Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Sat Jul 12, 2025 5:57 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:46 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
We are told that Carlton's finances are in the toilet. Cash flow is shocking and another big loss is expected.
We are paying 105% of the TPP(with vetrans) which waould be funny if it wasnt so stupid.We have one of the highest paid coaches in AFL.

Why do we not take a breath, ask for assitance, reduce our TPP to 95% as req and try to build the club financially with less overheads.

Are we too proud?
Is there something the board isnt telling us?

Collo said in 2002 that we would ask for the $1mil if things dont improve. 3 years later, things are worse and he is spinning the same line. Whats going on?

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:00 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
Were the mighty Carlton thats why!!!!

In fact if you were running a business and not an emotion and you had the benefits of handouts..

Youd be strung up by your shareholders for not taking it and going down that road..

It would be deemed as gross negligence.

Tonight, i believe the club will make the right choices.

To cave in to Lances demands...(or he will leave) means were no better off at running a club and a culture than Jack was....

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:06 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
Synbad wrote:
To cave in to Lances demands...(or he will leave) means were no better off at running a club and a culture than Jack was....


Thats the most depressing part :cry:

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:08 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
buzzaaaah wrote:
Synbad wrote:
To cave in to Lances demands...(or he will leave) means were no better off at running a club and a culture than Jack was....


Thats the most depressing part :cry:


Right now...???? im optimistic that wont be the case....!!!

Lance has given the club till the end of this week in public.. through his manager....

I cant see the board being that silly....!!!!

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:12 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
If anyone has a good reason why we dont ask for financial assistance that is available, I would like to know.

Atm, i'm thinking I'll go to the AGM this year and ask. Even though, I'll likely get some more spin

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:14 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
They might even go up that road..

Who knows????

We cant be paying big wages and be on it....

First things first.. tonight is super important.

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:18 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:27 pm
Posts: 4129
buzzaaaah wrote:
If anyone has a good reason why we dont ask for financial assistance that is available, I would like to know.

Atm, i'm thinking I'll go to the AGM this year and ask. Even though, I'll likely get some more spin


I think your business plans have to be approved by the AFL and they interfer in your decisions if you ask for money... i.e. you loose some of your independence (AFAIK - I think there was some discussions regarding North some years ago in this regard)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:20 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:27 am
Posts: 33188
Location: In the box.
mikkey wrote:
buzzaaaah wrote:
If anyone has a good reason why we dont ask for financial assistance that is available, I would like to know.

Atm, i'm thinking I'll go to the AGM this year and ask. Even though, I'll likely get some more spin


I think your business plans have to be approved by the AFL and they interfer in your decisions if you ask for money... i.e. you loose some of your independence (AFAIK - I think there was some discussions regarding North some years ago in this regard)


True but clubs have been bending the rules ......

Independance?
What independance??

The AFl has everyone by the short and curleys...

But hey!!!!.... this way while youre bottoming our\t for a COUPLE of years.. youre not overpaying and getting paid!!!!

In three years time you say ... ummmmmmmmmmmm... lets go!!! give it the flick and continue on....

Not like we need it forever.... (i hope)

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:22 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
All they make sure is that you arent going to blow the extra money by overpaying staff, etc. If our busness plan cant stand up to scrutiny, how good could it be?

I dont think they interfere if you are spending sensibly.

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:04 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:58 pm
Posts: 300
Location: Tasmania
Hi

This has probably been posted before and I realize it's old news but I do think it is interesting to see the costs involved in running a club ( for us uninformed average supporters )

From the INJURY.COM.AU site.



Costs of fielding a professional football team

11-04-2004, 06:18 PM
Costs of fielding a professional football team Post #1


Location: Sydney Medical costs have been cited, correctly, as a major inflating cost that makes a professional sporting team very expensive to run in 2004. This article by Rod Nicholson appeared in Sunday Herald Sun (11/4):

Football is a costly business. Simply ask the people running football departments who have to look at the big picture and pay for everything from coaches and players down to the boot-studder. Then there's the things you didn't consider

EVERY game, every week, football clubs outlay amazing amounts of money to put on the best show possible.

