Some AFL Funding Home Truths

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

In the AFL Financial Year to 31 October 2007 all Clubs received base funding of $4.913 million, totalling $78.61 million. Other payments (total AFL funding in brackets) were as follows:

W Bulldogs $4.570 million ($9.484 million total)

Kangaroos $4.104 million ($9.017 million)

Carlton $3.668 million ($8.581 million)

Melbourne $3.326 milliuon ($8.239 million)

Collingwood $3.294 million ($8.207 million)

Geelong $3.269 ($8.172 million)

St Kilda $3.021 million ($7.934 million)

Richmond $2.915 million ($7.838 million)

Sydney $2.865 million ($7.778 million)

Essendon $2.755 million ($7.668 million)

Port Adel $2.615 million ($7.528 million)

Hawthorn $2.458 million ($7.372 million)

WCE $2.231 million ($7.144 million)

Fremantle $2.013 million ($6.926 million)

Brisbane $1.909 million ($6.822 million)

Adelaide $1.872 million ($6.786 million)

Other payments totalled $46.88 million resulting in total AFL funding of the Clubs of $125.5 million.

Included in the "other payments" were Annual Special Distribution payments totalling $6.3 million. Recipients were W Bulldogs ($1.7 million), Kangaroos ($1.4 million), Melbourne ($1 million), Sydney ($700k), Richmond ($400k), Hawthorn ($250k), Port Adelaide ($250k) and $600k paid to "Telstra Dome to assist (home) clubs playing at this venue" which by my reckoning includes Essendon, St Kilda, Carlton and (getting a second dip) W Bulldogs and the Kangaroos.

Some observations are:

- no Club is capable of financial independence of the AFL given the financial model of the industry. I wish someone would tell Garry this

- 3 Clubs including Carlton received greater financial support that Melbourne. Collingwood received $32k less than us. Why are we singled out as receiving "welfare"? Why is Collingwood's $8.207 million in funding their God given right and our $8.239 million classed as "Life Support"?

- the Annual Special Distribution accounts for a tiny proportion (5%) of AFL payments to Clubs. Ten clubs share directly or indirectly from the ASD. It is particular ironic when Kennett rails against the evils of an equalisation formula like the ASD then happily pockets the proceeds from same.

- if all Clubs including Melbourne were allowed to compete on an equal footing eg no protected sponsors, equal stadium economics, equal draw, equal demographic/population base etc then maybe we would not need to be 4th ranked in the funding queue.

[The Emblem 1]

Thanks RR...that puts things into perspective beautifully.

[Jarka 767]

RR, where did you get these figures from, do you have a link?

I'm going to have a field day with this, thankyou very, very much

[JACKATTACK 17]

Wow, this is almost unbelievable. I look forward to arguing with my collingwood/Essendon friends armed with this information.

Add to this that we get completely stiffed in terms of marketable game times (Twilight sunday!!!) and it is no wonder we are struggling to keep our head above water.

[Jaded No More 67,609]

Now people can stop going on and on about how we're a rabble being kept alive due only to the AFL's money.

The AFL is just spinning the money distribution the way they want to.

I hope our new CEO highlights these figures ASAP and ensures that ignorant supporters are not fooled into believing that Melbourne is one of the only club that gets AFL money.

Every single club in the competition is being kept alive by the AFL.

[beelzebub 23,191]

cheers RR very interesting indeed.. spec. the Collingwood & Carlton figures !! very !!!

[Sir Why You Little 36,587]

Well well well. If these Figures are true they are astounding. We will make it, Now i belive it

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

RR, where did you get these figures from, do you have a link?

I'm going to have a field day with this, thankyou very, very much

AFL Annual Report 2007. Sorry I dont have a link. I did not get the information off the web and had temporary access to the data.

[Hards 2]

Melbourne $3.326 milliuon ($8.239 million)

Collingwood $3.294 million ($8.207 million)

And part of our 3.326 is 1m in special assistance right? So without that we'd have 2.326 in "other funding". Why does Collingwood get 3.294 in "other funding"? On what grounds are they given that money?

The figures are very interesting, and I would hope that any time someone in the media or a rival club President comes out swinging at us about AFL funding we produce those figures and shout them from the rooftop to remove the public perception that we are the only ones living on AFL funding. There's no point holding a quiet high ground if people don't know the facts, the club has to make this public (loudly) to show that we are not on deaths door.

