The NRL TV Deal - Predictions page

[Raiderdave]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

[Xman]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Which is bull. The AFL receive a lot of this revenue in the form of gate receipts and memberships, which is then distributed back the the clubs as grants to offset any clubs that are struggling to contain costs.

AFL clubs are way richer than NRL clubs on average, and their football department spending shows it

[AFLcrap1]

NOT BULL XMAN.
RD was right.




THE AFL is providing $34 million of bank guarantees on behalf of its clubs, in some cases to enable cash-stricken operations to pay their bills and convince auditors they remain commercially viable.

As Australia’s richest football competition prepares to enter fresh negotiations on what it hopes will be another $1 billion broadcast rights deal, its underclass of working-poor clubs are increasingly reliant on the goodwill of the AFL and banks to survive.

An examination of club finances by The Australian has found the AFL club in the most dire financial position is Brisbane, which remains technically insolvent with a deficiency in net assets of $4.7m and a deficiency in current assets of $12.8m.

The club is bleeding cash, with last year’s cash profit of nearly $400,000 a quirk of accounting masking a true loss of $538,872. The club’s 2013 season balance sheet prompted a stern warning from KPMG auditor Scott Guse, who said there was a “material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

To secure an $8 million bill facility, the club relied on an AFL guarantee and presented Westpac with a separate letter of support from the league setting out “a range of financial assistance packages that can be used to assist the company to meet its obligations if necessary”. St Kilda relied on an AFL guarantee to extend its commercial bill facility from $4.75m to $6.75 million. The Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Melbourne, who all failed to make last year’s finals series, also depend on AFL-guaranteed credit.

Carlton and Richmond continue to operate with AFL-backed credit facilities, although both clubs are steadily reducing the amount they owe and ended the last trading year with healthy cash surpluses.

Even one of the competition’s most powerful clubs, Essendon, finds itself drained of cash after having to fork out nearly $4m to cover fines and legal expenses from the supplements scandal and a further estimated $1m to pay suspended coach James Hird his entire 2014 salary in advance.

Essendon president Paul Little said the club always expected to end last season depleted of cash reserves after investing heavily in the club’s new training centre. However, he said the club had forecast a trading profit this season and expected to be debt-free in three years.

The AFL guarantees enable clubs to secure a line of credit at a cheaper interest rate than banks would otherwise offer, if at all, to businesses facing similar financial difficulties.

Last year’s figure of $34m has risen from total guarantees worth a little over $30m in 2012.

St Kilda president Peter Summers said an additional $2m in AFL-guaranteed credit secured since the end of the 2013 season was be used as working capital. Put another way, the extended credit is being used to keep the lights on.

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon said the problem confronting the competition’s perennially cash-strapped clubs was simple. “We don’t make enough money at the moment,” he said. “We have to address that.”

Summers, whose club recorded the lowest revenue figure in the competition last year, said the club had not spent itself into trouble.

“We are not a high-spending club,” he said. “This is about increasing our revenue.”

The Saints are off to a shaky start, with the club last week confirming a 10 per cent drop-off in membership from this time last year. Summers told members at the club’s annual general meeting last Friday that it was “complete nonsense” to suggest smaller clubs were poorly managed.

Although the AFL’s salary cap and draft has helped keep the national competition even, a growing mountain of cash separates the rich clubs from the poor.

Where the Saints failed to earn $30m last year, Collingwood declared revenues in excess of $75m. Collingwood ended last season with $21m cash on hand, the Saints were left with $80,418. The Bulldogs’ cash balance was boosted by a $1m, interest-free loan from Gordon.

Collingwood last year spent $6.3m managing its swollen membership base - more than the Bulldogs earned from theirs.

The Bulldogs’ 2013 accounts lodged with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission carry an auditor’s warning citing “significant uncertainty” about club continuing as a going concern. The directors of the St Kilda, Melbourne and North Melbourne also address going concern issues in their financial statements.

Gordon, a founding partner of legal firm Slater & Gordon who now runs Gordon Legal, and Summers, chief executive of property group AVJennings, are optimistic about this season.

