- Feb 9, 2011
- 5,997
- 6,495
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Boston CelticsRedSoxBruins
I'm assuming that reflects in a much lower 'membership revenue'??
Membership Revenue v Net Membership Revenue
- Thread starter KillaKanga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
With thanks to wookie:
I'd imagine North are low because of their 2 game Tassie memberships.
Richmond hand memberships out like confetti.
(preparing for avalanche of Richmond fans claiming their obscene popularity is the reason)
So a lot of the Melbourne teams are down this year with the main exceptions being Hawthorn (understandable given the prospect of the three-peat), Richmond (understandable given the excitement of the nine in a row) and, unexpectedly, St Kilda. Impressive for the Saints fans to turn out so well, better than many of the finals prospects.
smasha
It's Time!
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
No, I just love actual stats based upon facts
The current numbers are great, but with the price rise now in we will see how much the sales trend line softens
With thanks to wookie:
I'd imagine North are low because of their 2 game Tassie memberships.
Richmond hand memberships out like confetti.
(preparing for avalanche of Richmond fans claiming their obscene popularity is the reason)
As long as the confetti hand over their cash we don't care.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,903
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Lots of reasons actually, they all add up:
- Larger youth supporter base
- Increased spend per member
- Lower cost per member
- Less demand for reserved seating due to most games being at the MCG
- Less demand for high end packages due to less expectations in September
Hawthorn, who are in a very similar position to us, also produce a similar figure but given their success on field it's expected their revenue should be higher. Obviously you'd need to account for Tasmanian members which probably lower their average
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Why would anyone care about gross revenue per member? Seriously. It doesn't tell you anything useful. Net revenue per member is slightly better; I understand that Richmond is middle of the pack on that one.
Interestingly enough, if the table was updated, the Suns would jump to the top (although it would be a little misleading). They had $7.5m in membership and ticketing income, giving them a whopping $560 per member. Even if only half of that income is from membership, that's still an impressive $280 per member. If they can get their membership up towards 20,000 then that should give them a pretty solid financial base.
But it puts away the argument that they give away a heap of freebies.
But it puts away the argument that they give away a heap of freebies.
- Moderator
- #13
Rubbish. Net revenue doesnt tell you anything about support levels AT ALL. Gross membership revenue tells you how much your supporters are paying, and is a better indicator of support, because NET revenue is simply an indicator of how much the club spends attracting said support. Net revenue is literally meaningless in terms of gauging support.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
If you want to gauge broad support, look at # of members, or attendances, or TV ratings. There are plenty of good options. If you want to look at how much $$$ the club is making from members, look at net membership revenue.
But if you want a stat that puts Gold Coast near the top, a club that is far, far below league average in revenue, and support, number of members, and every relevant measure you can think of ... well then gross revenue per member is your stat.
- Moderator
- #15
I can also use membership revenue to determine broad support. If i want to know which club spends the least on memberships then ill look at net revenues. Until then its an irrelevant stat in determining support levels.
Or you can - as Richmond have done - simply make up a stat that makes them look better than they are. Literally no other club reports the figures as net revenue because its of no relevance other than an indicaton of the costs involved in securing memberships. It tells us nothing about how much people paid and therefore nothing about the actual level of support.
- Sep 22, 2011
- 20,304
- 72,732
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I dont understand. You say, it does not tell us about mow much people paid yet cant you simply divide it by the total members ? See the thing is, its like revenue. We dont include goverment grants, the bombers do. When we got given 20 million we did not add it as part of our profit, when other clubs do. Most clubs dont report as clear cut as you are saying IMO
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I don't think anybody has said net revenue is a good measure of "broad support." What it's good for is measuring how much money a club can make from its supporters. Which is important, obviously.
Gross revenue per member, on the other hand, is a bad stat for... well, just about everything. It's pretty silly to pick that one out as a metric for "broad support" over all the obvious measures like # of members, or attendances, TV ratings, etc.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Oh I just realized footyindustry.com is your site. I like that site a lot; well done. Does it not bother you, though, that you're using a stat for "broad support" that puts clubs like the Bulldogs ahead of Richmond? And that the Suns would sit near the top in? I mean, that doesn't pass a sanity test.
- Moderator
- #19
Ill say it again. Richmond have literally picked a stat that no other club in the league reports on. It further means nothing other than telling us the net profit made from the members, nothing about their numbers or how much they paid - only how much is left after the club deducts costs.
Im not going to argue with a Richmond brigade.
- Moderator
- #20
It clearly delineates that its the average amount paid per member when weighed against membership revenue and it tells us that the average Bulldogs member will pay more per membership than a richmond supporter. It is what it is, nothing more. Perhaps Richmond people would like a website that creates its own stats based on spin from Punt Road.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 4,229
- 17,495
- AFL Club
- Richmond
If no other club reports net revenue, where did you get all these net revenue numbers from? Isn't this your table?
I have no idea how accurate these numbers are. But clearly net revenue is a better measure of how much money a club makes from its members. I mean, that's literally its definition.
- Moderator
- #22
If no other club reports net revenue, where did you get all these net revenue numbers from? Isn't this your table?
I have no idea how accurate these numbers are. But clearly net revenue is a better measure of how much money a club makes from its members. I mean, that's literally its definition.
Clubs report the membership revenue in the revenue section of the report. They also report the expenses in the expense section of the report, and the rest is simple maths. Richmond do not report raw membership revenue at all, and net revenue is only known from the statements made to media. Richmonds report is one of the vaguest out there, maybe second only to port Adelaides 2013 report.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I think the more important point is that while clubs report using different procedures and techniques, any comparison has to be considered 'rough'.
- Moderator
- #24
Updated
telsor
Hall of Famer
When you look at some of these figures, I can only think that differing accounting practices are as big a factor as anything.
Similar threads
