We are Not alone- Financial reports

[saintbrat]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/more-th ... 3bb35e9d17

The Bombers, Blues and Brisbane Lions are certainties to be in the red, with the Blues set to record their third consecutive loss.

Geelong also suspects it will be in the negatives due to asset right-offs. However it believes that wouldn’t be a true reflection of the club’s position, as it has raised a lot of money through fundraising this year.

Richmond, a club that underperformed on the field this season but signed a record number of members, admits it’ll be line ball whether it makes a profit or loss.

Hawthorn, West Coast and Adelaide are among the minority that are assured of making a profit, while Collingwood expects to make a small profit in what has been a disappointing on-field season.

[Playon]

We're not alone? With the extra sponsors and an increase in memberships are we still running at a loss?

[To the top]

What exactly are "right-offs"?

Like Qantas, taking write offs, bringing forward amortizing and expenses as an excuse to sack staff then returning to profit because of those accounting exercises and "rewarding" the CEO with the bonus he has received for turning the business around, a turn around guaranteed by the prior accounting measures.

The games these people play!

And the tax liability is extinguished by the (now historic) losses on the Balance Sheet at cost to the Federal Budget (and those the Federal Budget attacks).

As with the Federal Budget it is about prudently cutting recurring expenses where those expenses are not central to the good order of society AND giving incentive for a growth (to at least the long term trend) in the GDP of the Nation.

But there is a difference!

St Kilda FC, as a business, is also charged with prudently cutting recurring expenses (principally by repaying debt and extinguishing the interest cost) AND increasing revenue to achieve break even trading (as a minimum).

Unlike government which is charged with managing the economy across the economic cycle (so debt giving impetus as and when required to sustain social order and give impetus to the economy and the recovery of the economy), St Kilda FC is a trading business reporting to Members annually - and must be seen as sustainable financially annually to the protection of Creditors including Trade Creditors (which includes the players) and other creditors identified in the Balance Sheet.

[Sainternist]

We're not alone?

Does that mean the martians will land and eradicate our debt for us?

[saintbrat]

We're not alone? With the extra sponsors and an increase in memberships are we still running at a loss?

word was we may make a small profit- but we have a debt...
and yes our sponsors have resigned but they are not huge sponsorships.



Do Martians have $$$$- can they sponsor us? or would they be regarded as ' off shore" resources...

[Sainternist]

Do Martians have $$$$- can they sponsor us? or would they be regarded as ' off shore" resources...

Well, if they have the capabilities for intergalactic travel, it would suggest they are pretty well resourced. I'm guessing what they could offer would be far more valuable than just plain old cash money.

[saint3d]

Do Martians have $$$$- can they sponsor us? or would they be regarded as ' off shore" resources...

Well, if they have the capabilities for intergalactic travel, it would suggest they are pretty well resourced. I'm guessing what they could offer would be far more valuable than just plain old cash money.

If they could help us understand the Martians that umpire our matches, that would be a great help.

[Jacks Back]

Do Martians have $$$$- can they sponsor us? or would they be regarded as ' off shore" resources...

Well, if they have the capabilities for intergalactic travel, it would suggest they are pretty well resourced. I'm guessing what they could offer would be far more valuable than just plain old cash money.

If they could help us understand the Martians that umpire our matches, that would be a great help.

Whispers in outer space.

[CQ SAINT]

Should post be 'We are not a LOAN?' Sounds like we are.

[saintbrat]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... rhf6q.html

The poorer clubs, led by 2016 preliminary finalist Greater Western Sydney, are expected to receive more than $20 million at the bottom of a sliding scale that has been presented to the AFL Commission.

Gold Coast, Brisbane and St Kilda make up the bottom four and biggest welfare recipients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Melbourne, the Bulldogs and North will all record profits but remain heavily reliant on AFL additional funding. The only clubs who will record profits in real terms are Hawthorn, West Coast, Fremantle, Collingwood and Adelaide.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Collingwood's bottom line has fallen significantly this season after the club's falling attendance numbers and million-dollar investment in the new Magpies netball team and women's football team. Having recorded an operating profit of close to $900,000 in 2015 that number has more than halved in 2016.

[saintbrat]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... rhf6q.html

The poorer clubs, led by 2016 preliminary finalist Greater Western Sydney, are expected to receive more than $20 million at the bottom of a sliding scale that has been presented to the AFL Commission.

Gold Coast, Brisbane and St Kilda make up the bottom four and biggest welfare recipients.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Melbourne, the Bulldogs and North will all record profits but remain heavily reliant on AFL additional funding. The only clubs who will record profits in real terms are Hawthorn, West Coast, Fremantle, Collingwood and Adelaide.

>>>>>>>>>>>
Collingwood's bottom line has fallen significantly this season after the club's falling attendance numbers and million-dollar investment in the new Magpies netball team and women's football team. Having recorded an operating profit of close to $900,000 in 2015 that number has more than halved in 2016.

[Johnny Member]

And there it is folks....