Summers said the Saints had budgeted for an operating surplus for 2014 and would soon unveil a five-year plan to build a sustainable revenue base. Gordon said in contrast to his previous time as Bulldogs president 25 years ago, when a less paternalistic AFL was prepared to see the Dogs go broke, he no longer felt like the sword of Damocles was hanging over the club.

However, both are pushing for substantial reform to how the proceeds of football are shared.

Summers wants urgent action by the AFL to address the discrepancy in the financial returns clubs receive under their respective stadium deals. Gordon wants the AFL’s complex system of financial distributions scrapped and replaced by equal allocations to the clubs to cover all player payments and a set amount on other expenses. Under the Gordon model, the rich clubs would be free to spend more on their football operations but the poorer clubs would have guaranteed, long-term revenue and no longer be year-to-year propositions.

“Had the AFL introduced the sort of revenue sharing which the NFL has and Major League Baseball did and the NBA did 10 years ago, it is likely that our balance sheets and a lot of other balance sheets would be a lot healthier now,” Gordon said.

A chartered accountant with a leading insolvency specialist examined Brisbane’s financials and provided a bleak assessment of the club’s outlook.

“They are currently loss making, are churning through their available cash reserves, and have a significant current asset deficiency,” the accountant said. “They also have significant levels of debt. The letter of support from the AFL is obviously critical to the operations of the business in its current form.”

Representatives from the Brisbane Lions did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... 6822011769#

[Xman]

NOT BULL XMAN.
RD was right.




THE AFL is providing $34 million of bank guarantees on behalf of its clubs, in some cases to enable cash-stricken operations to pay their bills and convince auditors they remain commercially viable.

As Australia’s richest football competition prepares to enter fresh negotiations on what it hopes will be another $1 billion broadcast rights deal, its underclass of working-poor clubs are increasingly reliant on the goodwill of the AFL and banks to survive.

An examination of club finances by The Australian has found the AFL club in the most dire financial position is Brisbane, which remains technically insolvent with a deficiency in net assets of $4.7m and a deficiency in current assets of $12.8m.

The club is bleeding cash, with last year’s cash profit of nearly $400,000 a quirk of accounting masking a true loss of $538,872. The club’s 2013 season balance sheet prompted a stern warning from KPMG auditor Scott Guse, who said there was a “material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

To secure an $8 million bill facility, the club relied on an AFL guarantee and presented Westpac with a separate letter of support from the league setting out “a range of financial assistance packages that can be used to assist the company to meet its obligations if necessary”. St Kilda relied on an AFL guarantee to extend its commercial bill facility from $4.75m to $6.75 million. The Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Melbourne, who all failed to make last year’s finals series, also depend on AFL-guaranteed credit.

Carlton and Richmond continue to operate with AFL-backed credit facilities, although both clubs are steadily reducing the amount they owe and ended the last trading year with healthy cash surpluses.

Even one of the competition’s most powerful clubs, Essendon, finds itself drained of cash after having to fork out nearly $4m to cover fines and legal expenses from the supplements scandal and a further estimated $1m to pay suspended coach James Hird his entire 2014 salary in advance.

Essendon president Paul Little said the club always expected to end last season depleted of cash reserves after investing heavily in the club’s new training centre. However, he said the club had forecast a trading profit this season and expected to be debt-free in three years.

The AFL guarantees enable clubs to secure a line of credit at a cheaper interest rate than banks would otherwise offer, if at all, to businesses facing similar financial difficulties.

Last year’s figure of $34m has risen from total guarantees worth a little over $30m in 2012.

St Kilda president Peter Summers said an additional $2m in AFL-guaranteed credit secured since the end of the 2013 season was be used as working capital. Put another way, the extended credit is being used to keep the lights on.

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon said the problem confronting the competition’s perennially cash-strapped clubs was simple. “We don’t make enough money at the moment,” he said. “We have to address that.”

