PDA

View Full Version : Kangaroos setting the membership targets too low?

GAMBLER
2nd November 2007, 13:12
Given the amount of publicity around about the AFL possibly forcing a Kangaroos relocation and the fact that the Kangaroos have refused to relocate for the mean time, you would think it would be an excellent opportunity to set an ambitious membership target to get the media up and about.

Reading this, I was disappointed to see the Kangaroos have only set a membership target of 26k. In a matter of life and death, surely the Kangaroos would have been better served setting an ambitious target of 30-32,000 for next year?

http://kangaroos.com.au/Membership/tabid/5021/Default.aspx

As we head towards the 2008 season you, our committed and passionate supporter will notice a few changes to Kangaroos Membership in 2008.

PART OF OUR COMMITMENT TO YOU IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE LISTENED AND ASSESSED HOW WE CAN IMPROVE MEMBERSHIP FOR YOU AND THE CLUB. WE WILL STRIVE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH IMPORVED SERVICE; CREATE GREATER OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE with the CLUB AND TO CELEBRATE OUR SUCCESS TOGETHER.

The Kangaroos call on you, the Member, the supporter and our faithful follower to be part of 2008 with us. Pledge your support, commit to the team and become one of the 26,000 Members we are targeting in 2008.
Blue & White UNITE!

Surely 30,000 has to a minimum next year if they are going to survive in Victoria?
The Zebra
2nd November 2007, 13:42
Yep, that is too low a target, and only 1,000 above what we already acheived in 2006. We should target at least 28,000, but 30,000 is acheivable given what has transpired over the last couple of weeks (if we commit to staying).

If/when we say no to the AFL's threats, I would hope for a second - Archer led - membership push one.

One that should strongl focus on the events of the past month, the real threat of extinction and the Us vs them mentality.

I'm going to email Rick Aylett.
Wojee
2nd November 2007, 13:44
Reading this, I was disappointed to see the Kangaroos have only set a membership target of 26k. In a matter of life and death, surely the Kangaroos would have been better served setting an ambitious target of 30-32,000 for next year?

Surely 30,000 has to a minimum next year if they are going to survive in Victoria?

They could set the target to 2,000,000 but past membership numbers seem to indicate that they'll be pushing it to even reach the 26,000 they have set.
Master of Cooks
2nd November 2007, 14:50
Do the Kangaroos have 30,000 supporters?

Not being a smart@rse, but judging by game attendances etc i would think that 30,000 is way out of reach.

Why should it take "if you don't sign up we'll fold" messages for supporters to become members. Facts are you don't have enough supporters to survive much longer in melbourne.
ARDENSTREETforever
2nd November 2007, 16:47
You are a flog.
ARDENSTREETforever
2nd November 2007, 16:50
Do the Kangaroos have 30,000 supporters?

Not being a smart@rse, but judging by game attendances etc i would think that 30,000 is way out of reach.

Why should it take "if you don't sign up we'll fold" messages for supporters to become members. Facts are you don't have enough supporters to survive much longer in melbourne.

Judging by game attendances?
We outnumbered your so-called big-club at your home game in Rd 21 at the Dome.
V Geelong (QF): 77,900
V Hawthorn (SF): 75,000.
Not good enough for you?
Flog.
Captain Afterworld
2nd November 2007, 16:57
Is it ever possible for North to set the membership target too low?
GAMBLER
2nd November 2007, 19:11
Judging by game attendances?
We outnumbered your so-called big-club at your home game in Rd 21 at the Dome.
V Geelong (QF): 77,900
V Hawthorn (SF): 75,000.
Not good enough for you?
Flog.

I cant speak for the Cats game, but does it count when seriously 50-55k are barracking for the opposition :confused: