2018 Club Membership (2018 AFL Audit numbers now in OP]

[RussellEbertHandball]

Are SANFL members still counted by both clubs or has this changed since moving from FP?

Both clubs count the 8,000 AOSMA Football Members in their total but the AFL split them when they do their audited figures. Port confirmed 28% were allocated to them in 2017 which is approx 2,240. Port in 2014 provided that there were 8,206 members and they had 35.7% or 2,928 in 2014 and of the 8,009 in 2015 Port were allocated 2,883 or 36% but I haven't seen the exact figure since then just 33% in 2016 and 28% in 2017 but it was always supposed to be capped at 8,000.

 

[Tassie27]

No it isn’t.
Personally I think only full season ticket memberships should count towards membership figures. Not a fan of these 3 game memberships etc being included

Depends what someone can afford. $30 to a pensioner can be a difficult proposition but a $1000 membership to a millionaire is peanuts. Just don't like the tone that for someone who can only afford a cheap membership is not seen as a true member in the numbers.

 

[tigerwill]

Just saw an article on afl.com.au stating most clubs membership numbers as of now for 2018.

Our current tally is -

2017 TALLY: 81,062

CURRENT TALLY: 72,096

We are leading the AFL at the moment. About 4000 ahead of Richmond (both WA clubs didn' give figures due to It is Stadium and Collingwood didn't give figures.

So a brilliant renewal rate with a lot of growth to come (surely shout be able to crack 90,000 total member's for 2018).

Also the total figure for 2017 of over 81,000 would have topped the AFL too.


As I'm on my phone can the wookie or someone else post the article?

Quite a few are "we fly as one" digital memberships. "Free" memberships but receive a club email and a discount on club appaterel, or something of sorts.
https://weflyasone.afc.com.au/
The afl doesn't recognise those, hence when the afl audits club memberships you'll notice quite a difference in the actual membership total.
Don't be fooled by what Crocmedia puts up on afl.com site. They run the content not the afl.


I think the afl has a minimum number of "match day" memberships they include. I remember a couple of years or so ago, Collingwood had a 1 match membership, other clubs may have had similar but the afl auditors didn't include them. Similarly when Collingwood ran afoul of the ACCC when promoting a game day membership (it may have included a footy jumper??) for $20 or a jumper fo $20 and you received a 1 game pass. It ended up being $20 x 3 in the fine print. I can't quite remember the actual details but I think Collingwood received a warning or fine. Someone in the know can correct me.
Other clubs had non match access memberships (that don't count) We had Tiger Insider/On the Bench memberships that didn't provide game access. These were included either.

 

[tigerwill]

Depends what someone can afford. $30 to a pensioner can be a difficult proposition but a $1000 membership to a millionaire is peanuts. Just don't like the tone that for someone who can only afford a cheap membership is not seen as a true member in the numbers.

Excellent point. Good post.
Similarly for interstate members who can't readily get to games but want to feel part of a club. For some it's purely a donation. It's a difficult one. Someone who purchases and uses a full season membership compared to an interstate member who doesn't get to any. $wise an interstate member is pure dollars in the bank for a club without the need to give some back to the afl for attending matches.
I think all paying members are valued, or should be.

 

[John Seed]

I joined the Tigers mailing list surely these will be included in our tally like the crows After that grand final performance and the stupid anthem stare it seems Adelaide are still providing lols for us all

 

[Richo83]

These tallies are meaningless when $1,000 memberships count as much as $30 memberships.

Yes and no. Having a large support base willing to put cash, however small to the club is important and is a sign of health.

The other factor is there are many fans who can't get season tickets because they're all locked up who buy a token membership to keep the benefits.

I think the key figures is how much do clubs earn per membership and whether or not some clubs' membership numbers are limited by stadium sizes. I think it's clear they are.

 

[Great8]

Depends what someone can afford. $30 to a pensioner can be a difficult proposition but a $1000 membership to a millionaire is peanuts. Just don't like the tone that for someone who can only afford a cheap membership is not seen as a true member in the numbers.