Summers, whose club recorded the lowest revenue figure in the competition last year, said the club had not spent itself into trouble.

“We are not a high-spending club,” he said. “This is about increasing our revenue.”

The Saints are off to a shaky start, with the club last week confirming a 10 per cent drop-off in membership from this time last year. Summers told members at the club’s annual general meeting last Friday that it was “complete nonsense” to suggest smaller clubs were poorly managed.

Although the AFL’s salary cap and draft has helped keep the national competition even, a growing mountain of cash separates the rich clubs from the poor.

Where the Saints failed to earn $30m last year, Collingwood declared revenues in excess of $75m. Collingwood ended last season with $21m cash on hand, the Saints were left with $80,418. The Bulldogs’ cash balance was boosted by a $1m, interest-free loan from Gordon.

Collingwood last year spent $6.3m managing its swollen membership base - more than the Bulldogs earned from theirs.

The Bulldogs’ 2013 accounts lodged with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission carry an auditor’s warning citing “significant uncertainty” about club continuing as a going concern. The directors of the St Kilda, Melbourne and North Melbourne also address going concern issues in their financial statements.

Gordon, a founding partner of legal firm Slater & Gordon who now runs Gordon Legal, and Summers, chief executive of property group AVJennings, are optimistic about this season.

Summers said the Saints had budgeted for an operating surplus for 2014 and would soon unveil a five-year plan to build a sustainable revenue base. Gordon said in contrast to his previous time as Bulldogs president 25 years ago, when a less paternalistic AFL was prepared to see the Dogs go broke, he no longer felt like the sword of Damocles was hanging over the club.

However, both are pushing for substantial reform to how the proceeds of football are shared.

Summers wants urgent action by the AFL to address the discrepancy in the financial returns clubs receive under their respective stadium deals. Gordon wants the AFL’s complex system of financial distributions scrapped and replaced by equal allocations to the clubs to cover all player payments and a set amount on other expenses. Under the Gordon model, the rich clubs would be free to spend more on their football operations but the poorer clubs would have guaranteed, long-term revenue and no longer be year-to-year propositions.

“Had the AFL introduced the sort of revenue sharing which the NFL has and Major League Baseball did and the NBA did 10 years ago, it is likely that our balance sheets and a lot of other balance sheets would be a lot healthier now,” Gordon said.

A chartered accountant with a leading insolvency specialist examined Brisbane’s financials and provided a bleak assessment of the club’s outlook.

“They are currently loss making, are churning through their available cash reserves, and have a significant current asset deficiency,” the accountant said. “They also have significant levels of debt. The letter of support from the AFL is obviously critical to the operations of the business in its current form.”

Representatives from the Brisbane Lions did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... 6822011769#

34 million divided by 18 clubs is less than 2 million per club. Given the average AFL club has a revenue of around 40m per year you think this is an issue?

Essendon is discussed in that article as if theyre in financial trouble. How laughable

[NRLCrap1]

The Australian is not really reliable when it comes down to it. This proves it.

[eelofwest]

1.2m v 1.275m

I wonder who won? >

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

There is no NZ Tv deal in there which the previous deal was 75m.

1.275b NRL16 team competition can pull that money, imagine what a 2nd Brisbane team and a Perth team will do to our next tv deal........................

1.25b AFL18 team comp and forking out bucket loads to expand,

NRL will fish were the Fish already are thus making our expansion plans less costly.

Its over folks................

[NRLCrap1]

No you should be fishing in other markets to expand, otherwise you'll soak the market right into the ground in your heartland.

Forget the second Brisbane team. Yeah go Perth, and also Adelaide.

If you lot have the courage to actually do something with your game!!

[Xman]

1.2m v 1.275m

I wonder who won? >

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

There is no NZ Tv deal in there which the previous deal was 75m.

1.275b NRL16 team competition can pull that money, imagine what a 2nd Brisbane team and a Perth team will do to our next tv deal........................

1.25b AFL18 team comp and forking out bucket loads to expand,

NRL will fish were the Fish already are thus making our expansion plans less costly.

