AFL financial reports highlight wealth divide
By The_Wookie, 13 Jan 2012 The_Wookie is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- AFL, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Victoria
Related coverage
Its finance reporting season for AFL clubs and the annual reports are in for all but St Kilda, and so we gain an excellent snap shot of the current economic climate amongst Victorian clubs.
We can’t produce the same across non-Victorian clubs due to the way those clubs are operated. Adelaide, Port and Brisbane (and I believe Sydney) do produce individual annual reports, but the WA clubs, and the new boys on the Gold Coast certainly dont at this time. Further, St Kilda haven’t supplied an annual report yet.
Memberships were up across Melbourne, with 25,000 members added to the 2010 tally taking numbers to 425,756. Seven out of ten Victorian clubs recorded increases, with Collingwood taking out top spot with an increase of more than 17,000.
At the bottom of the ladder, the Saints dropped more than 6,000 members. Collingwood, Hawthorn, Carlton, Essendon and Richmond round out the top five clubs for membership – all with more than 40,000 members.
To attendances, and these were also up across Melbourne with 25,000 more people going through the gates than in 2010 and total attendances in Melbourne and Geelong exceeding 4.3 million.
The big movers in 2011 were Richmond, Carlton and Essendon recording net gate increase of more than 50,000 attendees.
Collingwood still reigned supreme almost 90,000 clear of the Blues in second place. Bringing up the rear Melbourne dropped 70,000 at home, but the spoon goes to the Bulldogs and North, both under 300,000 attendees.
To revenue, and its Collingwood and daylight. The Pies turning over 75 million this year, more than 24 million clear of the second-placed Bombers. Hawthorn and Geelong round out the top 4 there.
North Melbourne haplessly bring up the rear on 26 million, 12 million below the league average (38 million for vic clubs). Victorian clubs raised more than $400 million in revenue in 2011.
Its been widely reported than nine AFL clubs have made a loss this year, but in terms of operations only two Melbourne clubs (North and St Kilda lost money). Four clubs made profits of more than a million dollars. (Collingwood made more than $2 million).
When write offs and depreciation are factored in, three clubs made a loss, including Hawthorn (albeit narrowly). The addition of AFL and Australian Sporting Foundation Grants almost certainly means two more clubs made a loss when these are taken out.
Total profit for the Melbourne clubs is more than $7 million, and more than $12 million after consolidation.
In marketing and sponsorship revenue, Collingwood remain top earning $22 million, Richmond, Essendon and Geelong on around $15 million.
Melbourne, North Melbourne and the Bulldogs fall way down on $8 million each. More than $123 million in sponsorship was raised in Melbourne across 10 clubs with an average of more than 12 million.
Revenue from Membership and gate receipts topped $100 million, Collingwood clear winners as expected with more than $16 million from members alone. Geelong, Richmond, Carlton and Essendon rounding out the top end, while North struggled with less than $6 million. The league average in Melbourne was over 10 million.
Gaming revenue is a tricky one, and most clubs include this with their social club takings – including hospitality and beverages. Most clubs in Melbourne average $3-4 million in gaming revenue.
Ironically, the biggest gaming beneficiary is Brisbane taking more than $12 million from pokies in 2011. North has no gaming revenue at all.
Melbourne clubs spent more than 170 million on their football departments in 2011, and even North managed to spend 15 million on theirs in 2011. Collingwood way out in front at 19 million, Geelong, Essendon and Carlton not far behind.
Theres a lot of positives in the annual reports for clubs. Some have debts, but they appear to be entirely manageable, and for the foreseeable future the clubs finances are backed by the AFL.
North and the Bulldogs remain causes for concern, they just appear to have no strong support either in the crowd or corporate sectors. As long as this remains the case, their future will be called into question by the waiting vultures, equalisation fund be damned.
On the flip side, that Collingwood benefits from the fixture more than any other club cannot really be a question any more.
Not that it’s Collingwoods fault – every club wants to play them and theres only a certain number of AFL games that melbourne clubs can play interstate, for which the Pies generally do meet the average.
