Swans record a small profit

[blinddog]

From what I read a while ago (don't remember where) a club gets $250k for a final appearence from the AFL - but the AFL also take the ticket sales (not the club)

[Roscoe]

No doubt our revenue will increase in 2006 with our new jersey sponsorships and the anticipated membership increase from our premiership bandwaggon

We also must offset that against cost increases as well

As a beancounter myself I agree with a lot of the other comments
on previous posts such as different accounting methods and also making comparisons with other clubs

I know the finance director Andrew McMaster well and have full faith and confidence in him and the other board members, plus
Ireland and CEO Myles BH

[airpoe]

The swans got $250k for winning the premiership was this included or not?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by airpoe
The swans got $250k for winning the premiership was this included or not?

Isn't that amount of prize money ridiculous. If this is the premier sporting code in the country the prize money should be way more than that. Geez, you can win a million for answering 15 questions on a quiz show or living in a house with 15 strangers for 3 months!!! Something is seriously wrong with this system...I'll bet the Fat controller earns more than that as AFL CEO.

[j s]

Originally posted by goswannie14
Isn't that amount of prize money ridiculous. If this is the premier sporting code in the country the prize money should be way more than that. Geez, you can win a million for answering 15 questions on a quiz show or living in a house with 15 strangers for 3 months!!! Something is seriously wrong with this system...I'll bet the Fat controller earns more than that as AFL CEO.

The AFL gives the BIG prize money to the clubs going broke.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by j s
The AFL gives the BIG prize money to the clubs going broke.

Ain't that the truth...you get more money from the AFL because you can't manage the clubs finances than if you win the premiership

[liz]

Originally posted by DST
and whether we are willing to screw expenses down to make a decent profit.

I reckon that is as important as any other factor.

The club obviously has to be conscious of building up reserves for years when onfield results aren't so good (with some knock-on effect on revenue) but the last couple of years indicate that it is not prepared to scrimp on expenditure at the expense of football operations.

For example, I suspect that the cost of transporting the whole squad to the US for an exhibition game and a training camp isn't fully covered by sponsors of the event.

Plus the decision to carry a full rookie list of 9 for last season and this comes with a cost.

This may not be huge amounts on their own but additional expenses such as these start to add up.

When you don't have shareholders who require some form of dividend, reported profit becomes something of a meaningless figure.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by Bear
It's actually a very good result given our average financial position in mid 2005.

There is a significant lag between winning a premiership and cashing in on the benefits. 6 months minimum.

There are significant costs around winning a premiership, incuding those mentioned and very big bonuses to the likes of coaches and players for winning a premiership.

It will have an impact on the 2006 result though.

Agree with Bear - remember also that the GF was only in September - just over 3 months ago - the financial benefits wont flow through until mid this year after all memberships and sponsorship dollars have been collated. Hopefully the increases in those 2 key areas meet expectation.

However, dont be surprised (depending on how well the boys do this year) if next years financial results are slightly reversed - its swings and roundabouts.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by liz
I
The club obviously has to be conscious of building up reserves for years when onfield results aren't so good...

[but]

...When you don't have shareholders who require some form of dividend, reported profit becomes something of a meaningless figure.

Exactly

[Go Swannies]

I spoke to Barry Round about this at the Club Champion dinner. He said that it's not a given that the club will properly capitalise on the premiership - some do and some don't. But we agreed that the opportunity is here - especially this year (more than next) - and this will be the year when we see how good our administration is.

[Wardy]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
I spoke to Barry Round about this at the Club Champion dinner. He said that it's not a given that the club will properly capitalise on the premiership - some do and some don't. But we agreed that the opportunity is here - especially this year (more than next) - and this will be the year when we see how good our administration is.

Exactly!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
The club obviously has to be conscious of building up reserves for years when onfield results aren't so good (with some knock-on effect on revenue) but the last couple of years indicate that it is not prepared to scrimp on expenditure at the expense of football operations.

Definitely - there's no point making a profit if it is done in 'the corporate way' - by cutting (essential) costs.

[DST]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Definitely - there's no point making a profit if it is done in 'the corporate way' - by cutting (essential) costs.

Could not agree more, we could spend only $15 Million and make $10 Million profit and finish last every year.

But what's the point of that?

If the club can make a $250,000 profit every year and continue to steadily grow the revenue each year so that we can compete with the clubs that are spending $35 Million a year I don't have a problem with that at all.

As said previously by others, reporting profits is not the be all and end all for football clubs as some on bigfooty would lead you to beleive.

DST

[robbieando]

Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
[B]Yes, we got the $$$ for playing in some finals matches. But think back to halfway through the season when we were floating at the edge of the eight. Crowds at the SCG were low-to-mid 20s and all that comes with it . . . merchandising, other sales, etc, etc.

If that is the case and our early season form had a effect on our profit then why did our all overall revenues go up???

Fact is the reason our profit is lower this year is because our expenses also went up because of our run in the finals and cost of having extra players on our rookie list. Overall we still made a profit and thats the important factor we should be looking at and the increased revenue all good signs.

If we can keep expenses where they are for this coming season and boost further our revenues streams because of the premiership (via memberships, sponsorships and the like, which the club has already reported increases in) then we should see the benefit of the premiership at October 31 2006 rather than October 31 2005.

End of the day I'm not upset by this profit at all, I rather this than the club losing money which is a bad thing.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by DST
As said previously by others, reporting profits is not the be all and end all for football clubs as some on bigfooty would lead you to beleive.

As long as you don't report large losses on a yearly basis, because as we all know as Swans fans, after a while reporting losses will nearly end up costing you the club you support. So reporting profits are important even if its just to cover costs.