Its over folks................

If the NRL wish to expand beyond NSW and QLD they'll also need big money. They certainly wont command big money existing in only 2 markets, and they are miles behind in any expansion into the other 4 states

[Beaussie]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Half for us according to you.

Meanwhile 14 of your 16 NRL clubs are not financially self-sufficient.

Only two clubs – the Brisbane Broncos and North Queensland Cowboys – can claim to be financially self-sufficient from footballing revenues – sponsorship, merchandise, gate receipts and the NRL grant. The other 14 clubs all require regular cash injections from between $1 million and $5 million from supporting leagues clubs or generous backers just to break even. This is not sustainable in the long run.

In recent years Newcastle, Wests Tigers, Souths, Penrith, Cronulla, Gold Coast and Melbourne have faced financial difficulties that threatened their existence. On each occasion new funds, a revamped ownership structure or, in Penrith's case, an administrative structure, were put in place to secure survival. The same vulnerable environment exists with virtually all clubs except the Broncos, undercapitalised as standalone entities. This means most football clubs are not financially robust enough to sustain any significant setback.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2uKWx6k5N

[eelofwest]

1.2m v 1.275m

I wonder who won? >

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

There is no NZ Tv deal in there which the previous deal was 75m.

1.275b NRL16 team competition can pull that money, imagine what a 2nd Brisbane team and a Perth team will do to our next tv deal........................

1.25b AFL18 team comp and forking out bucket loads to expand,

NRL will fish were the Fish already are thus making our expansion plans less costly.

Its over folks................

If the NRL wish to expand beyond NSW and QLD they'll also need big money. They certainly wont command big money existing in only 2 markets, and they are miles behind in any expansion into the other 4 states

Those 2 (NSW, QLD) markets make up 56% of the population and also make up the largest advertising market in Aus.

You dont get it do you, NRL fish were the fish are, Perth, Brisbane 2, NZ 2.......................................AFL are fishing were there is no fish or very phew, that is why you gimps need a truck load of cash for expansion.

The NRL will not waste the sort of money the AFL has in the last 5 years.

Tell me what happens when NRL expands to Bris 2, Perth, NZ 2......................................Its all over folks............

[adamj1300]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

most AFL clubs around raise 40 odd million plus before the need for pokes, acording to the reports most of the AFL clubs produce

most NRL clubs cant, raise penuts, it is hard to get a full idea on most of the clubs due to not putting out manual financial reports, but going by your little shitty canberra assraiders, according to their financial report
raised 26,064,929 in total revenue for 2013
18,637,576 came out of the their governing bodies pokie clubs
8,062,476 sales, eg membership, merchandise etc

match this with the rest of the NRL teams, low crowds, low memberships low sponsorship,
the whole comp is in receivership if it wasn't for pokes there would be no NRL comp

let the poke reform happen

[adamj1300]

NOT BULL XMAN.
RD was right.




THE AFL is providing $34 million of bank guarantees on behalf of its clubs, in some cases to enable cash-stricken operations to pay their bills and convince auditors they remain commercially viable.

As Australia’s richest football competition prepares to enter fresh negotiations on what it hopes will be another $1 billion broadcast rights deal, its underclass of working-poor clubs are increasingly reliant on the goodwill of the AFL and banks to survive.

An examination of club finances by The Australian has found the AFL club in the most dire financial position is Brisbane, which remains technically insolvent with a deficiency in net assets of $4.7m and a deficiency in current assets of $12.8m.

The club is bleeding cash, with last year’s cash profit of nearly $400,000 a quirk of accounting masking a true loss of $538,872. The club’s 2013 season balance sheet prompted a stern warning from KPMG auditor Scott Guse, who said there was a “material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

To secure an $8 million bill facility, the club relied on an AFL guarantee and presented Westpac with a separate letter of support from the league setting out “a range of financial assistance packages that can be used to assist the company to meet its obligations if necessary”. St Kilda relied on an AFL guarantee to extend its commercial bill facility from $4.75m to $6.75 million. The Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Melbourne, who all failed to make last year’s finals series, also depend on AFL-guaranteed credit.

