True, but as the stadium gets older you'd expect maintenance costs to rise. Which the Suns seem to be responsible for.
Membership Revenue v Net Membership Revenue
- Thread starter KillaKanga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
True, but as the stadium gets older you'd expect maintenance costs to rise. Which the Suns seem to be responsible for.
I did use the term tongue in cheek. It was more about a bit of subtle trolling of the most active supporters on the thread than serious commentary.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Not exactly sure what the sinking fund is for, but yeah, it does seem they're responsible for at least some of them. From memory, there are also meant to be some upgrades (comm games for one), which will make the set lease even more attractive...Assuming they can get a reasonable crowd in (the greatest lease in the world for a 40K stadium will be crap if you only draw 1K).
Or it could mean that the demographics of Richmond are different to other clubs. I bought a concession home game membership, paid $120. That same membership is going at
Collingwood: $135
Hawthorn: $131
Essendon: $100
Carlton: $142
So Richmond isn't that dissimilar.
- Moderator
- #80
How are you still not getting this.
In 2014 according to its annual report Richmond sold 66,854 memberships, for net revenue of 7.6 million + expenses of 2.3 million, and a total membership revenue of 9.9 million. Hawthorn with comparable membership numbers at 68,650, attained membership revenue of $10,691,860 - despite 8,000 of those members being 4 game Taswegians. Carlton achieved membership revenue of 9.2 million on 47,557 members according to its annual report. Richmond sold 19,297 members more than the Blues, for $700,000 extra. The Hawks sold 1800 more memberships than the tigers, for an additional $790,000.
- Moderator
- #81
sinking fund is stadium maintenance. Adelaide Oval has the same thing with the SMA.
Hence the relevance of profit (or lack thereof) in the discussion - are memberships contributing or not ? As posted earlier the Blues have called in the AFL for assistance in membership, no its not about you Wookie, the Blues have a problem not the Tigers, despite you clinging to an isolated number clearly irrelevant when a better indicator, i.e profit is in play.
Ringing Benny is my call.
See rfctiger74 's post.
I still disagree of the term confetti as used by Rob, by definition.
- Moderator
- #85
For the last time. No one is disputing the profit side of things, which membership revenue is certainly part of - but the overall profit is not part of this discussion. And where was it ever about me? And this thread isnt about carlton despite you wanting to bring it up.
And the club I support has nothing to do with this discussion. Im well aware of its present issues though.[/QUOTE]
But you defended it, which means you agree with the term.
Thats why a sinking fund is used.
Modern context – capital expenditure
Sinking funds can also be used to set aside money for purposes of replacing capital equipment as it becomes obsolete, or major maintenance or renewal of elements of a fixed asset, typically a building. Such a fund is also commonly called a reserve fund, however the distinguishing feature of a sinking fund is that the payments into it are calculated to amortize a forecast future expenditure whereas a reserve fund is intended to equalise expenditure in respect of regularly recurring service items to avoid fluctuations in the amount of service charge payable each year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_fund
Last edited:
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,903
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I'd suggest if you're trying to keep the thread on topic that generalisations about a single supporter group are probably not the way to go about that.
- Moderator
- #89
I was responding to a post that had already made a generalisation about tigers fans. How about you call that one out. No?
Hello Newman!
Team Captain
Quote from the Richmond FC
"I’m not sure exactly what clubs you are referring to but it is my understanding that outside of Collingwood, Richmond nets more out of membership than any other Melbourne based club. Don’t quote me on exact numbers but since 2010, net membership results have been something like $3.8m, $4.5m, $5.3m, $6.6m, $7.6m and we are on target to improve that number again in 2015. Where some confusion may lie would be in total revenues, before expenses are deducted. Richmond still have a low proportion of reserved seat members as a percentage of the total membership base. Playing 10 of our home games at the MCG means that members still realise they can use their general admission membership and get a decent seat to most games. The reality is that as we continue to improve, this will become more and more difficult. For the clubs like Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon, who share home games across the MCG and Etihad, they have been able to drive scarcity by using the much smaller capacity of Etihad. Unfortunately however, the margins on Etihad reserved seats aren’t traditionally great for clubs. Other clubs therefore have higher revenues due to more members paying higher prices to secure reserved seats, however these clubs are required to forego a big slice of this revenue to the stadium for rental on the seats. The additional revenues are therefore offset by much higher expenses and a lowering of the net position."
