Magpies spend $20m to buy flag

[Mantis]

Collingwood currently have a debt of $10 million. They dont mind spending the money on the footy department rather than paying off debts as they believe they can cover the debt in the future.

By winning a flag they have probably added this amount to their revenue in the selling of merchandise & signing on approx. 20,000 more members.

[bornadog]

By winning a flag they have probably added this amount to their revenue in the selling of merchandise & signing on approx. 20,000 more members.

Yes, like an investment.

[Ghost Dog]

The gap between the have & have nots is about $5-6mil.

"THE revenue gap between the AFL's richest and poorest clubs reached $21 million last year, with Port Adelaide and North Melbourne earning approximately that amount less than financial powerhouses Collingwood and West Coast"

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...#ixzz1LQjd7prM

Not according to our friend Jake.

[Mantis]

Yes, like an investment.

What's the old saying... You have to spend money to make money.

[Sockeye Salmon]

"THE revenue gap between the AFL's richest and poorest clubs reached $21 million last year, with Port Adelaide and North Melbourne earning approximately that amount less than financial powerhouses Collingwood and West Coast"

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-new...#ixzz1LQjd7prM

Not according to our friend Jake.

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"If you subtract player payments from the equation, then the bottom four for football department spending in 2010 were Melbourne (13th), Richmond (14th), North (15th) and the Bulldogs (16th). The Dogs spent $4.7 million on their football department, not counting players, compared to the $8.8 million Collingwood spent on everything besides player payments."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

[Ghost Dog]

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"If you subtract player payments from the equation, then the bottom four for football department spending in 2010 were Melbourne (13th), Richmond (14th), North (15th) and the Bulldogs (16th). The Dogs spent $4.7 million on their football department, not counting players, compared to the $8.8 million Collingwood spent on everything besides player payments."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

Footy dept is not the only aspect of a club to give on field playing a boost.
Besides
The suspect part of me reckons that not all spending on their football dept is listed for public analysis.
Clubs have and always will use 'gifts' and undocumented spending to further their goals.
The more money they have, the greater the temptation to do it.
Carlton - Capt Gouger -cardboard dynasty arrangments et al.

[LostDoggy]

That's revenue, not football spending. Collingwood spent about $19.5M on their football dept.


"If you subtract player payments from the equation, then the bottom four for football department spending in 2010 were Melbourne (13th), Richmond (14th), North (15th) and the Bulldogs (16th). The Dogs spent $4.7 million on their football department, not counting players, compared to the $8.8 million Collingwood spent on everything besides player payments."

They still spend nearly double what we did.

I would think our figures are diluted to some degree by the sponsorship (partnership) arrangement we have with Victoria University