North Melbourne record another profit

I wonder why James Brayshaw is never praised for what he has achieved at NM yet people are always pouncing on any opportunity to put him down.

Orange,I still don't entirely understand your point. Are you saying we need to use 19th century vocabulary or do you feel the AFL is not paying enough respect to the game and it's origins? While I find some of what your saying illecebrous I also feel the need to kench. I don't mean to make you feel ludibrious but I think your point is being a little jargogle.I don't really think we should babble about it but I think your being a hoddypeak or possibly acting in a widdendream type manner about all this.

From Tom Wills Biography: " . . . To ensure the supremacy of the MeIbourne RuIes of Rugby, the first-club level competition in Australia, the Caledonian Society's Challenge Cup (1861–64), stipulated that only the MeIbourne RuIes of Rugby were to be used. This law was reinforced by the Athletic Sports Committee (ASC), which ran a variation of the Challenge Cup in 1865–66. . . "

Brian,I'm not exactly sure what your point is although I'm guessing it's some kind of code warrior type insecurity that's missing it's mark. Just because the game is run in a very Melbourne centric manner and the majority of rules highly to their advantage and the constant whinging and tears by the Victorians about the Northern state clubs doesn't mean they are the only ones with a passion for the game. West and South Australians for example have an equally rich history and their love of the game is no different to that of people from Melbourne and the game is equally strong in those states. Nobody calls the game Melbourne Rules of Association Football,your being silly,maybe they once did,I don't know,nor would anyone apart from some hardcore historian care. It's called Australian rules football,now if you think that's a silly name because you like a different sport,or you feel not enough Australians enjoy the sport for it to deserve such a name,that's fine,but you can't just make up names or refer back to 19th century names to suit your own insecurities and misguided agendas.

No, you surely won't hear the AFL or any Clubs referring to the game as MeIbourne RuIes, but that's what it was called. MeIbourne RuIes of Association Rugby. Tom Wills went to Rugby school, excelled at Association Rugby, they had the same Rugby shaped ball and the same H goal posts as Association Rugby.

it's funny that Pies supporters have to turn to their financials to feel a sense of relevance these days.

But what if you take away their pokies revenue? From memory, the pokies provide about 25% of Collingwood's income. Hats off to North Melbourne for leading the way by abandoning the reliance on poker machine revenue.... while Collingwood prospers on the losses of the weak it preys upon.

Collingwood only made a loss because of the huge depreciation write off against their new Westpac Centre. You take that away and their profit is still the highest in the league

Does any club refer to the game as Melbourne Rules? For the record yes Club financials include AFL tv money - money the clubs are entitled to under their franchise agreements with the league.

You're not insinuating that the AFL and MeIbourne RuIes clubs don't always tell the truth, are you? Do those financials include the share of television money from the AFL? Does any MeIbourne RuIes club actually make a real operating profit, given the enormous amount of money the AFL gives each club every year? What percentage of those profits are from gambling revenues and poker machines?

Thanks wookie. These doggies figures might have a bit of spin on them as they just seem to incredible.

Theres the public statements that both the Dogs and North have put out, but we dont generally list those results in club comparisons until we have the actual financial report. Statements are subject to spin.

Cheers Wookie,what do you mean the North figures aren't available though? They're the club the article is actually about. Anyway followed your link and it appears Collingwood have made a loss when the original thing I read had them with a profit,sneaky pies. This would mean all four of the old VFL big clubs made a loss with reports Carlton have made a loss of $765k. Also,I'm no accountant so what's this report on the dogs that Mister Football has posted above? Is this legit? I've also seen a report with the same figures which I mentioned in my original post.

We track all financial results for the clubs as they come out here - http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=2946, and also on Bigfooty. Consolidated Profit/Loss Hawthorn – $4,660,824 Geelong – $2,255,116 St Kilda – $1,107,311 Melbourne – $720,218 Richmond – ($80,257) Brisbane – ($1,783,506) Collingwood – ($2,622,623) Essendon – ($9,825,37) North and the Dogs arent listed because the annual reports arent available to disseminate yet.

Cat dude,I'd also suggest Mister Football appreciated my contribution to this article as it appears he was unaware of the magnificent financial performance of the mighty premiership winning doggies this season. I hope that satisfied your contribution criteria in this one,small instance

Ooow,perish the thought someone would not be interested in writing articles in a free country. I did go to some effort though to point out who made profits and who didn't,which when playing the ball I'd consider a fine contribution. I did once post an article though on cricket and one about having TISM play the grand final entertainment which was widely received and had many people considering it a wonderful option. Hope that meets your approval,unless of course you don't consider music relevant on a sports page and if that's the case may I offer my apologies in advance for submitting my article on such matters. In my defense I'd suggest the GF entertainment is sports related in some way Note: having checked the terms and conditions of the website it appears submitting articles is not compulsory and people are entitled to enjoy the website and post comments as they see fit...who would have thought hey.

Feel free to get off your backside and submit an article any day. Perish the thought you actually contribute something worthwhile to this site.

I don't see the need to apologise as it seems strange there is an article solely for North finances. I'm not sure if the website plans on running them club by club but it might have been better to do them all in one article, but if North were worthy of an article you'd think the Dogs results would be also. Anyway a quick brush over shows that so far the clubs to make a profit are North,WB, Hawthorn, Melbourne, St Kilda, Geelong, Collingwood. Teams to make a loss are Carlton, Richmond, Essendon and Brisbane. Hawthorns profit is $2.5m as they continue to show they are now one of the Victorian club powerhouses while the old VFL powerhouses except for Collingwood again made loses. Essendon loss of a whopping 10m could probably be excused as this year they faced issues and costs that you wouldn't consider a yearly occurrence.

Apologies for talking about the dogs, I originally came onto the thread to say that I thought North had done very well to record such a profit after falling into 8th place.

Here it is: http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2016-12-07/dogs-announce-a-record-operating-profit Dogs announce a record $3.6 million operating profit The Western Bulldogs Football Club has announced an operating profit of $3,641,018 for the year ended 31 October 2016. It is the third consecutive year of profit for the Club. The Club’s total revenue rose to a record $48.4 million, surpassing last year’s previous record of $41.3m. The Club’s net debt reduced from $8.3m to $1.9m in the 12 month period. The Club has this year taken a $1.9m impairment charge against the value of gaming entitlements acquired in 2009 for the discontinued Edgewater project, resulting in a statutory profit of $1,773,324. Total membership for 2016 reached a record 40,081 members. Membership, social club waiting list and reserved seat sales are all tracking at record levels for season 2017.