Sturt 357K loss

An abridged report has been given to members of the Sturt FC suggesting that a 357k loss was the result for last season. Both of their venues ran to a profit however.

My understanding was that many Sturt members were expecting the club to show a profit in 2011 after the problems they had in 2010, my mail is that several Sturt people are shocked and bewildered at this result.

Sturt have worked really hard and done a fantastic job to get their Unley Rd club to make more coin which it has done, yet in the same time the takings at the Castle are suggested to have fallen, although not to the point of a loss.

The issue that Sturt have is that they no longer own any assets to balance a loss against, I am told that their financier cant use their share of Football Park as leverage because it becomes void in the hands of anyone else.

Where to for Sturt?

It's a worry for them.

Despite this, they've spent a bit on recruiting and will need some success this year as a result and lets hope that happens.

The competition needs all clubs to be financially viable. Six of the 9 clubs made losses last year and the gap between the rich and the poor is likely to grow.

Since the end of the last football financial year Sturt has bought 2 players from Glenelg. The clearance fees must be in the region of $40K. How have they done that on the back of their declared financial position? Are they going to spend their way to profit?

Besides Sturt who are the other clubs who made a loss?

chief wrote:Since the end of the last football financial year Sturt has bought 2 players from Glenelg. The clearance fees must be in the region of $40K. How have they done that on the back of their declared financial position? Are they going to spend their way to profit?

They got an advance on their 2012 dividend from the SANFL, so they'd want to be in a better position at the end of this year when they don't get that dividend.

Are you saying that the sanfl advanced them their dividend so that they could do some recruiting? Hardly seems fair.
What would possess them to spend money they dont have?

I'd just like to make a couple of comments. Those of you with access to doubleblue.org will have seen my detailed assessments there. Firstly, like most clubs, Sturt set their football operations budget at a level that ensures we can field a competitive A-grade team. Otherwise there is no point in having a club at all. I'm not going into details, but our senior football operating costs (This includes players and coaches salaries, recruiting, junior development etc.) are modest compared to other clubs. It's no secret that our major problems are related to debt incurred in getting our gaming venues up and running and the inability of those venues to provide the level of revenue that a number of other clubs gaming operations do. We are dealing with these issues as best we can (A major initiative will shortly be announced). FWIW (Which is not much I guess ) my personal opinion is that the sooner poker machines are abolished the better. But I'm a realist and this won't happen, so I try to assist the Sturt Football Club to handle reality in whatever way I can.

chief wrote:Are you saying that the sanfl advanced them their dividend so that they could do some recruiting? Hardly seems fair.
What would possess them to spend money they dont have?

It's not a 'tied grant'. As I understand it they asked for financial assistance and received it, what Sturt decide to spend it on is their business. As for what would possess them, my guess is that the combination of some financial trouble and finishing last has led them to the conclusion that they can't afford any more wooden spoons.

MightyEagles wrote:Besides Sturt who are the other clubs who made a loss?

every sanfl club made a loss ,except for The Eagles and South Adelaide.

Any assets would be in the balance sheet Ben. So it would have no affect on the profit and loss.

I would assume that if they have no assets, then they must be leasing their venues and the rent would of course affect the profit and loss.

If that's what you meant, then apologies for stating the obvious

blueandwhite wrote:

MightyEagles wrote:Besides Sturt who are the other clubs who made a loss?

every sanfl club made a loss ,except for The Eagles and South Adelaide.

I think there's another club who made a profit.

Glenelg, I presume.

redandblack wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

MightyEagles wrote:Besides Sturt who are the other clubs who made a loss?

every sanfl club made a loss ,except for The Eagles and South Adelaide.

I think there's another club who made a profit.

Glenelg, I presume.

Correct ~ $140 K profit

Thanks, Mods.

Its alarming that only two clubs made a profit. Things will remain difficult for sometime for all clubs due to the Global Financial situation & the fact thatt banks in Aust are getting tighter with their funding

I think half the AFL clubs and the AFL itself made losses as well, so it's not just a SANFL problem.

It is not hard to see why some clubs make financial losses. some of the decisions they make are very poor. Overpaying coaches has become an issue. Why do clubs think they need fulltime coaches when the players are part time? In addition to fulltime coaches some clubs have Football Managers and highly paid CEOs. It is all a matter of where you draw the line and in footy terms, times are tough and unlikely to improve quickly.

chief wrote:It is not hard to see why some clubs make financial losses. some of the decisions they make are very poor. Overpaying coaches has become an issue. Why do clubs think they need fulltime coaches when the players are part time? In addition to fulltime coaches some clubs have Football Managers and highly paid CEOs. It is all a matter of where you draw the line and in footy terms, times are tough and unlikely to improve quickly.

I agree with what you are saying. I would draw the line at CEO's though. If they are able to justify their incomes by generating new business, etc, then they are worth the money, but if they are a "business as usual" style of CEO, then I'd certainly be opposed to the wages some of them pull in. I don't see the need for full-time coaches unless they are assisting the club in areas outside coaching.

Bad investments are also a concern for SANFL clubs in this time. The bottom line is simply not spending money unless you are able to generate it. Clubs should NEVER be in the red two seasons in a row.