Hawthorn continues to be a financial powerhouse, with a reported $20 million sitting in the bank, developments in Tasmania and New Zealand, and a feisty board.
I don’t think theres any coincidence that guys like Eddie McGuire and Jeff Kennett are – or were in Jeff’s case – at the helms of two of Australias most prosperous football clubs.
Carlton, Essendon and Richmond are begining to perk up again, and this is reflected in their memberships and astonishing increases in crowds.
Essendon and Carlton in particular will be wondering if they can the MCG for home matches when their current deals expire. Carlton are already selling out Docklands for matches against non victorian clubs.
Love your AFL? The Roar has openings for live bloggers - with possible paid opportunities. Tell us which upcoming game you'd like to trial on.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
AFL articles
- Giants lose NAB Cup games but win respect (58)
- NAB Cup banished from free to air (53)
- GWS show plenty of promise at Blacktown (53)
- Television ratings for Fox Footy impresses (49)
- How to watch AFL in 2012 (48)
- Time for the AFL to make that conference call (44)
- Giants inspired to prove doubters wrong (38)
- Exciting AFL prospect to play in NAB Cup (2)
- Collingwood Magpies: 2012 season preview (12)
- Time to change the AFL finals system (26)
- Kevin Sheedy: Father, Teacher and Madman (11)
- 2012 AFL season preview: North Melbourne (3)
- Cats face tough AFL task, says Scott
- Swans leadership group has balance, says Jack
- Explore:
- AFL, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn, North Melbourne, Victoria

January 13th 2012 @ 7:36am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 7:36am | Report comment
I should note that theres a more complete list breakdown and links to the annual reports at: http://footybusiness.wordpress.com/annual-reports-2/afl-clubs/
January 13th 2012 @ 8:25am
Tony said | January 13th 2012 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Cue the AFL-haters………..
January 13th 2012 @ 7:24pm
Titus said | January 13th 2012 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Good thing they weren’t paying Tax I guess, other wise there would be a few more losses.
January 13th 2012 @ 8:25pm
The Cattery said | January 13th 2012 @ 8:25pm | Report comment
You don’t pay tax on losses!!
January 13th 2012 @ 8:39am
Redb said | January 13th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Watch Essendon climb to the top of the financial pile within the next 3 years. Back to where we belong.
January 13th 2012 @ 8:50am
LK said | January 13th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Hang about, don’t North have “Roobet” or whatever it is called? They don’t make any money from that? Not a cracker? Interesting…
January 13th 2012 @ 9:01am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
can only go by whats listed in the reporting. Its possibly listed under sponsorship income. Gaming income is typically pokie machine related
January 13th 2012 @ 9:40am
stabpass said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:40am | Report comment
‘Norf’ do not have a single poker machine. and do not intend to get any.
January 13th 2012 @ 10:26am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 10:26am | Report comment
they did have up to a few years ago, but sold them to Etihad Stadium apparently
January 13th 2012 @ 9:26am
Neotraveler said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I wonder if you would classify the Roos as a straggler or a battler on those numbers? Either way they have a massive amount of ground to make up. I suppose they’re safe until the end of the current TV rights deal. But surely if they haven’t made significant steps forward by then I’d be cranking up the ‘Tassie it’s time’ campaign again if I lived down south. When does the Hawks deal run out down there?
January 13th 2012 @ 9:31am
The Cattery said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Nice summary Wookie.
It’s no secret that Collingwood is now a financial powerhouse, but the gap between them and clubs like North and the dogs is truly astonishing.
It’s worth noting that North and the dogs were two of three clubs that joined in 1925. It took North 50 years to win their first premiership (winning another 3 since), while the dogs are stuck on a solitary premiership, and this history is central to where the two clubs are at now. In the case of North, they hail from a tiny inner-city suburb sandwiched between clubs like Essendon and Carlton, it’s inevitable that they would struggle for support.
Hawthorn was the 3rd club to join in 1925, won thier first premiership in 1961, then won a further 8 between 1971 and 1991, and have thus been able to break out of the late-comers category into the powerhouse category.
