2015 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Pt. 1

[*PAF]

And you lost pet memberships

To Geelong.

 

[pjcrows]

We took a risk earlier in the year claiming we had 60,000 members. Nowhere near that. Nothing sinister - all clubs fudge - just an observation.

Overall it's a fantastic achievement for both SA clubs. But that doesn't sell papers.

No doubt tomorrow's headlines will be POWER FOR ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS or something. Divisive rubbish.

 

[Allefgib]

We took a risk earlier in the year claiming we had 60,000 members. Nowhere near that. Nothing sinister - all clubs fudge - just an observation.

Overall it's a fantastic achievement for both SA clubs. But that doesn't sell papers.

No doubt tomorrow's headlines will be POWER FOR ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS or something. Divisive rubbish.

Different criteria used.

 

[Mattrox]

The AFL audit memberships to take out the bullshit ones like pet memberships etc. The fact that the AFL took out so many memberships should worry you about our honesty in reporting membership numbers. Looks like we had more pet memberships than other clubs.

Bullshit memberships like kids memberships which cost less than $50. Coz we don't need junior members as our demographic is fine as it is.

Seriously the Port Trolls on the Bay come up with s**t like this..... It's so far off base it's not even in the realms of reality.

 

[AFC3000]

The way Fagan explained it was that they converted the seats of 11 game members who didn't renew into 1 game tickets for the general public rather than sell them as 11 game memberships to people on the waitlsit, while categories not counted in the AFL audit went up.

He didn't seem too concerned about the AFL audited numbers, but said he has 65,000 "members" on the list, hoping to expand that to 70, 80 and eventually 100 - 200,000 members. You would think the only way to grow the membership list to those numbers with a 55,000 seat stadium is going to be outside the AFL audit numbers.

 

[Rotayjay]

Look, the Pear went into this season as January premiers, whilst we had just replaced our coach for the second time in three years. A few thousand bandwagoners got Port memberships so they could say 'I was there when two worlds collided, I was a true believer from the start and happened to pop up the year we won the premiership, blah blah blah'. Meanwhile, a few thousand Crows supporters became disillusioned and did not buy into the new direction.

 

[Allefgib]

http://m.afc.com.au/news/2015-03-05/watch-the-crows-overseas

They would be in our numbers but not afl audit numbers. And worth more to us.

The club had to get creative with membership given limited seating at games.
Be proud.

 

[*PAF]

We took a risk earlier in the year claiming we had 60,000 members. Nowhere near that. Nothing sinister - all clubs fudge - just an observation.

Overall it's a fantastic achievement for both SA clubs. But that doesn't sell papers.

No doubt tomorrow's headlines will be POWER FOR ALL SOUTH AUSTRALIANS or something. Divisive rubbish.

Nah you do have 60,000. For starters why shouldn't both clubs count all 22 game SMA members if they make money from them?
We also have SANFL only members but they are still members.

At the end of the day it's only useful for attracting sponsors and in your case it doesn't matter but for us it does and we now have a decent income from sponsorship. That has probably made a bigger difference to our bottom line than the increase in spectators.

 

[happy_knackers]

Wouldn't worry about the drop in official figures as the unofficial figures are artificially bumped up and do not mean that much.

My question was simply in regards to your 'bumped up figures'. What did they use to get to 60k? Bit hard to explain your drop of 6 or 7k.
Ports srop would have been Crow 22 game ZMA members plus SANFL only members.

Crows drop would have been Port's 22 gamers plus??

i guess the point of my post was - what counts as an officially counted member? Do you need game access?
He implied that we targeted growing non-game memberships as a way to boost membership due to there being no additional seats to be able to sell.
My question is do these types of memberships count (ie. what you are calling 'bumped up figures') or not?

 

[*PAF]

i guess the point of my post was - what counts as an officially counted member? Do you need game access?
He implied that we targeted growing non-game memberships as a way to boost membership due to there being no additional seats to be able to sell.
My question is do these types of memberships count (ie. what you are calling 'bumped up figures') or not?

Apparently access to at least 1 AFL game and a minimum cost of $50. Or something along those lines.
IIRC Collingwood started the 1 game memberships to boost their numbers.

 

[FantasticShirt]

Apparently access to at least 1 AFL game and a minimum cost of $50. Or something along those lines.
IIRC Collingwood started the 1 game memberships to boost their numbers.