"As the AFL intensifies efforts to close the gap between rich and poor clubs, the game's wealthiest franchises have learned they will each receive an estimated $8.6 million next year, which in real terms means they will receive no lift from the richest sport media deal in Australian history."


The lid has been lifted by the AFL's very own mouthpiece.

[saintbrat]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... ea611aeca9

A massive fundraising drive from sponsors and loyal fans has hauled in more than $10 million and will help clear debt from previous stand redevelopments and pay the Cats’ $5 million share of stage four.

The club recorded 15 consecutive profits before a 2014 loss of $251,207 and $3.3 million loss last year.

Carter said the club believed it could return to the financial strength that saw it declare so many consecutive profits before the current headwinds.

I wish the saints supporters could find their $$$$$ friends - unfortunately I am not one of them

[cwrcyn]

How the hell does Carlton make a substantial loss every year when it brings in about 18 million dollars in poke revenue? And how does Collingwood make only a small profit when it pulls in about 22 million from pokies each year and plays all it's home games at the MCG?

People who bag our club for it's financial performance need to think again. We have a lot stacked against us, and yes, we make losses, but really, if we were pulling in about 20 million per year from the pokies, do you think we'd be making a loss?

[Johnny Member]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

[saintspremiers]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Fair point.

Our CEO is an AFL plant afterall so we have lost our ID identity.

And people who get their jollies about getting more revenue from Etihad games don't consider it will be likely mean less
subsidies from the AFL due previous poor stadium deals. Even the compliant media don't discuss this as they are also run by the AFL

[desertsaint]

for indivdiual clubs running successive profits make it far more likley to be able to invest in infrastructure - better facilities and personnel. it also attracts potential employees to a club.

[citywest]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Are you serious Johnny? This is not meant to be derogatory but you are being either delusional or very naïve. It is only a matter of time before the AFL start to actively want to get 'rid' of another Victorian team. It was not that long ago that they wanted North to go to the Gold Coast. Ten teams will never survive in Victoria. They have 2 teams in WA with waiting lists to join up as members. The same in SA and they eventually want a team in Tassie. Don't forget what happened to South Melbourne and Fitzroy. I don't believe anything will happen while Gil is in charge but when the next regime comes in my belief is that they will want 2 fewer teams in Victoria to be replaced by 1 in WA and 1 in SA. At this point in time St Kilda is the most vulnerable unfortunately. We really do need to win a premiership in the next 5 years and to also bed down NZ and play at the very least 2 home games per year.

[Freebird]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Are you serious Johnny? This is not meant to be derogatory but you are being either delusional or very naïve. It is only a matter of time before the AFL start to actively want to get 'rid' of another Victorian team. It was not that long ago that they wanted North to go to the Gold Coast. Ten teams will never survive in Victoria. They have 2 teams in WA with waiting lists to join up as members. The same in SA and they eventually want a team in Tassie. Don't forget what happened to South Melbourne and Fitzroy. I don't believe anything will happen while Gil is in charge but when the next regime comes in my belief is that they will want 2 fewer teams in Victoria to be replaced by 1 in WA and 1 in SA. At this point in time St Kilda is the most vulnerable unfortunately. We really do need to win a premiership in the next 5 years and to also bed down NZ and play at the very least 2 home games per year.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO SUFFER THIS FLOG - NOTHING POSITIVE EVER ABOUT OUR CLUB.

HE HAS NO LIFE AND SPENDS HIS TIME ON HERE RIDICULING AN OPPOSITION CLUB

[Johnny Member]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Are you serious Johnny? This is not meant to be derogatory but you are being either delusional or very naïve. It is only a matter of time before the AFL start to actively want to get 'rid' of another Victorian team. It was not that long ago that they wanted North to go to the Gold Coast. Ten teams will never survive in Victoria. They have 2 teams in WA with waiting lists to join up as members. The same in SA and they eventually want a team in Tassie. Don't forget what happened to South Melbourne and Fitzroy. I don't believe anything will happen while Gil is in charge but when the next regime comes in my belief is that they will want 2 fewer teams in Victoria to be replaced by 1 in WA and 1 in SA. At this point in time St Kilda is the most vulnerable unfortunately. We really do need to win a premiership in the next 5 years and to also bed down NZ and play at the very least 2 home games per year.

I don't agree.


The amount of teams, and their location is dictated not by how much money the club itself makes, but on how much money they generate for the AFL.

If a pop-up team in WA results in more viewers and customers than a 100 year old club with 80000+ odd supporters - then I'd be surprised.

If a pop-up team in SA generates enough new customers to the AFL product than they'd lose by shutting the doors on a club like St Kilda - then they'd do it.

But it wouldn't, so they won't.

[citywest]

I think your very naïve Johnny. Go ask South Melbourne and Fitzroy supporters. While you're at it, you may as well ask North supporters as well as they are more recent.