They are cashed up, and are the first club to ever have invested some money overseas in the pursuit of playing talent – it will be interesting to see where that ends up.
January 13th 2012 @ 9:50am
Neotraveler said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:50am | Report comment
After all that success weren’t the Hawks still shot financially at the end of ’96? They nearly merged…
January 13th 2012 @ 10:01am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Yes, and had to be rescued by Don Scott and his followers in those dark days. The Hawks have come a long way since then.
They’ve shown how to deploy interstate, with development and media all over Tasmania. If North had done the same thing on the Gold Coast or Canberra or Sydney, then odds are that they’d be in a similar position. They havent lacked for opportunity.
The Bulldogs have been saddled with one of the lowest income zones in Melbourne, with a very high foreign population – I lived in Footscray when I was younger – and have been beset with home ground issues for a while.
January 13th 2012 @ 10:36am
Australian Rules said | January 13th 2012 @ 10:36am | Report comment
Hawthorn’s resurgence to powerhouse is genuinely impressive.
They have captured Tasmania beautifully and must be the only sporting team in the world who has a State Government as their major sponsor. Not bad.
I feel for them a bit because they have been cruelled by the 2012 fixture. Despite their on and off-field success, they have been given only 2 Friday night games (Geel, Coll) and the rest of their Melb homes games are on a Sunday against interstate teams. This massively affects gate-takings and thus revenue. Compare that to Collingwood’s home games against Geel, Carl, Ess, Haw, Rich, St K and Melb… $$$.
January 13th 2012 @ 10:52am
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 10:52am | Report comment
a lot of that has to do with broadcaster demands too. hawthorn are more and more getting the same treatment Adelaide and Perth fans have had for some time.
January 13th 2012 @ 4:18pm
Redb said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:18pm | Report comment
Poor management by Hawthorn to not capitalise on that sustained period of success. These days most clubs are far better at making hay whilst the Sun shines. They have a big base. North aren’t so lucky.
January 27th 2012 @ 11:21am
Beny Iniesta said | January 27th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
Their sustained period of success has (as it does for all clubs) translated into increased adult memberships 10-20 years down the line.
Its no surprise that Hawthorn has experienced a resurgence since the dark days of 1996, a young army of Hawks fans is now buying adult memberships in droves that they weren’t before.
January 13th 2012 @ 3:16pm
TW said | January 13th 2012 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Wookie, good research,
It is interesting to note that North Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs sit at the bottom of the Melb tree.
Those two clubs are obviously trying to do something about it as I see it.
North are attempting to set up a base in Hobart in southern Tasmania.
According the footy media last year the Bullies are attempting to get someting established in NZ but waited until the 2011 Rugby World Cup had been held. Let us see what they achieve this year over there.
Link to article about the re-development of Bellerive Oval setback – It seems Norths are taking a pragmatic approach by saying that public support down there will decide their future at the ground.
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/01/13/291911_afl.html
January 13th 2012 @ 4:48pm
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:48pm | Report comment
and that public support seems high at the moment. They’ve sold thousands of memberships for the two matches, and the first game is sold out if i recall correctly,…4 months before the season started.
January 13th 2012 @ 4:52pm
The Cattery said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
The Tasmanians would fill York Park and Bellerive right through the winter if we gave them half a chance.
January 13th 2012 @ 4:56pm
The_Wookie said | January 13th 2012 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
the case for a tasmanian team marches on.
January 13th 2012 @ 7:11pm
joe blackswan said | January 13th 2012 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
wookie,
“Gaming revenue is a tricky one, and most clubs include this with their social club takings – including hospitality and beverages. Most clubs in Melbourne average $3-4 million in gaming revenue…. Ironically, the biggest gaming beneficiary is Brisbane taking more than $12 million from pokies in 2011. North has no gaming revenue at all.”
Seriously, the vulgar ommision of Collingwoods $19.2 mill windfall at the expense of problem gamblers and then LYING that brisbane is the biggest beneficiary of gambling revenue is DISGRACEFUL. How do you sleep at night knowing that your first intents are to deceive?