The obvious costs are the players -- most clubs spend $6.1 million on the people who put on the show.

And, of course, there is the coaching staff, the support staff, the runners and the trainers, all visible contributors.

But there is more, much more, behind the scenes.

To the tune of almost $380,000 per game per club!

Yes, that's what it costs every week so that the club can field its best-prepared players.

That is simply the costs of the football department, and does not include considerable amounts from the finance, marketing and membership sections, or ground management, gaming and social club areas.

These areas combined with the football department take the cost of running a football club to more than $22 million a year.

Yet profits are minimal: for some an elusive dream.

As senior Carlton official Col Kinnear said: "Other companies would be out of business if they turned over so much money for so little return."

The $377,182 weekly outlay is about recruiting, accommodating, maintaining and training the players.

It involves medical costs, massages, videos, transport, footballs for training, the cost of hiring a swimming pool and a host of "behind-the-scene" costs.

Every club has video operators, statisticians, doormen and bootstudders who are hidden from public view. So, too, are the weight and physical education instructors, the dietitian, the property stewards and the scouts.

Clubs actually have more than 70 employees on their football department books, not including the 43 players. Of course, there also are the volunteers, without whose contributions the balance sheet would explode.

When Carlton won the premiership in 1987, only 45 people were on its football staff. Now the club has 74, and the costs are spiralling in proportion to the employees. In that premiership year the Blues recorded a profit of $650,806 but set aside $415,000 to cover legal costs.

Today the club is struggling. Imagine its plight as a cellar-dweller, but with increasing costs and without the bonuses associated with premierships and its membership base? Most clubs are in the same boat, desperate for membership money, sponsors and benefactors to offset the crippling costs.

However, cutting costs is a dangerous proposition, as Kinnear explains.

'YOU cannot have players worth $6 million and not have the best medical staff and facilities available to them," he said.

"The on-field performance is vital to so many other areas -- sponsorship, marketing, membership. You cannot afford to drop your guard in regard to players and the support you give them, otherwise you risk impacting poorly in all other areas."

Kinnear said rising costs were inevitable, led by the incremental increases in the salary cap.

"More than that, the cost of everything simply goes up. And the way football clubs are run these days demands extra costs," he said.

He cites the change in training hours.

In past eras the players assembled for training on Tuesday and Thursday nights. The modern regimen is for training throughout the day. This forces the employment of doctors, physios, masseurs, dietitians and property stewards during those hours.

"They are key people, and if the players are here, the key people have to be here, too," Kinnear said.

"If you can reduce the number of games players miss through injury, you automatically have your players on the ground more often and it is cost-effective.

"The players have massages, do gym work, eat nutritional meals, perhaps need medical attention and then train. It is all in a day's work, and you must have top quality specialists on hand to help."

The medical staff, plus supplies such as bandages and medicines, add more than $400,000 a season.

Kicking balls at training costs -- a massive $16,000 for the footballs. Boots add another $30,000, and playing strip more than $20,000.

Fringe costs also add up. Junior players, or an injured player, may require taxis to the ground.

Then there is laundry and dry cleaning. Towels and training gear must be kept clean.

When players and officials step out, they too must be appropriately attired.THE club logo and those of sponsors must be on clean jackets, tracksuits or travel gear. And when the players take a plunge to ease match pains and strains, some clubs must pay pool hire.

Obvious costs such as levies to support the TAC under-19s and a club's VFL associate consume more than $120,000, and the relocation costs and transfer fees for players is another sizeable outlay.

Food and drink, organised by the dietitian, must be available at all training sessions, on flights, at interstate hotels and on match day. Nutritional meals and bottled water are imperative. The bottom line is more than $30,000.

The cost of interstate travel also is considerable. While mostly supported by the AFL, a football club still must pay for extra personnel. Carlton, for example, took 23 players and 28 officials to Perth for the opening game of the season.

One of the vital ingredients in the football world these days is the use of technology. Coaches demand it, players need it. Add the statistics, and players and coaches have a mountain of information about a performance, the day's match and next week's opponents.