[mo64 5,477]

In the AFL Financial Year to 31 October 2007 all Clubs received base funding of $4.913 million, totalling $78.61 million. Other payments (total AFL funding in brackets) were as follows:

W Bulldogs $4.570 million ($9.484 million total)

Kangaroos $4.104 million ($9.017 million)

Carlton $3.668 million ($8.581 million)

Melbourne $3.326 milliuon ($8.239 million)

Collingwood $3.294 million ($8.207 million)

Geelong $3.269 ($8.172 million)

St Kilda $3.021 million ($7.934 million)

Richmond $2.915 million ($7.838 million)

Sydney $2.865 million ($7.778 million)

Essendon $2.755 million ($7.668 million)

Port Adel $2.615 million ($7.528 million)

Hawthorn $2.458 million ($7.372 million)

WCE $2.231 million ($7.144 million)

Fremantle $2.013 million ($6.926 million)

Brisbane $1.909 million ($6.822 million)

Adelaide $1.872 million ($6.786 million)

Other payments totalled $46.88 million resulting in total AFL funding of the Clubs of $125.5 million.

Included in the "other payments" were Annual Special Distribution payments totalling $6.3 million. Recipients were W Bulldogs ($1.7 million), Kangaroos ($1.4 million), Melbourne ($1 million), Sydney ($700k), Richmond ($400k), Hawthorn ($250k), Port Adelaide ($250k) and $600k paid to "Telstra Dome to assist (home) clubs playing at this venue" which by my reckoning includes Essendon, St Kilda, Carlton and (getting a second dip) W Bulldogs and the Kangaroos.

Some observations are:

- no Club is capable of financial independence of the AFL given the financial model of the industry. I wish someone would tell Garry this

- 3 Clubs including Carlton received greater financial support that Melbourne. Collingwood received $32k less than us. Why are we singled out as receiving "welfare"? Why is Collingwood's $8.207 million in funding their God given right and our $8.239 million classed as "Life Support"?

- the Annual Special Distribution accounts for a tiny proportion (5%) of AFL payments to Clubs. Ten clubs share directly or indirectly from the ASD. It is particular ironic when Kennett rails against the evils of an equalisation formula like the ASD then happily pockets the proceeds from same.

- if all Clubs including Melbourne were allowed to compete on an equal footing eg no protected sponsors, equal stadium economics, equal draw, equal demographic/population base etc then maybe we would not need to be 4th ranked in the funding queue.

Before you draw your own conclusions RR, I suggest you research how the non-base funding is derived. Whether the funding is for capital works or is football related revenue, is the big issue.

If the amount received by a club is primarily for capital works, which I believe is the case in the Bulldogs, Kangaroos and Carlton, then it's not an ongoing revenue stream, and the club's ongoing sustainability is questionable.

If the amounts received are for the apportionment of gate receipts from walk-ups, or nominating your club with your AFL membership, they would be add to your bottom line revenue.

Without going through every club, these are the conclusions that I would draw from the figures:

The interstate clubs would have the highest % of membership-to-attendance figures and very few AFL members, hence their apportionment of gate receipts and AFL memberships would be low. Conversely, a club like Collingwood would have a high % of walk-ups and massive gate receipts, as well as a substantial amount from AFL memberships.

Essendon would have a low % of walk-ups to their TD home games, but would receive significant amounts from walk-ups at MCG games, as well as a substantial amount from AFL memberships.

The bottom line is, from a pure revenue perspective, clubs such as WB, Kangaroos and Melbourne are far more dependent on AFL funding, than all other clubs.

[ucanchoose 1,816]

Conversely, a club like Collingwood would have a high % of walk-ups

Your not wrong there, and every single one of them has a concession card

[deanox 9,641]

does anyone have a reason as to why this isnt made public via the media. why doesnt PG come out and say 'hang on a sec look at this everyone'? why, when gary lyon writes an article like that doesnt PG or another club spokesperson come out and say 'hey gary look at this?'

[timD 994]

Deanox, PG did come out last year with most of this info, and it has been shown on this board at least once before. We are not interested enough to notice or smart enough to understand. As a community, we would rather live in fanasy land or [censored] and whinge.

I'm proud.

[Jarka 767]

AFL Annual Report 2007. Sorry I dont have a link. I did not get the information off the web and had temporary access to the data.

Sweet, thanks again

[deanox 9,641]

Deanox, PG did come out last year with most of this info, and it has been shown on this board at least once before. We are not interested enough to notice or smart enough to understand. As a community, we would rather live in fanasy land or [censored] and whinge.

I'm proud.

i do realise it has been seen before, and i have seen it before. but i think it is significant enough info that should be repeated publicised every time someone slags off our club in the media etc. given that clubs like collingwood are maknig massive profits every year, i am surprised the afl actually give them money at all...