January 14th 2012 @ 12:57am
The_Wookie said | January 14th 2012 @ 12:57am | Report comment
as a percentage of thier revenue brisbane took 12 million out of 42 million…thats damn near 30% of their total revenue. Collingwood sits at around 25%.
Perhaps I should have been clearer, but your response for what is effectively a typo is way over the top.
January 14th 2012 @ 3:20pm
joe blackswan said | January 14th 2012 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
agreed a bit OTT…..suffice to say I was a tad irate that your ommision alluded to saintly operations at collingwood. Professional clubs that have pokie revenue as a major income stream is very ordinary… given their tax breaks as community organisations, they should be aiming for exemplary.
January 14th 2012 @ 4:04pm
The Cattery said | January 14th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
jb
but is your concern just about Collingwood or all sporting clubs.
Pokie revenue is relatively new to Victoria, whereas NSW has had pokies for decades longer.
It’s fair enough to have concern for problem gambling, which is far broader than pokies, but why is everyone’s concern directed at AFL clubs when all forms of footballing clubs have had pokies for decades, especially in NSW.
Where was you concern right through the 80s when League clubs lived almost exclusively off pokies revenue – why the concern now all of a sudden?
January 13th 2012 @ 9:13pm
Jack Russell said | January 13th 2012 @ 9:13pm | Report comment
The figures you quote are actually from hotels aren’t they? That would include pokie revenue, but most of it would be other stuff sold by the hotels.
Pales in comparison to some NRL clubs though. Penrith’s revenue from gaming ONLY was $91 million. More than Collingwood’s total revenue, and probably more than all AFL clubs’ gaming income combined.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:35pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
Gaming revenue is nothing to be proud of.
It shouldn’t be counted as part of a sports club’s operating revenue and should be separate and taxed at the full rate instead of being tax exempt.
January 17th 2012 @ 2:02pm
cos789 said | January 17th 2012 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Well, there is a cultural difference there between Melbourne and Sydney.
The Leagues clubs effectively are independent of the Football clubs. Leagues club revenue isn’t counted as “revenue” by Football clubs in the NRL.
So often NRL sides record a “loss” financially, but effectively it isn’t because of the Leagues club grants they get. Its one reason why you can’t compare financial figures between the AFL and NRL.
January 23rd 2012 @ 12:53pm
it's called soccer said | January 23rd 2012 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
I note the main article on page 1 of today’s SMH. Eastern Suburbs Leagues Club poised to build a $14 mill “country cub” in Narellan, thanks to changes in pokies law by Govt. I note the club’s board is dominated by NRL people. Rugby League in NSW gave Australia the curse of pokies decades ago. Now the powerful Clubs lobby, based in NSW, is doing its utmost to prevent gambling reform. AFL is small-fry compared to this – but at least the money goes directly to the football clubs.
January 23rd 2012 @ 12:59pm
The Cattery said | January 23rd 2012 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
You’re way out of line here ICS – this article is about the big, bad, mean AFL – the fact that less than 1% of all pokies are in Victoria has nothing to do with nothing!!
oops – I’m on the wrong thread!! sorry!
January 14th 2012 @ 12:58am
The_Wookie said | January 14th 2012 @ 12:58am | Report comment
Yeah if you look at the extended figures, it generally counts gaming, hospitality and social clubs under one big happy umbrella. Unfortunately theres no standard for AFL reporting, and different clubs report stuff differently.
January 16th 2012 @ 4:25pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 16th 2012 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/jackpot-how-footy-clubs-will-pile-up-pokie-millions-20110513-1emik.html
No standards, guidelines or any holding back.
January 16th 2012 @ 5:16pm
The Cattery said | January 16th 2012 @ 5:16pm | Report comment
There we go – some good investigative reporting, which just goes to show that the AFL is not immune from being criticised by Melbourne papers and journalists – which is a widespread view held right here on the Roar (generally by people who hate Australian Football).
