Saints' $20 million the biggest Victorian distribution

[Bulldog4life]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...17-p541lr.html

St Kilda have received at least $4 million more each year for the last three years from the AFL than the next Victorian teams.

The Saints have received an AFL distribution significantly greater than any other Victorian team for the past three years under the equalisation model, with funding of more than $20 million a year putting them closer in funding terms to the Brisbane Lions than the next Victorian teams.

The club financial reports for last year reveal where the AFL's money went in distributions, with the Saints remaining the highest recipient of the Victorian clubs. Figures for most, but not all, of the clubs have been released.

The Saints' total AFL distribution last year was $20,635,000, which was up $96,522 on 2018. They also received $20.6 million in 2017.

St Kilda's variable distribution from the AFL (the amount covering player payments and prior to equalisation funding) fell by $500,000 in 2018.

The AFL distribution to all clubs increased by a total of $4 million last year, or one per cent.

St Kilda received significantly more last year than the other members of the bottom four smaller clubs. The Western Bulldogs were paid $16.5 million, Melbourne $16.3 million and North Melbourne's distribution has not officially released yet in the annual report but sources confirmed it to be about $16 million.

The explanation for the Saints' higher distribution than the other three smaller clubs is in part that: North Melbourne receive a significant financial boost from the commercial deal to play games in Tasmania; Melbourne have a superior stadium deal with the MCG than Saints at Marvel and they play blockbuster games on Queen's Birthday and Anzac Eve; and the Western Bulldogs are coming off a period of success in winning a flag.

Sources, however, said that stadium deals were a secondary issue to low attendances, which are a product of poor on-field performance and affect all revenue streams.

St Kilda's comparatively higher distribution is in part based on the equalisation formula that takes in a disparity on quality of fixturing, the fact they play the most games of any club at Marvel Stadium, have a small membership and generate the lowest amount of income from sponsorship of any Victorian club.

St Kilda have been comparatively weak commercially, last year earning $7.7 million in corporate or sponsorship income which, was a $1 million improvement on the year before but was still $1.7 million less than even the Brisbane Lions were able to generate.

In contrast Melbourne generated $11.3 million in sponsorship and the Western Bulldogs $12.6 million. At the top end of the scale Collingwood declared $20 million in sponsorship or corporate income, Hawthorn $16.6 million and Richmond $15.5 million in their annual reports.

The extra AFL money is not due to the redevelopment of Moorabbin as the club additionally accounted last year for $5 million in Moorabbin redevelopment funding from government grants and contributions which is regarded as non-operating revenues.

The Saints have moved back to Moorabbin into $45 million facilities for which they successfully drew outside funding and only contributed $8 million of their own. The funding of that move has meant the club has not paid down their $12 million debt.

[Axe Man]

I read this earlier today. The way I see it the Saints get around $4 million more than us and North because they are poorly run (Melbourne have advantages though playing at the MCG and Queens Birthday game, etc).

I thought equalisation was supposed to compensate for things clubs have no control over like fixturing inequalities and crappy stadium deals? Didn't realise the AFL will just bail you out regardless of how you run your club. Our $12.6 million sponsorship v $7.7 million for the Aints is both a credit to our club and an indictment on theirs.

[ledge]

I read this earlier today. The way I see it the Saints get around $4 million more than us and North because they are poorly run (Melbourne have advantages though playing at the MCG and Queens Birthday game, etc).

I thought equalisation was supposed to compensate for things clubs have no control over like fixturing inequalities and crappy stadium deals? Didn't realise the AFL will just bail you out regardless of how you run your club. Our $12.6 million sponsorship v $7.7 million for the Aints is both a credit to our club and an indictment on theirs.

Winning a flag was massive in bringing sponsorship.

[Dry Rot]

Was the extra money to pay for mental services for depressed saints fans?

[SonofScray]

We used to be right in the thick of these AFL handout hit pieces and while we still get a mention and should never get too comfortable, the opportunity to put some distance between us and the genuinely shit clubs like Norf, StKFC and MFC should be a real source of motivation for the club's admin.

My great hope in life is to see us kick on and Essendon fall away to occupy a spot in these articles.