Reported(?) Membership numbers

[Convocation]

I apologise if this thread has been done previously, and would kindly ask the moderators to remove it if it is

I don’t know why it bugs me so much, but I have a real issue with the reporting of membership numbers by clubs. I may have misread the article in The Age today in relation to the Pies “Tasmanian Magpie Insider” membership for 2015, but surely a Membership that does not include access to premiership-season matches but includes free access to VFL home matches, a scarf, member pricing on club merchandise and access to coach Nathan Buckley's weekly video message should not be counted in the official membership numbers. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that those from the Apple Island have access to a “membership”, but even those that do purchase it, would surely not call it a Collingwood Membership.

The Magpies and the other 17 AFL clubs all offer a mixture of membership options including 3 and 5 Game memberships, Interstate and overseas memberships, Specialty games memberships (Anzac Day) numerous No Game Access Memberships (digital etc.), and even toddler/baby and Pet Memberships, along with the standard full membership, which depending on level can include a guaranteed AFL Grand Final Ticket should your team be playing.

I’ll admit I don’t know if all membership numbers reported (e.g. the Pies 80,000 last year) include all memberships types, or are Standard full memberships, but in my opinion if they’re not I’d like membership numbers when reported to be Full Memberships (These include interstate memberships - reserved for H&A / GF tickets guarantee etc).

I’m sure I’m being pedantic about this, and it isn't really that important but I’d like to see what I call “real membership” numbers rather than "false"(IMO) membership numbers.

 

[The Swert]

Membership should be defined by voting rights at the club's AGM regardless of the amount payed, or benefits in terms of free attendance etc

 

[Convocation]

Membership should be defined by voting rights at the club's AGM regardless of the amount payed, or benefits in terms of free attendance etc

Not all club members, regardless of memberships prices paid get voting rights at the AGM e.g. the Eagles and Dockers (happy to be corrected if i'm wrong), but I agree with your thoughts for those that do The Swert

 

[estibador]

Not all club members, regardless of memberships prices paid get voting rights at the AGM e.g. the Eagles and Dockers (happy to be corrected if i'm wrong), but I agree with your thoughts for those that do The Swert

We have two member elected positions on our board.

I think they're currently held by former captains Ben Allan and Peter Mann. We're waiting for the glorious day Clive runs for office.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

I don't think it's a big deal. Membership number totals aren't used for much besides one-upmanship on bigfooty right?

 

[estibador]

Revenue from memberships is the really important metric.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Membership should be defined by voting rights at the club's AGM regardless of the amount payed, or benefits in terms of free attendance etc

I know our membership base is very small compared to everyone else, but to say we have no members at all is a bit stupid if you ask me.

 

[Superstar swan]

Only full memberships should be counted in membership tallies.

 

[cammo78]

Revenue from memberships is the really important metric.

Nailed it.

 

[Convocation]

Nailed it.

Agree 100%.
Still would like numbers of full memberships from clubs as well though.

 

[Tiger2709]

Membership should be defined by voting rights at the club's AGM regardless of the amount payed, or benefits in terms of free attendance etc

Essendon have a $50 membership with full voting rights so not sure that is a good judge of membership, their members hit 60,000 for the first time but their revenue was less than the previous year.

Revenue has to be the figure used to judge where teams sit membership wise.

I am an interstate member at Richmond so basically give them some money with no real benefits as it only includes 3 home games, so unless I am in Victoria for a visit all I get for my $100 is a few stickers and a card saying I am a member, I don't think I should be excluded as a member, if you use revenue then my money still counts.

Just to add to that it should be net revenue, I have seen comments from supporters of some clubs saying they have 10million in membership revenue when in reality they only net 5 million, what really matters is how much money the club gains from it's memberships.

 

[cryptor]

Only full memberships should be counted in membership tallies.

I agree. Or at least calculate it on a full 11 game membership equivalent basis.

Eg. 11x 3 game memberships = 33 games worth of member access = 3 full memberships
So instead of counting 11 members, you count just 3.

At least make something like that a metric that makes comparing membership numbers something that has some meaning.

Total revenue from memberships is also an important metric.

 

[yodellinhank]

Voting rights is the measure that should determine how many "members" a club has. That is the number of the group of people who represent the way a club runs itself.

Revenue raised from those memberships is an important figure, but it doesn't reflect how many people are members of a club. It should be counted as a separate measure of how successful a club is at raising money from the matches that they play.

 

[Forward Press]

I agree. Or at least calculate it on a full 11 game membership equivalent basis.

Eg. 11x 3 game memberships = 33 games worth of member access = 3 full memberships
So instead of counting 11 members, you count just 3.

At least make something like that a metric that makes comparing membership numbers something that has some meaning.

Total revenue from memberships is also an important metric.

How would you figure in the thousands of Eagles 'In the Wings' members that pay up every year, but don't get any games as part of their membership?

Total revenue is probably the best.

 

[Convocation]

How would you figure in the thousands of Eagles 'In the Wings' members that pay up every year, but don't get any games as part of their membership?

Total revenue is probably the best.

I guess I'm really wanting to know full members. West Coast can't get anymore full-time members till the stadium is built, but when posting figures in my opinion you could report on Full Memberships and Other Memberships e.g. West Coast Eagles 50,000 Full Members and 20,000 "Other" Members or if a club really wanted to, and I'm sure it would be hard, they could deliver all the membership package numbers, however for my interests I'd only want Full Time and Other.