Video cameras, blank tapes, video operators, statisticians, televisions and databases are as much apart of football today as strapping and liniment oil.

"If we could get a sponsor for Internet technology, we would save a fortune," Kinnear said.

"And if anyone could invent re-usable tape, he would make a fortune and save clubs a fortune. People have no idea how much tape is used, and discarded, every training session and match day. And it all costs."

Because a club is a family, another expense is providing creche facilities on match day.

Then there are special functions (best and fairest awards and milestones) that are important to the club and its supporters.

Clearly the financial spiral that has engulfed the game in the national competition is a far cry from the chook-raffle days of the suburban competition.

Two decades ago, in 1976, Hawthorn won the premiership and declared a profit of $32,000 from income of $414,000.

Today the $32,000 would not pay for lunches and bottled water, and the income of $414,000 would almost evaporate paying for one football match.

The Hawks' administrative costs that year were $57,000. Today a club must find more than $8 million for similar activities.

Nobody should doubt the spiralling costs. Only seven years ago clubs had to budget for expenses of about $10 million, with player payments under the salary cap of $2.9 million.

Today they must look at more than $22 million with a salary cap of $6.12 million.

Club members will know all about it. Clubs spend more than $100,000 on postage and another $100,000 on phones.

Fines and legal fees also add to the football club balance sheet.

So while you cheer your favourite players and instantly recognise your coach and his support staff, consider the hidden costs that are necessary to put your team on the paddock. And then hope they are worth it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:14 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm
Posts: 63509
Synbad wrote:
In fact if you were running a business and not an emotion and you had the benefits of handouts..

Youd be strung up by your shareholders for not taking it and going down that road..

It would be deemed as gross negligence.


You mean like Telstra is doing? :wink: :garthp:

_________________
And so while others miserably pledge themselves to the pursuit of ambition and brief power, I will be stretched out in the shade, singing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:20 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman

Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:48 am
Posts: 2891
So let me get this straight ... we're paying guys $500k a season AND paying for their laundry AND buying them footy boots .... this is all the AFLPA's fault I bet:

Clause 15.12.1.3 of the stardard players contract "all players uniforms must be washed with Huggies twice in between training sessions to pevent players from developing debilatating skin disorders"

How could you possibly spend $16,000 dollars on footballs per year? Even at $100 a pop they don't need 4 each, and they last for more than 1 season even if you train 3 times a week for half a year. What are they doing kicking them into the crowd at the end of every warm up or something?

No wonder this club is in financial poo. They got by on those skinny margins in the 80s cause they used common sense and didn't treat their players like a bunch of prima donnas. Who cares if they train in stinky clothes for christ sake - every amateur in the land does it. I really doubt it would effect Judd's foot skills ...

Madness :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:52 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am
Posts: 18076
My understanding of the CBF is to compensate clubs who are disadvantaged by factors outside their control.
ie. sustained poor membership, draw disadvantages, lack of FTA coverage.
Poor management and the inability to pay AFL sanctioned fines would not qualify.

I wouldnt guarantee we would pass the heavily scrutinised criteria Demetriou would vigorously apply.
I'd prefer to dip into my own pocket than beg those flower for money.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:27 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:59 am
Posts: 1971
The AFL have gone quiet for a while on their support of the sixteen teams, wouldn't be surprised if mergers came back on the agenda, accepting any money from the CBF would put us in the position where we may be a prime candidate for acccepting a merger. The AFL have a lot of power with fixturing and free to air television coverage.

The next twenty years is all about a second team in the west of Sydney and a team on the Gold Coast, I think SA could easily support a third team as well. Might sound pie in the sky, but does anyway actually believe the most successful code in the nation has a business plan with 62% of their product is in the Melbourne market?

Relocation and mergers of Melbourne teams will come back on the agenda within five years, Kevin Sheedy isn't optimistic with the future success of Victorian clubs, his will be a growing sentiment in Victorian AFL circles.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:29 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am
Posts: 17893
79Vintage wrote:
The AFL have gone quiet for a while on their support of the sixteen teams, wouldn't be surprised if mergers came back on the agenda, accepting any money from the CBF would put us in the position where we may be a prime candidate for acccepting a merger. The AFL have a lot of power with fixturing and free to air television coverage.