[citywest]

Think about this for a moment. Lets have a look at our fellow strugglers. Bulldogs won the flag so their membership will skyrocket. They are also about to start playing 3 games per year in Ballarat. Melbourne are playing 2 games per year in Darwin. North are playing 3 games per year in Tassie. Also, all 3 of them already are ahead of us in membership numbers. Not to mention we have the highest debt of all 3 of them. Where is our extra income going to come from if we don't play in NZ? How are we going to eradicate our debt? Do you really believe the AFL will just keep handing us more and more money if we keep making more and more losses?

[saintspremiers]

I think your very naïve Johnny. Go ask South Melbourne and Fitzroy supporters. While you're at it, you may as well ask North supporters as well as they are more recent.

Helen, I have to LOL at you calling people naive.

Anyway, Nexxus you don't seem to understand that the South & Fitzroy failures were in different eras to now.

Ever heard of TV rights?

[Linton Lodger]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Are you serious Johnny? This is not meant to be derogatory but you are being either delusional or very naïve. It is only a matter of time before the AFL start to actively want to get 'rid' of another Victorian team. It was not that long ago that they wanted North to go to the Gold Coast. Ten teams will never survive in Victoria. They have 2 teams in WA with waiting lists to join up as members. The same in SA and they eventually want a team in Tassie. Don't forget what happened to South Melbourne and Fitzroy. I don't believe anything will happen while Gil is in charge but when the next regime comes in my belief is that they will want 2 fewer teams in Victoria to be replaced by 1 in WA and 1 in SA. At this point in time St Kilda is the most vulnerable unfortunately. We really do need to win a premiership in the next 5 years and to also bed down NZ and play at the very least 2 home games per year.

For once I can say that you may be right, I don't believe there will be ten teams in Victoia long term. However, there will not be additional teams in WA or SA. Two teams is the mark in those states and additional teams wouldn't be viable. There will definitely be no extra teams in QLD or NSW - in fact despite the AFL's best efforts, there are still no guarantees that Gold Coast or GWS will survive.

Tasmania will surely get a team one day and I believe that may occur with the relocation of a Victorian team. This is why I'm glad we ditched Tasmania and why we should never play home games interstate or overseas. So the NZ experiment should be dumped forever. We must maintain our roots Melbourne and never budge.

[citywest]

I don't know why people still care about this off-field stuff.


The AFL is structured in a way where the bucks go to the AFL, whom then distribute it to allow the 18 clubs to function. Cause without the 18 functioning, the AFL would not generate the bucks.


What does it matter if one club, or all 18 make losses?

As long as the head entity (the AFL) are bringing in millions each year, the system is working.



It's like looking at your household budget, and saying 'hmmmm, I lost $1000 in petrol last year' - without considering that that $1000 loss allowed you to get to work and make $100000.

Are you serious Johnny? This is not meant to be derogatory but you are being either delusional or very naïve. It is only a matter of time before the AFL start to actively want to get 'rid' of another Victorian team. It was not that long ago that they wanted North to go to the Gold Coast. Ten teams will never survive in Victoria. They have 2 teams in WA with waiting lists to join up as members. The same in SA and they eventually want a team in Tassie. Don't forget what happened to South Melbourne and Fitzroy. I don't believe anything will happen while Gil is in charge but when the next regime comes in my belief is that they will want 2 fewer teams in Victoria to be replaced by 1 in WA and 1 in SA. At this point in time St Kilda is the most vulnerable unfortunately. We really do need to win a premiership in the next 5 years and to also bed down NZ and play at the very least 2 home games per year.

For once I can say that you may be right, I don't believe there will be ten teams in Victoia long term. However, there will not be additional teams in WA or SA. Two teams is the mark in those states and additional teams wouldn't be viable. There will definitely be no extra teams in QLD or NSW - in fact despite the AFL's best efforts, there are still no guarantees that Gold Coast or GWS will survive.

Tasmania will surely get a team one day and I believe that may occur with the relocation of a Victorian team. This is why I'm glad we ditched Tasmania and why we should never play home games interstate or overseas. So the NZ experiment should be dumped forever. We must maintain our roots Melbourne and never budge.

Thanks for the reply Linton Lodger. You only need to look at Hawthorn's model with Tassie to realize how good NZ can be for us. They play 4 games a year in Tassie and their members get reciprocal members rights to 4 away games in Melbourne. They have made many millions of dollars in profits from the venture and at the same time have won 4 premierships. Now I'm not saying NZ will be as profitable as Tassie, but will be well worth it and quite possibly our only way to secure our long term future in the AFL.

My ideal scenario, (once Wellington is upgraded to AFL standard), is to play 2 home games there every year and 1 NAB cup game per year. Nab cup game will be in Feb, first home game will be on ANZAC day and the second home game would be late July. This would also entice Saints fans who are skiers to go over as well. Offer NZ'ers a membership which includes digital subscription to all of our games in Australia, plus of course entry to the 3 games in NZ. This is how we can grow our club and increase membership. I see no reason why within 10 years why we wouldn't have 10,000 kiwi based members. The other benefit would be any kiwis that migrate over to Australia would automatically barrack for St Kilda. This is my view and hopefully St Kilda's view.