I noted this line: “Victorian-based AFL clubs took $30 million (net after tax) from pokie revenue in 2009. ”
ICF kept asking for evidence that tax is paid on pokies revenue – and there is your evidence – that’s precisely what net after tax means – so that’s a further inaccuracy in ICF’s poorly researched article from the other day.
For the moment, I note that pokies revenue remains less than 10% of total club revenues.
Clubs are definitely looking to increase their take of pokies revenue.
Personally, I’d rather have AFL clubs making money out of pokies than private entrepreneurs. It might also present an opportunity for the AFL to control the revenues of larger clubs, i.e. put a cap on how much a single club can take from the pokies – I’m sure everyone would be supportive of such a move.
January 16th 2012 @ 10:51pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 16th 2012 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
What tax?
January 16th 2012 @ 11:48pm
The_Wookie said | January 16th 2012 @ 11:48pm | Report comment
hey you gleefully post an article from 2 years ago, you tell us what tax it refers to
January 17th 2012 @ 12:10am
The_Wookie said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:10am | Report comment
In another thread, I believe the Cattery states that clubs pay GST. This is in fact, correct. You can find this out for yourself in the notes of most clubs Annual Reports.
The Carlton Football Club 2011 Annual Report for instance says:
‘Revenues, Expenses and assets are recognised net of the amount of goods and services tax. The amounts reported for recievables and payables are inclusive of GST. The net amount of GST recievable from, or payable to, the ATO is included as a current accounts or liability in the Balance sheet.
January 17th 2012 @ 12:35am
The Cattery said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:35am | Report comment
That’s right, in that same post I mentioned that there is no universal tax exemption, there are many types of taxes, and each of these may or may not attract exemptions, depending on a wide range of variables.
GST is basically a consumer tax, and exemptions exist only on a limited range of categories of goods and services, the key ones being food, education, and maybe medical expenses (can’t remember exactly).
You can escape collecting GST if you business turns over less than $50k, and some types of incorporated associations might also be exempt from collecting it.
The good and services provided by footy clubs would all get caught up, so 1/11th of everything they collect goes back to the ATO.
FBT is another major category of tax. Some charitable organisations get some minor concessions on FBT, but otherwise, every single employer is caught up, including government departments, and including footy clubs.
Payroll tax is a state tax and footy clubs would be subject to the provisions of the state in which they’re domiciled. I’m aware the Vic clubs pay payroll tax.
And as ICF’s link to the Age article proves, footy clubs are paying some form of pokie tax as well.
Therefore:
1. it’s quite incorrect to talk about some sort of universal tax exemption; and
2. whatever tax exemptions exist are enjoyed by all sporting bodies (although I do wonder whether privately owned sports clubs are a different matter again).
January 17th 2012 @ 12:46am
The_Wookie said | January 17th 2012 @ 12:46am | Report comment
Further research indicates clubs pay the following taxes:
- Goods and Services Tax
- PAYG tax
- Fringe Benefits Tax (a huge $2 million tax bill for this was presented to all clubs in 1998)
Finally the AFLs own community club site contains the following concerning club taxes
“Clubs may have obligations for GST, Pay As You Go (PAYG) and Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT). These and other taxes can apply irrespective of whether the organisation is exempt from income tax”
ref:
http://vuir.vu.edu.au/1433/1/Foreman.pdf
http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=252
For the pokie tax in Victoria, Hotels and clubs are required to pay 8.33% of the income in tax OR show that they’ve spent the 8.33% on direct community benefits. There are some clubs currently working through loopholes, these include AFL, RSL and other clubs.
”
An analysis of documents lodged with the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority show that 5 per cent of club revenue went to direct community benefits.
This includes donations to charity, maintenance of club sporting amenities and subsidised food and non-alcoholic drink for members.
About 1 per cent of pokies revenue was directed to external charitable causes.”
ref:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/victorians-losing-300000-an-hour-on-pokies/story-fn7x8me2-1226149873510
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/clubs-spend-200m-meant-for-community-benefit-on-expenses/story-fn6bfmgc-1226060202783
January 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm
Redb said | January 18th 2012 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
The A League tax we pay to keep your competition going ICF.