https://www.facebook.com/Richmond.F...160785.298686323275/10153144617893276/?type=1
"I’m not sure exactly what clubs you are referring to but it is my understanding that outside of Collingwood, Richmond nets more out of membership than any other Melbourne based club. Don’t quote me on exact numbers but since 2010, net membership results have been something like $3.8m, $4.5m, $5.3m, $6.6m, $7.6m and we are on target to improve that number again in 2015. Where some confusion may lie would be in total revenues, before expenses are deducted. Richmond still have a low proportion of reserved seat members as a percentage of the total membership base. Playing 10 of our home games at the MCG means that members still realise they can use their general admission membership and get a decent seat to most games. The reality is that as we continue to improve, this will become more and more difficult. For the clubs like Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon, who share home games across the MCG and Etihad, they have been able to drive scarcity by using the much smaller capacity of Etihad. Unfortunately however, the margins on Etihad reserved seats aren’t traditionally great for clubs. Other clubs therefore have higher revenues due to more members paying higher prices to secure reserved seats, however these clubs are required to forego a big slice of this revenue to the stadium for rental on the seats. The additional revenues are therefore offset by much higher expenses and a lowering of the net position."
https://www.facebook.com/Richmond.F...160785.298686323275/10153144617893276/?type=1
There you go again, you quoted the Blues above:
How are you still not getting this.
In 2014 according to its annual report Richmond sold 66,854 memberships, for net revenue of 7.6 million + expenses of 2.3 million, and a total membership revenue of 9.9 million. Hawthorn with comparable membership numbers at 68,650, attained membership revenue of $10,691,860 - despite 8,000 of those members being 4 game Taswegians. Carlton achieved membership revenue of 9.2 million on 47,557 members according to its annual report. Richmond sold 19,297 members more than the Blues, for $700,000 extra. The Hawks sold 1800 more memberships than the tigers, for an additional $790,000.
You may or may not moderate this thread so those reading these posts may or may not draw their own conclusions.
Sinking funds are used for up keep of facilities plus any works where breakdowns/works are required, ie a sudden flooding when pipes break, obsolescence of equipment occurs etc.
Last edited:
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,903
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Someone made one post in response to the agenda you're trying to push in this thread, I'm not going to call them out, I'm going to point out to you who should know better that you are not promoting fair and reasonable discussion. Feel free to delete my post but I have no interest in discussing the topic if you're going to respond the way you have so far.
Benefit of limited seating v general membership expressed as I've not seen it before - who is the Tiger operative who wrote this?
Worthy of a new thread on hidden benefit of Etihad?
Last edited:
I have had the sense that wookie infers we fudge our numbers, which is why I reply to this. I hope I'm wrong, and its just posting style. I get that because we only show net numbers, that we are supposedly trying to obfuscate our position in the membership area(or at least that is his position), however just because we do it this way in no way is it not a valid approach. If it was why have gross or net figures at all? I understand we can disagree, but surely 1 way or the other is an either/or position.
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,903
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I don't think it's relevant to the discussion
- Moderator
- #97
Im going to point out once and for all that
1) My position hasnt changed since the thread was created, despite being brigaded by a variety of almost exclusively Richmond fans (and Kwality)
2) If someone tells me "Tigers fans can see what your doing" then Ill damn well respond the same way when responding to his post.
Im keeping this thread to its original premise:net membership revenues v membership revenues. That is my sole purpose in this thread.
I have no doubt the memberships are genuine. Im pointing out that they are unusually cheap - and based solely on the number of members v the total membership revenue. You think I make these numbers up?
I have no doubt the memberships are genuine. Im pointing out that they are unusually cheap - and based solely on the number of members v the total membership revenue. You think I make these numbers up?[/QUOTE]
I would say that saying these are unusually cheap isn't correct either. If we had $100 per member then I would agree. We are still within the specs when you consider the spread. I don't think you are making the numbers up, just think you are interpreting/expressing them harshly. Adding terms like support muddle things also.
I would say that saying these are unusually cheap isn't correct either. If we had $100 per member then I would agree. We are still within the specs when you consider the spread. I don't think you are making the numbers up, just think you are interpreting/expressing them harshly. Adding terms like support muddle things also.
DrMike
No one likes Wang
- May 13, 2012
- 25,032
- 56,903
- AFL Club
- Richmond
What are you trying to achieve with the thread? Why is there any significance in the vs? You haven't actually added any contribution to that line of discussion, just taken pot shots at Richmond. I'm just saying make your case to the thread topic since you're the one that made it, otherwise this shouldn't be here.
- Moderator
- #100
Looked over thread and you're probably right. I shouldnt have generalised on the Tigers issue, and i appear to have done so several times in this thread. Early on I mixed members with support, and thats not good, and then the matter of confetti came up. My case could have been clearer.
Richmond are clearly doing something right in terms of profitability and cost management.
Ive asked another mod to look the thread over.
Similar threads