[mo64 5,477]

Deanox, PG did come out last year with most of this info, and it has been shown on this board at least once before. We are not interested enough to notice or smart enough to understand. As a community, we would rather live in fanasy land or [censored] and whinge.

I'm proud.

TimD, the title of this thread is a misleading. "Funding" to all 16 AFL clubs was an equal $4.913m. Until you know on what basis the "other payments" is apportioned, your arguments are purely emotive.

The bottom line is that our $ contribution to the AFL, whether it be from TV rights or merchandising, would be amongst the bottom 3 clubs in the competition.

That's reality, not fantasy land.

[timD 994]

mo64, I'm going to enjoy this.

1) the title is not misleading. The thread does concern funding and home truth, just not all of them. Your criticism is akin to saying that a book entitled "the Great War' that concentrates on australians in france and not gallipoli is not really about 'the great war' at all.

2) Just because you know part of the 'fact set' does not mean that an argument is or is not emotive. It may be both factual and emotive. Clearly this one is factually informed AND emotive. Not fully informed does not mean fully or only emotive. That is a illogical and unsupported point.

3) Your last point is relevant to this thread in what way? At which point does the thread author propose different, or address this issue? And factually you are again struggling. We contribute to the AFL because of 150 years of history, enmity and game-playing. It is because teams play teams that the game exists at all. Viewing the relative amount each team brings to the AFL forgets that it is irrelevant if there is no interaction with other teams. Interaction creates the value - the individual weighting then becomes an interesting accounting fact only. What is actuallyrelevant is what we bring to ourselves thorugh MFC-only funding streams.

Next time you accuse me of being 'only emotive' just make sure that you know what you're talking about.

[mo64 5,477]

mo64, I'm going to enjoy this.

1) the title is not misleading. The thread does concern funding and home truth, just not all of them. Your criticism is akin to saying that a book entitled "the Great War' that concentrates on australians in france and not gallipoli is not really about 'the great war' at all.

2) Just because you know part of the 'fact set' does not mean that an argument is or is not emotive. It may be both factual and emotive. Clearly this one is factually informed AND emotive. Not fully informed does not mean fully or only emotive. That is a illogical and unsupported point.

3) Your last point is relevant to this thread in what way? At which point does the thread author propose different, or address this issue? And factually you are again struggling. We contribute to the AFL because of 150 years of history, enmity and game-playing. It is because teams play teams that the game exists at all. Viewing the relative amount each team brings to the AFL forgets that it is irrelevant if there is no interaction with other teams. Interaction creates the value - the individual weighting then becomes an interesting accounting fact only. What is actuallyrelevant is what we bring to ourselves thorugh MFC-only funding streams.

Next time you accuse me of being 'only emotive' just make sure that you know what you're talking about.

I'm glad you found your post enjoyable.

How can anything be factually informed if you don't know the full facts?

[Damo 3,238]

The bottom line is that our $ contribution to the AFL, whether it be from TV rights or merchandising, would be amongst the bottom 3 clubs in the competition.

This is an uncomfortable but valid point that by excluding, does not paint a fair and complete picture.

[timD 994]

Mo64, you NEVER know all the facts. You are infomed by what you know (or thing you know). And that is the best that you ever get. What matters is the usefulness of the facts you have. Rhino's post addressed falsehood, but not all the facts pertaining to the MFC's finances.

I'll make the point another way - do you know all the facts about your partner/kids/job/business/footy club? ALL of them? Does that stop you talking about them or knowing useful things?

[mo64 5,477]

timD, you've obviously redirected your rants on this topic away from Demonology, where your arguments were contested by all and sundry. You probably thought you'd get a more sympathetic ear on Demonland. Not from me pal.

[timD 994]

mo64, if you read demonology, only rono really resists, and he's not even reading what I wrote. Chook and George address aspects of the argument, and both are responded to directly - and on the point they raise. So, 'all-and-sundry' is just wrong. What is it with you and facts - you like alluding to them them but find them slippery in practice.

What are you actually struggling with - my tone or content or both?

And, back onto the real issue, what else would you like to know about AFL/MFC finances?

[H_T 3,032]

Staggering. TY! I know I've seen it 5 months later than it was first posted, but fell over after reading some of the figures, couldn't believe it when I read Collingwood's figures.

[45HG 1,539]

Does that mean in total we got 1.032Mil more than Collingwood?

[beelzebub 23,191]

Isnt it just amazing you dont hear Collingwood or others shouting the reality from the mountaintops.. Might make them all look a little too precious !! same with them rascally Sqwakers !!