West Coast boooooosting their membership numbers.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually 50% bigger market!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?
I don't think we've stuffed up much last year to this yeast and i think fages made great points on the audit numbers.In regards to member numbers, we've stuffed 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.
Good work.I think West Coast have the most expensive memberships in the league. Starts at $345 for a restricted view seat up to gold at $735. I'd bet the demand for tickets means they can divide the stadium so that more of it is categorised as premium seating than most clubs can do as well.
http://www.wcemembership.com.au/frequently-asked-question/what-are-2015-membership-prices
Exactly why our tickets cost more than Port's .Good work.
They charge more because their market can support it. Both in ppl who want to go and how much income they have.
the point is that either way you're talking about an arbitrary subset of memberships. Actual crowds and revenue are more important and where we fare better, the trouble is really with all the money we're having to pay out for filling up the oval regularly.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.
Can someone explain what is not great about the membership numbers?the point is that either way you're talking about an arbitrary subset of memberships. Actual crowds and revenue are more important and where we fare better, the trouble is really with all the money we're having to pay out for filling up the oval regularly.
not trying to say the numbers are great, but its not an unmitigated disaster either. Port talking up their membership numbers is like getting excited over your team having more disposals in a game, it doesn't necessarily mean you're winning.
ExactlyCan someone explain what is not great about the membership numbers?
Found this amusing on the AFL website:
"The only players to miss more than two games in past 20 years and win the Brownlow are Chris Judd (2010, three games missed), Gary Ablett (2009, three) and Jimmy Bartel (2007, two)."
Apparently two is more than two.
None of which reside in South Australia... you would hope.there're a lot of teams who would kill for this attendance
Found this amusing on the AFL website:
"The only players to miss more than two games in past 20 years and win the Brownlow are Chris Judd (2010, three games missed), Gary Ablett (2009, three) and Jimmy Bartel (2007, two)."
Apparently two is more than two.
WCE rake in more than $6 million dollars more than any other club in membership money (there was an article from the age this arvo i think), and they are also selling on the promise of a ticket at the new stadium in 2018. From what I've read on the footy industry page they charge between $150-$200 to go on their waiting list!
How can you say our club has failed this year???? We will make a big profit, probably be second in home attendances and our membership number has fallen 1000 behind our cross town rivals but we get nearly DOUBLE the membership money!?!?! And you are seeing this as bad!!
Even if we were 1000 in front the Adelaide media would do what they did last year and pump up the powa and say how good they are etc etc.
There's been so much money in Perth it's not funny. Adelaide is not affluent by any stretch of the imagination. In fact I'd suggest there's a poverty mentality in Adelaide (as opposed to an abundance mentality like Perth).Good work.
They charge more because their market can support it. Both in ppl who want to go and how much income they have.
From what I've read on the footy industry page they charge between $150-$200 to go on their waiting list!
Am I, as an interstate member, counted?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?
Am I, as an interstate member, counted?
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.
Both Adelaide teams and WA teams are doing great. The AFL is beginning to show signs of damage control to protect the so called big4. Instead the Chief football writer in our state makes it a battle between Adelaide and Paer cos he's too consumed in the reality we have performed better this yr rather than taking a decent swing at AFL house and the stooge journos who pretend nothing is wrong in the home of football.Pet memberships were eliminated either last year or the year before. It appears they are now discounting memberships in the AFL's latest audit for anyone whose membership does not include the purchase of at least one ticket to one game.
So in other words, Victor Victoria can pay $50 for a membership that gets him one ticket to one game at the MCG to watch his unsociable Hawks. His membership the AFL "recognizes".
Carol Crow who finds herself living/working in the United States pays for a global membership that costs in excess of $50 and allows her access to live streaming, etc... Her membership is not "recognized" since the global membership the Crows offer doesn't include one ticket to one game. (and why would it include a ticket?)
That appears to be the AFL's newest method of auditing memberships.
Is Carol "less" a member to Adelaide than Victor is to Hawthorn? You tell me.
Both Adelaide teams and WA teams are doing great. The AFL is beginning to show signs of damage control to protect the so called big4. Instead the Chief football writer in our state makes it a battle between Adelaide and Paer cos he's too consumed in the reality we have performed better this yr rather than taking a decent swing at AFL house and the stooge journos who pretend nothing is wrong in the home of football.
He isn't a footy writer. Hes a gossip columnist.I agree that it certainly looks like the AFL is trying to thin out the membership ranks of teams like Adelaide so as not to embarrass its Victorian clubs. I also agree that it appears the footy writer blew the real story which you described, to go for the low hanging rivalry fruit.
You are 100% dead on right in my mind.
Stop talking sense. The ranters don't like it.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.