January 13th 2012 @ 11:31pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 13th 2012 @ 11:31pm | Report comment
Impressive tax free figures there wookie. Most AFL clubs only made a “profit” because of tax free gaming revenues.
Its a pity the AFL annual reports don’t list government handouts.
As your own Herald Sun points out, some AFL clubs only make a profit because they count government handouts as part of their income.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-financial-premiership-stakes/story-e6frf9jf-1225815392261
Those “record attendance” figures are a little out of context too.
The aggregate is a record because the AFL added another team and 15 more games.
The average attendance per game is actually down and the worst since 2004.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/summary.html
January 14th 2012 @ 4:19pm
The Cattery said | January 14th 2012 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
There were actually 11 more home and away games in 2011 compared to 2010.
Although in 2010 we had a grand final replay, so all up there were 10 extra games in 2011 compared to 2010, with both years getting around 7.14 million in attendance.
To get above 7 million in attendances for a full season, which the AFL has managed to do consistently in the last five seasons, is a mighty achievement.
My forecast for 2012, and for many years to come, is that the AFL will continue getting above 7 million in attendances.
January 14th 2012 @ 4:24pm
The Cattery said | January 14th 2012 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
It’s quite interesting looking at the rugby league stats on the same site.
25 years ago League had attendances for a full season of 1.7 million, 25 years on and they have more than doubled, which shows pretty good growth rates.
The AFL has shown very similar growth rates over the identical period, going up from 3.4 million to 7.1 million.
January 14th 2012 @ 4:43pm
The_Wookie said | January 14th 2012 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
we can play the same game with FFA figures if you like. Crowds were up last season, but the average was WAY down. Its not out of context to suggest the attendance figures are a record because they are the highest ever on raw data.
We can look at the massive drop in A-league averages if you like where between the 2009/10 and 10/11 seasons, the crowds dropped by 20% on the average, despite being up on the aggregate – which is where HAL fans get away with saying they have record attendances btw (and were the worst recorded season averages in the history of the HAL). And then we can talk about how the average hasnt caught up to the halycon days of the 2006/7 season, despite the stellar start to the year. ref: http://www.ultimatealeague.com/records.php?type=att
January 14th 2012 @ 4:45pm
The_Wookie said | January 14th 2012 @ 4:45pm | Report comment
And its a pity for you that the FFA annual reports do list tax free government handouts, and its not like the private owners of many HAL clubs wouldnt be opposed to using every tax dodge they could get. In fact its more than likely that many are using their HAL investments to get tax deductions anyway – at the end of the day they arrive at the same end by different means.
January 16th 2012 @ 2:46pm
ItsCalledFootball said | January 16th 2012 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
The FFA gets 8m a year from the government, that’s all –
http://kateellis.com.au/newsroom/9/
That wouldn’t be enough to even install the AFL posts at the Sydney Showground for those world beating giants.
Compare that to how much AFL and AFL clubs get in government handouts, that even the Herald Sun admits to – and they count as part of their income.
January 16th 2012 @ 4:34pm
The Cattery said | January 16th 2012 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
You have to learn to differentiate between operating grants, which fund the operations of an organisation, and grants provided to build community-owned facilities.
The AFL gets none of the former – and has NEVER received any of the former.
In fact, the AFL doesn’t even get any of the latter. Generally speaking, others own the stadiums it uses, and not only does it pay well to use those facilities, it generally makes a contribution in building them, i.e. it contributes to something it doesn’t even own.
There are instances of AFL clubs receiving tied grants to build community owned facilities. As has been explained to you before, these grants have to be shown as revenue in the accounts of the clubs, but none of that money is used by the club to fund any of its operations, the whole lot goes towards building whatever it was that they were funded for in the first place. In those cases, the grants could just as easily have gone directly to the local council that owns the facilities, with the same end result, facilities built that are owned by the local council but used by the club.