They have a MUCH better stadium deal than we do, with many more home games at the MCG, and many less at Collo McScrooge's joint. Pretty hard to make money when you play at docklands. I'd imagine that'd account for a fair portion of it.

Add a few more members, and a couple of extra 2nd-tier sponsors, and there you have it.

Using Kernahan as an example.

In 2009 his company paid the club $48,368 for Corporate Sales (presumably hospitality, sponsorship, etc
In 2009 the club paid his company $118,571, presumably for printing services provided.

_________________
"I had to eat"

Couple of thousand members diff and 6 extra games at the G doesn't equate to 30mill.

_________________
I see you watching me watching you.

Yes certainly not. I suspect it has a fair bit to do with extra sponsors and a broader portfolio. They own quite a few pubs etc. and have more revenue streams than us I'd think.

I think it would be their pubs. Even they they arent doing well, they would still have a decent revenue

_________________
T E A M

Revenue doesn'y always equate to profit.

We are coming from a long way back...but we are clsoing the gap.

They know we're coming

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I believe Collingwood record the gross revenue they receive from their other interests ( pubs) in their numbers and then offset it with corresponding expenses. It therefore inflates their numbers. We include only the net dividend we receive from our other interests which we believe is a more accurate way to report our accounts.

Agreed. Football clubs arent really in the hotel and restaurant business. Any dividend they make from them is fair income but not the whole revenue.
Collingwood arent known for their honesty though.

_________________
T E A M