"1 game memberships"?!?! WTF

 

[Boxx]

And you lost pet memberships

RIP Rover....

 

[Cleric]

Dude. A poster made an off the cuff remark based on an outstanding 1st year by Fagan.

You just went on a rant about how he's s**t and failed. Back it up with evidence.

You see your backing off now arnt you. A poster said Fages was the best CEO in the AFL. I asked him to tell me what he has done to prove that and why did he think Fages was better than proven top CEOs like the Hawks etc and it was stupid to say that. You then jumped in basically saying that me not agreeing he is the best CEO called into question my support for the club. So for you to feel the need to challange me on it you must think he is the best CEO no? Or did you just jump in not knowing what you were going on about?

 

[Jack McKraken]

Heard this tidbit on 5AA: apparently we had 750 tickets unsold across the entire season. 750. Different take on the membership wank.

 

[*PAF]

"1 game memberships"?!?! WTF

Not necessarily a bad thing.

The clubs gets a little more money than they would if you buy a ticket at the stadium for next to no cost, advertise a large membership base to attract sponsors, and then use numbers plus massive sponsorships to demand blockbusters and prime time games.
It worked and other clubs followed.

 

[Cleric]

http://m.afc.com.au/news/2015-03-05/watch-the-crows-overseas

They would be in our numbers but not afl audit numbers. And worth more to us.

The club had to get creative with membership given limited seating at games.
Be proud.

So how does West Coast have 60,000 members yet their home ground has less seating than AO?

 

[johnnypanther]

Looks like another dick measuring competition thanks to Rucci.

Looks like Port have the bigger dick but we use ours far more often.

Nah you're wrong - they are using different units of measurement and then trying to compare them
ie 15 cms is not greater than 8 inches

 

[Allefgib]

I assume more memberships less than 11 games.
Did you read what Fagan said?

 

[happy_knackers]

Apparently access to at least 1 AFL game and a minimum cost of $50. Or something along those lines.
IIRC Collingwood started the 1 game memberships to boost their numbers.

well then i think that is the answer to your original question. the large difference between the official and non official number would be heavily influenced by the growing of non-game members (counted as members by us, but not by the afl) due to our inabiilty to sell any more seats, and therefore "game-access" or "official" members.
As far as the club is concerned, they are payed up members who have given the club their contact details for continued correspondence into the future, which was the clubs main focus to help grow into the future, not to win rucci's lotion and paper towel happy place award.

 

[Cleric]

I assume more memberships less than 11 games.
Did you read what Fagan said?

Last year West Coast had 8 million dollars more revenue from memberships than we did. They also had more home game memberships than we did for a stadium with 10,000 less capacity. We also had more reduced game memberships than they had.

 

[happy_knackers]

Last year West Coast had 8 million dollars more revenue from memberships than we did. They also had more home game memberships than we did for a stadium with 10,000 less capacity. We also had more reduced game memberships than they had.

id suggest their memberships probably cost more...

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

"1 game memberships"?!?! WTF

That would make a member of port for attending a showdown.

I don't bloody think so! That's what I told them when they contacted me about getting a season ticket on the back of a showdown ticket...

 

[Allefgib]

Last year West Coast had 8 million dollars more revenue from memberships than we did. They also had more home game memberships than we did for a stadium with 10,000 less capacity. We also had more reduced game memberships than they had.

I honestly don't know the answer. They are obviously smashing it.
What's your point?
Fair to say both strong clubs - they have a slightly bigger market with a better economy and similar strong footy heritage.
Do you have a specific point or just looking to complain?

 

[Allefgib]

id suggest their memberships probably cost more...

Been looking not sure that's it. Hard to say as they don't publish price for 11 gamers. It's sold out.
Their vic option gives 11 games. Just not all eagles. Love to know how many of those they sell

 

[Golumless]

I honestly don't know the answer. They are obviously smashing it.
What's your point?
Fair to say both strong clubs - they have a slightly bigger market with a better economy and similar strong footy heritage.
Do you have a specific point or just looking to complain?

In regards to member numbers, we've ****ed up big time (misinterpreted your post first up) seeing we should be the dominant power in this state.

Trigg's/Reids legacy for how we fell from being one of the have clubs in regards to members/revenue (which is the main point of caring about member numbers) to a have-not club.