I would think the opposite is true.
Refusing to accept the CBF as a necessity means we will still be in a vulnerable position when talk of mergers/relocations starts.
Accept the help now and if you have a good plan/strategy, you will come out a strong club rather then one that is getting by, ala Richmond/St Kilda

_________________
T E A M


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:43 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
79Vintage wrote:
The AFL have gone quiet for a while on their support of the sixteen teams, wouldn't be surprised if mergers came back on the agenda, accepting any money from the CBF would put us in the position where we may be a prime candidate for acccepting a merger. The AFL have a lot of power with fixturing and free to air television coverage.


The AFL's position on a 16 team competition will be much clearer when the next TV deal is finalised I reckon.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:49 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:34 am
Posts: 8888
Location: 8888
I'm up for the Blues relocating to Cairns :-D

The only reason I'm not there already is the love for my footy club, need to be close to them. :cry:

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:07 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:59 am
Posts: 1971
buzzaaaah wrote:
79Vintage wrote:
The AFL have gone quiet for a while on their support of the sixteen teams, wouldn't be surprised if mergers came back on the agenda, accepting any money from the CBF would put us in the position where we may be a prime candidate for acccepting a merger. The AFL have a lot of power with fixturing and free to air television coverage.


I would think the opposite is true.
Refusing to accept the CBF as a necessity means we will still be in a vulnerable position when talk of mergers/relocations starts.
Accept the help now and if you have a good plan/strategy, you will come out a strong club rather then one that is getting by, ala Richmond/St Kilda


Not accepting CBF money doesn't mean we'll not be in strong financial position in five years time. Collins and Malouf can come up with an as effective business plan as the one where the club's business plans are influenced by the AFL, without the AFL restrictions on club expenditure.
With CBF money Carlton would lose all perception that we're one of Melbourne's big four clubs, something we must hang onto if we don't want to be a prime target for a merger.

Vlad was on the radio this morning, no guessing what we're the two most important issues to 'his AFL' :?:

The west of Sydney and the Gold Coast.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:04 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:34 am
Posts: 8888
Location: 8888
We need to attract more sponsors to achieve strong financial status. As has been over the past few years, the failure to attract sponsors has been largely to blame on lack of free to air coverage from my understanding.

So with the draw due to be released shortly after the GF I cannot see us achieving any more, probably less, FTA games in 2006. This would make our ability to attract more bluechip sponsors harder throwing another hurdle into the path of the boards financial plans and the possibility of the CBF becoming more of a possibility.

In saying that poor performances are the cause of lack of sponsors and FTA coverage, I can now see the dilemma the board faces in handling the contracts of our leadership group.

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:15 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:23 am
Posts: 48684
Location: Canberra
79Vintage wrote:
buzzaaaah wrote:
79Vintage wrote:
The AFL have gone quiet for a while on their support of the sixteen teams, wouldn't be surprised if mergers came back on the agenda, accepting any money from the CBF would put us in the position where we may be a prime candidate for acccepting a merger. The AFL have a lot of power with fixturing and free to air television coverage.


I would think the opposite is true.
Refusing to accept the CBF as a necessity means we will still be in a vulnerable position when talk of mergers/relocations starts.
Accept the help now and if you have a good plan/strategy, you will come out a strong club rather then one that is getting by, ala Richmond/St Kilda


Not accepting CBF money doesn't mean we'll not be in strong financial position in five years time. Collins and Malouf can come up with an as effective business plan as the one where the club's business plans are influenced by the AFL, without the AFL restrictions on club expenditure.
With CBF money Carlton would lose all perception that we're one of Melbourne's big four clubs, something we must hang onto if we don't want to be a prime target for a merger.

Vlad was on the radio this morning, no guessing what we're the two most important issues to 'his AFL' :?:

The west of Sydney and the Gold Coast.


Southport are circling. ;)

I think you make a good point 79v.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group