Carlton and Richmond continue to operate with AFL-backed credit facilities, although both clubs are steadily reducing the amount they owe and ended the last trading year with healthy cash surpluses.

Even one of the competition’s most powerful clubs, Essendon, finds itself drained of cash after having to fork out nearly $4m to cover fines and legal expenses from the supplements scandal and a further estimated $1m to pay suspended coach James Hird his entire 2014 salary in advance.

Essendon president Paul Little said the club always expected to end last season depleted of cash reserves after investing heavily in the club’s new training centre. However, he said the club had forecast a trading profit this season and expected to be debt-free in three years.

The AFL guarantees enable clubs to secure a line of credit at a cheaper interest rate than banks would otherwise offer, if at all, to businesses facing similar financial difficulties.

Last year’s figure of $34m has risen from total guarantees worth a little over $30m in 2012.

St Kilda president Peter Summers said an additional $2m in AFL-guaranteed credit secured since the end of the 2013 season was be used as working capital. Put another way, the extended credit is being used to keep the lights on.

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon said the problem confronting the competition’s perennially cash-strapped clubs was simple. “We don’t make enough money at the moment,” he said. “We have to address that.”

Summers, whose club recorded the lowest revenue figure in the competition last year, said the club had not spent itself into trouble.

“We are not a high-spending club,” he said. “This is about increasing our revenue.”

The Saints are off to a shaky start, with the club last week confirming a 10 per cent drop-off in membership from this time last year. Summers told members at the club’s annual general meeting last Friday that it was “complete nonsense” to suggest smaller clubs were poorly managed.

Although the AFL’s salary cap and draft has helped keep the national competition even, a growing mountain of cash separates the rich clubs from the poor.

Where the Saints failed to earn $30m last year, Collingwood declared revenues in excess of $75m. Collingwood ended last season with $21m cash on hand, the Saints were left with $80,418. The Bulldogs’ cash balance was boosted by a $1m, interest-free loan from Gordon.

Collingwood last year spent $6.3m managing its swollen membership base - more than the Bulldogs earned from theirs.

The Bulldogs’ 2013 accounts lodged with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission carry an auditor’s warning citing “significant uncertainty” about club continuing as a going concern. The directors of the St Kilda, Melbourne and North Melbourne also address going concern issues in their financial statements.

Gordon, a founding partner of legal firm Slater & Gordon who now runs Gordon Legal, and Summers, chief executive of property group AVJennings, are optimistic about this season.

Summers said the Saints had budgeted for an operating surplus for 2014 and would soon unveil a five-year plan to build a sustainable revenue base. Gordon said in contrast to his previous time as Bulldogs president 25 years ago, when a less paternalistic AFL was prepared to see the Dogs go broke, he no longer felt like the sword of Damocles was hanging over the club.

However, both are pushing for substantial reform to how the proceeds of football are shared.

Summers wants urgent action by the AFL to address the discrepancy in the financial returns clubs receive under their respective stadium deals. Gordon wants the AFL’s complex system of financial distributions scrapped and replaced by equal allocations to the clubs to cover all player payments and a set amount on other expenses. Under the Gordon model, the rich clubs would be free to spend more on their football operations but the poorer clubs would have guaranteed, long-term revenue and no longer be year-to-year propositions.

“Had the AFL introduced the sort of revenue sharing which the NFL has and Major League Baseball did and the NBA did 10 years ago, it is likely that our balance sheets and a lot of other balance sheets would be a lot healthier now,” Gordon said.

A chartered accountant with a leading insolvency specialist examined Brisbane’s financials and provided a bleak assessment of the club’s outlook.

“They are currently loss making, are churning through their available cash reserves, and have a significant current asset deficiency,” the accountant said. “They also have significant levels of debt. The letter of support from the AFL is obviously critical to the operations of the business in its current form.”