 

[Kwality]

I apologise if this thread has been done previously, and would kindly ask the moderators to remove it if it is

I don’t know why it bugs me so much, but I have a real issue with the reporting of membership numbers by clubs. I may have misread the article in The Age today in relation to the Pies “Tasmanian Magpie Insider” membership for 2015, but surely a Membership that does not include access to premiership-season matches but includes free access to VFL home matches, a scarf, member pricing on club merchandise and access to coach Nathan Buckley's weekly video message should not be counted in the official membership numbers. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that those from the Apple Island have access to a “membership”, but even those that do purchase it, would surely not call it a Collingwood Membership.

The Magpies and the other 17 AFL clubs all offer a mixture of membership options including 3 and 5 Game memberships, Interstate and overseas memberships, Specialty games memberships (Anzac Day) numerous No Game Access Memberships (digital etc.), and even toddler/baby and Pet Memberships, along with the standard full membership, which depending on level can include a guaranteed AFL Grand Final Ticket should your team be playing.

I’ll admit I don’t know if all membership numbers reported (e.g. the Pies 80,000 last year) include all memberships types, or are Standard full memberships, but in my opinion if they’re not I’d like membership numbers when reported to be Full Memberships (These include interstate memberships - reserved for H&A / GF tickets guarantee etc).

I’m sure I’m being pedantic about this, and it isn't really that important but I’d like to see what I call “real membership” numbers rather than "false"(IMO) membership numbers.

look at the dollars if you are looking for fair dinkum - these membership numbers are for the cheerleaders consumption.

 

[cryptor]

How would you figure in the thousands of Eagles 'In the Wings' members that pay up every year, but don't get any games as part of their membership?

Total revenue is probably the best.

That's fine too. It's just about giving the numbers context.

 

[Convocation]

look at the dollars if you are looking for fair dinkum - these membership numbers are for the cheerleaders consumption.

The point is, the information is not readily available or reported at a level I think it should be, and I believe others would like to see (Could be wrong, I noted in my original post how pedantic I can be). It irks me when Clubs give their, IMO "false" membership numbers and they are continually quoted.
The problem with looking at the numbers as they are not easy to break down based on the 2 annual reports of Hawthorn and Collingwood that I looked at. Hawthorn report their membership income under the following - Sponsorship, membership & fundraising expenses ($10,331,134), Collingwood reports their membership income under - membership and match day ($24,441,236).

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I agree. Or at least calculate it on a full 11 game membership equivalent basis.

Eg. 11x 3 game memberships = 33 games worth of member access = 3 full memberships
So instead of counting 11 members, you count just 3.

At least make something like that a metric that makes comparing membership numbers something that has some meaning.

Total revenue from memberships is also an important metric.

How many of your members are Tasmanian based? Why on earth would they buy an 11 game membership. Do you have 11 home games on yours? How often do you get over to Tassie for the games?

I'd imagine it would be the same with North.

I'm a Sydney member - I get access to 8 games (the other three are inCanberra)

Bottom line is that I pay money to the club and get a membership card. I'm a member. You can't not count me as one. I don't have voting rights. I don't go to 11 games. But I am a member of my club and my club should be allowed to count me in their membership numbers.

 

[Superstar swan]

That's fine too. It's just about giving the numbers context.

You wonder how many club's memberships numbers are greatly inflated by gimmicky pet memberships

 

[cryptor]

You wonder how many club's memberships numbers are greatly inflated by gimmicky pet memberships

I've seen Richmond supporters on Big Footy have a go at Hawthorn about pet memberships before. Which is embarrassing for them given Hawthorn doesn't offer them yet Richmond do...

 

[Superstar swan]

I've seen Richmond supporters on Big Footy have a go at Hawthorn about pet memberships before. Which is embarrassing for them given Hawthorn doesn't offer them yet Richmond do...

I know the swans do and it is downright ridiculous. It doesnt concern me that the swans have pet members because we are not a club to brag or bang on about membership base. Completely different story when your club is renowned for a large membership base and pride themselves in it yet rely on pet memberships

 

[yodellinhank]

I've seen Richmond supporters on Big Footy have a go at Hawthorn about pet memberships before. Which is embarrassing for them given Hawthorn doesn't offer them yet Richmond do...

The interesting thing with Hawthorn's figures is how having 15 games to offer ticket holders affects the numbers, and the finances. Are the clubs who cop the Hawthorn member entitlement away games financially compensated is what I'd like to know, and the make up of the arrangement.

 

[cryptor]

How many of your members are Tasmanian based? Why on earth would they buy an 11 game membership. Do you have 11 home games on yours? How often do you get over to Tassie for the games?

I'd imagine it would be the same with North.

I'm a Sydney member - I get access to 8 games (the other three are inCanberra)

Bottom line is that I pay money to the club and get a membership card. I'm a member. You can't not count me as one. I don't have voting rights. I don't go to 11 games. But I am a member of my club and my club should be allowed to count me in their membership numbers.

You're missing the point. It's not about saying certain members aren't members or less than a member. It's about creating a metric that allows an apples to apples comparison between membership bases. Used alongside those raw membership numbers and membership revenue.

As an example (Just plucking numbers out of the air here) if Collingwood have 80k members but 60k of them are on 3 game memberships compared to a West Coast who might have 50k members but all of them have full memberships plus another 30k paying to be on a waiting list then that is of interest for comparison purposes. Especially if their membership revenue worked out to be about the same.

 

[Hawkk]

You wonder how many club's memberships numbers are greatly inflated by gimmicky pet memberships

Except they're not

Perhaps you should search the Hawthorn membership site for the gimmicky memberships (as a point of comparison compare it to the crappy pet memberships that the Swans provide?)

membership.hawthornfc.com.au is the link they you are looking for?