12 rounds) :angry:

  Rogue said:

If you're right, it flies in the face of the general conception about MFC, Kangaroos, and the like being 'propped up' espoused by fans and the media.

He is right.

As I understand it the AFL hands out about $90 million to the clubs under various different guises. Of this about $5 million is called "special assistance" and we receive some of this. But if you look at the total amount of money handed out to the clubs by the AFL and take away the guise under which it is given we get about the same as most clubs.

I'll see if I can find the figures which I saw for 2006. I've not seen 2007 figures.

The concept that Melbourne live off the special assistance of the AFL and that that money is in addition to the amounts other clubs get is erroneous.

Would be very interested also to know these figures. To see under what guise the other clubs, especially the monied ones, recieve theres !!!

thanks

  belzebub59 said:

To see under what guise the other clubs, especially the monied ones, recieve theres !!!

I don't know the exact figures, but some of the "special assistance" stems from the fact that the draw (which is not really random at all but a scheme of arrangement) is organised so that maximum overall crowd figures and AFL revenue are achieved.

This is often at the expense of some lower-membership clubs when it comes to things like their number of Friday and Saturday night games, free-to-air television coverage, the number of times they travel interstate and non-access to some of the "blockbuster days" (like Anzac Day).

  Rogue said:

I'd love to see the figures.

If you're right, it flies in the face of the general conception about MFC, Kangaroos, and the like being 'propped up' espoused by fans and the media.

These are the 2006 figures. I got these second hand, but these figures are available in the public domain. You only need to look at the AFL financial reports.

  Quote

All clubs receive a significant proportion of their revenues in the form of AFL distributions. No two clubs receive the same amount - some get more and others get less. The AFL distribution is made up of a base payment of $4442316 per club and a total of $25481855 in "other" payments spread across the Clubs with various rationales. The Annual Special Distribution accounts for only $5.9 million of these "other" payments and is shared by Bulldogs ($1.7 million), Kangaroos ($1.4 million), Melbourne ($1 million), Sydney ($0.5 million), Hawthorn, Richmond and Port Adelaide ($0.25 million each) and $0.6 million paid to Telstra Dome home clubs.

In 2006 total distributions were as follows:

Adelaide $5,255,566

Brisbane $4,996,539

Carlton $7,029,949

Collingwood $6,423,481

Essendon $5,877,652

Fremantle $5,208,342

Geelong $5,532,798

Hawthorn $5,617,738

Kangaroos $7,296,115

Melbourne $6,551,687

Port $5,152,040

Richmond $6,191,835

St Kilda $6,227,868

Sydney $6,078,192

West Coast $5,529,968

W Bulldogs $7,589,140

With the ASD, you can see that for 2006, we're still well within the vicinity of St Kilda, Collingwood, Sydney and Richmond, and are under Carlton, North and WB. If you remove the $1m we get, we then get less money in total from the AFL than Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Kangas, Richmond, St Kilda, Sydney and WB.

These figures are high, and the extra $1m we get is in actual fact a fairly insignificant revenue in the total scheme of what everyone else gets from the AFL. As I said, if you're going to take away our $1m from your considerations, you need to take away the other $5m we get, as well as Collingwood's $6.4m, Carlton's $7mil and so on.

I doubt this year's figures will paint much of a different story. I guess we'll see when the numbers become public domain.

  Nasher said:

These are the 2006 figures.

Cheers.

  Fan said:

The concept that Melbourne live off the special assistance of the AFL and that that money is in addition to the amounts other clubs get is erroneous.

Exactly.

We deserve whatever money the AFL gives us. In the end, we are still not getting as much 'assistance' as the likes of Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton do.

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL.

I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

  Scoop Junior said:

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL.

I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

I totally agree Scoop. I even had the same misconception up until I had these figures pointed out to me. The fact that we're getting it need not even really be public knowledge, it should just be lumped in with the total distribution figures like the little perks clubs like Carlton are obviously getting, given how high their portion of the distribution is. It is unfair tag that does not accurately reflect the true situation, and has made the entire football public believe we're some kind of basket case when that is not true.

  Nasher said:

These are the 2006 figures. I got these second hand, but these figures are available in the public domain. You only need to look at the AFL financial reports.

With the ASD, you can see that for 2006, we're still well within the vicinity of St Kilda, Collingwood, Sydney and Richmond, and are under Carlton, North and WB. If you remove the $1m we get, we then get less money in total from the AFL than Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Kangas, Richmond, St Kilda, Sydney and WB.

These figures are high, and the extra $1m we get is in actual fact a fairly insignificant revenue in the total scheme of what everyone else gets from the AFL. As I said, if you're going to take away our $1m from your considerations, you need to take away the other $5m we get, as well as Collingwood's $6.4m, Carlton's $7mil and so on.

I doubt this year's figures will paint much of a different story. I guess we'll see when the numbers become public domain.

Based on these figures Collingwood gets the most "special assistance" from the AFL. The Pies are getting marginally less than us yet annually, they receive the best fixture of any Victorian club by a country mile, travel less interstate, have more MCG games (this year they had 8 in a row), plenty of Friday night games and special fixtures and they get an easier draw (estimated somewhere as a bonus 8 premiership points). This "special assistance" would probably be worth at least a couple of million every year if you could put a figure on it!

  Jaded said:

We deserve whatever money the AFL gives us. In the end, we are still not getting as much 'assistance' as the likes of Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton do.

To me, that sounds like a rationale of why we get more money than other Clubs, and I don't think that's the salient point.

I think the point is that, setting aside the draw and FTA TV exposure etc, the MFC, WB, et al. don't actually get significantly more over and beyond what other Clubs are getting when it comes to cash from the AFL.

  Scoop Junior said:

They should remove the "special assistance" name then. It creates the impression that those who receive it are reliant on the AFL for funds. The average footy person does not know the real story and this results in comments made in the footy public, on the radio, in newspapers, etc. of how Melb, the Roos and the Dogs go cap in hand to the AFL.

I think it paints a picture of serious financial trouble and this is not going to wash well with potential sponsors. I know it's not the true story, but image is important, and the general footy person out there has the image that those three clubs are living off the AFL handouts.

Perception is reality for those that perceive it.

What I find interesting is that while the public are certainly under the impression that particular Clubs are [more] reliant on revenue from the AFL, this is not just a view espoused by "the general footy person out there".

The view that particular clubs - like ours - get 'special assistance' above and beyond that of other Clubs is one that's also espoused by the various football media luminaries.