Representatives from the Brisbane Lions did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... 6822011769#

AFLcrap, seeing you have plenty of time to troll AFL sites, have a search on google for some NRL clubs financial reports & read them. not the leagues clubs the rugby clubs, most cant make a cent!

[Raiderdave]

NOT BULL XMAN.
RD was right.




THE AFL is providing $34 million of bank guarantees on behalf of its clubs, in some cases to enable cash-stricken operations to pay their bills and convince auditors they remain commercially viable.

As Australia’s richest football competition prepares to enter fresh negotiations on what it hopes will be another $1 billion broadcast rights deal, its underclass of working-poor clubs are increasingly reliant on the goodwill of the AFL and banks to survive.

An examination of club finances by The Australian has found the AFL club in the most dire financial position is Brisbane, which remains technically insolvent with a deficiency in net assets of $4.7m and a deficiency in current assets of $12.8m.

The club is bleeding cash, with last year’s cash profit of nearly $400,000 a quirk of accounting masking a true loss of $538,872. The club’s 2013 season balance sheet prompted a stern warning from KPMG auditor Scott Guse, who said there was a “material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern”.

To secure an $8 million bill facility, the club relied on an AFL guarantee and presented Westpac with a separate letter of support from the league setting out “a range of financial assistance packages that can be used to assist the company to meet its obligations if necessary”. St Kilda relied on an AFL guarantee to extend its commercial bill facility from $4.75m to $6.75 million. The Western Bulldogs, North Melbourne and Melbourne, who all failed to make last year’s finals series, also depend on AFL-guaranteed credit.

Carlton and Richmond continue to operate with AFL-backed credit facilities, although both clubs are steadily reducing the amount they owe and ended the last trading year with healthy cash surpluses.

Even one of the competition’s most powerful clubs, Essendon, finds itself drained of cash after having to fork out nearly $4m to cover fines and legal expenses from the supplements scandal and a further estimated $1m to pay suspended coach James Hird his entire 2014 salary in advance.

Essendon president Paul Little said the club always expected to end last season depleted of cash reserves after investing heavily in the club’s new training centre. However, he said the club had forecast a trading profit this season and expected to be debt-free in three years.

The AFL guarantees enable clubs to secure a line of credit at a cheaper interest rate than banks would otherwise offer, if at all, to businesses facing similar financial difficulties.

Last year’s figure of $34m has risen from total guarantees worth a little over $30m in 2012.

St Kilda president Peter Summers said an additional $2m in AFL-guaranteed credit secured since the end of the 2013 season was be used as working capital. Put another way, the extended credit is being used to keep the lights on.

Bulldogs president Peter Gordon said the problem confronting the competition’s perennially cash-strapped clubs was simple. “We don’t make enough money at the moment,” he said. “We have to address that.”

Summers, whose club recorded the lowest revenue figure in the competition last year, said the club had not spent itself into trouble.

“We are not a high-spending club,” he said. “This is about increasing our revenue.”

The Saints are off to a shaky start, with the club last week confirming a 10 per cent drop-off in membership from this time last year. Summers told members at the club’s annual general meeting last Friday that it was “complete nonsense” to suggest smaller clubs were poorly managed.

Although the AFL’s salary cap and draft has helped keep the national competition even, a growing mountain of cash separates the rich clubs from the poor.

Where the Saints failed to earn $30m last year, Collingwood declared revenues in excess of $75m. Collingwood ended last season with $21m cash on hand, the Saints were left with $80,418. The Bulldogs’ cash balance was boosted by a $1m, interest-free loan from Gordon.

Collingwood last year spent $6.3m managing its swollen membership base - more than the Bulldogs earned from theirs.

The Bulldogs’ 2013 accounts lodged with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission carry an auditor’s warning citing “significant uncertainty” about club continuing as a going concern. The directors of the St Kilda, Melbourne and North Melbourne also address going concern issues in their financial statements.

Gordon, a founding partner of legal firm Slater & Gordon who now runs Gordon Legal, and Summers, chief executive of property group AVJennings, are optimistic about this season.

Summers said the Saints had budgeted for an operating surplus for 2014 and would soon unveil a five-year plan to build a sustainable revenue base. Gordon said in contrast to his previous time as Bulldogs president 25 years ago, when a less paternalistic AFL was prepared to see the Dogs go broke, he no longer felt like the sword of Damocles was hanging over the club.

However, both are pushing for substantial reform to how the proceeds of football are shared.

Summers wants urgent action by the AFL to address the discrepancy in the financial returns clubs receive under their respective stadium deals. Gordon wants the AFL’s complex system of financial distributions scrapped and replaced by equal allocations to the clubs to cover all player payments and a set amount on other expenses. Under the Gordon model, the rich clubs would be free to spend more on their football operations but the poorer clubs would have guaranteed, long-term revenue and no longer be year-to-year propositions.

“Had the AFL introduced the sort of revenue sharing which the NFL has and Major League Baseball did and the NBA did 10 years ago, it is likely that our balance sheets and a lot of other balance sheets would be a lot healthier now,” Gordon said.

A chartered accountant with a leading insolvency specialist examined Brisbane’s financials and provided a bleak assessment of the club’s outlook.

“They are currently loss making, are churning through their available cash reserves, and have a significant current asset deficiency,” the accountant said. “They also have significant levels of debt. The letter of support from the AFL is obviously critical to the operations of the business in its current form.”

Representatives from the Brisbane Lions did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/a ... 6822011769#

34 million divided by 18 clubs is less than 2 million per club. Given the average AFL club has a revenue of around 40m per year you think this is an issue?

Essendon is discussed in that article as if theyre in financial trouble. How laughable

but but but

but but but

but but

remove your head from your arse for just a second & join us in reality dickhead
9 VFL clubs are essentially running on fumes
teetering on the edge

your codes governing body is being sucked dry by them


the NRL simply doesn't have these issues

[Raiderdave]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

Half for us according to you.

Meanwhile 14 of your 16 NRL clubs are not financially self-sufficient.

Only two clubs – the Brisbane Broncos and North Queensland Cowboys – can claim to be financially self-sufficient from footballing revenues – sponsorship, merchandise, gate receipts and the NRL grant. The other 14 clubs all require regular cash injections from between $1 million and $5 million from supporting leagues clubs or generous backers just to break even. This is not sustainable in the long run.

In recent years Newcastle, Wests Tigers, Souths, Penrith, Cronulla, Gold Coast and Melbourne have faced financial difficulties that threatened their existence. On each occasion new funds, a revamped ownership structure or, in Penrith's case, an administrative structure, were put in place to secure survival. The same vulnerable environment exists with virtually all clubs except the Broncos, undercapitalised as standalone entities. This means most football clubs are not financially robust enough to sustain any significant setback.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... z2uKWx6k5N

:_<> :_<>
wow
Bearsy the bitch king of welching & irrelevant articles
an article quoting figures from a few years back prior to grant increases of 3 million per club per year from the NRL
almost everyone of those NRL clubs would be in the black last year with that sort of financial boost

are they flush with cash

no

are they failing as badly as many vfl clubs






no

[adamj1300]

Add to that the AFLs revenue from memberships, sponsorships and gate receipts is far higher.

& yet half your comps clubs are in technical receivership >

:_<> :_<> :_<> :_<>

most AFL clubs around raise 40 odd million plus before the need for pokes, acording to the reports most of the AFL clubs produce

most NRL clubs cant, raise penuts, it is hard to get a full idea on most of the clubs due to not putting out manual financial reports, but going by your little shitty canberra assraiders, according to their financial report
raised 26,064,929 in total revenue for 2013
18,637,576 came out of the their governing bodies pokie clubs
8,062,476 sales, eg membership, merchandise etc

match this with the rest of the NRL teams, low crowds, low memberships low sponsorship,
the whole comp is in receivership if it wasn't for pokes there would be no NRL comp

let the poke reform happen

no reply about your little, pissy raiders, failure dave?