All memberships are important to clubs I agree but the issue is whether they should be counted in the official audit or not.
There has to be a cutoff somewhere and for me I think full season tickets is a better representation aswell as $ per membership

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I think the afl has a minimum number of "match day" memberships they include. I remember a couple of years or so ago, Collingwood had a 1 match membership, other clubs may have had similar but the afl auditors didn't include them. Similarly when Collingwood ran afoul of the ACCC when promoting a game day membership (it may have included a footy jumper??) for $20 or a jumper fo $20 and you received a 1 game pass. It ended up being $20 x 3 in the fine print. I can't quite remember the actual details but I think Collingwood received a warning or fine. Someone in the know can correct me.
Other clubs had non match access memberships (that don't count) We had Tiger Insider/On the Bench memberships that didn't provide game access. These were included either.

Where is your source for this?

In 2011 the AFL for the first time included non access memberships in their totals because in September 2011 they released their Club funding & equalisation strategy 2012‐16 on how to spend their 2012-16 TV deal monies and other revenue in those 5 seasons and in that they set a goal of;
2016 Target  1mil Club members  8m attendees  >1m Digital subscribers

So since 2011 non access and those dopey 1 game memberships have counted in the AFL audited total. If you have been a regular reader of this board and threads in it about club membership you would be aware of this AFL graphic from August 2014 which sets out what the AFL count in their audited totals and The Wookie posted at the start of 2015 membership thread ( as well as somewhere in the 2014 thread)

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ead-official-unaudited-figures-in-op.1080010/

 

[Frank Grimes]

There has to be a cutoff somewhere and for me I think full season tickets is a better representation aswell as $ per membership

There is a cut off. From my understanding the membership has to be more than $50 in value and admit you to games.

There will always be an argument for what the cut off should be. I personally think the current one is fair enough. I haven't got a problem for 3 game membership being counted because not everybody can make the 11 games a season and those who buy the 3 game memberships are clearly interested in showing they want to be part of the club to the point they are making a reasonable financial contribution to buy the membership and plan on attending a few games.

 

[Great8]

There is a cut off. From my understanding the membership has to be more than $50 in value and admit you to games.

There will always be an argument for what the cut off should be. I personally think the current one is fair enough. I haven't got a problem for 3 game membership being counted because not everybody can make the 11 games a season and those who buy the 3 game memberships are clearly interested in showing they want to be part of the club to the point they are making a reasonable financial contribution to buy the membership and plan on attending a few games.

As the post above you stated though it appears access to games isn’t in the criteria, does anyone know this for sure?
If a person buys a 3 game membership and then later in the season decides to buy another are they then counted twice?
I know a few Crows fans who have purchased 3 game memberships at the start of the season and then due to other factors have purchased another one mid season

 

[tigerwill]

Where is your source for this?

In 2011 the AFL for the first time included non access memberships in their totals because in September 2011 they released their Club funding & equalisation strategy 2012‐16 on how to spend their 2012-16 TV deal monies and other revenue in those 5 seasons and in that they set a goal of;
2016 Target  1mil Club members  8m attendees  >1m Digital subscribers

So since 2011 non access and those dopey 1 game memberships have counted in the AFL audited total. If you have been a regular reader of this board and threads in it about club membership you would be aware of this AFL graphic from August 2014 which sets out what the AFL count in their audited totals and The Wookie posted at the start of 2015 membership thread ( as well as somewhere in the 2014 thread)

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...ead-official-unaudited-figures-in-op.1080010/

I stand corrected. I did specify, "I think the afl have a minimum...etc"
But I take it if you spend $50 you'd get a minimum 3 game membership. It doesn't count if the $50 is as a"social club" member. See the link/article below.
So my "thinking" may be sound.
http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=3997
2017 AFL Members
The AFL yesterday released the audited 2017 numbers for all AFL clubs. This years numbers included more than 7,000 AFLW members (although not all clubs, and not even all AFLW clubs had womens memberships), which comfortably puts the AFL membership tally at over 900,000. Forty-five per cent (3237 fans) of those AFLW people are new members to the AFL.
The AFL confirmed in 2016 that it had tightened membership regulations and to be counted as a member an individual must have a name, contact details, have contributed $50 to the club and received a membership pack. The official counts also include multiple memberships held by an individual. Pet memberships are not counted but the AFL confirmed babies and toddlers are included.

This means that some clubs lose some part of the membership numbers they tout in their membership tallies. Adelaide and Port Adelaide are the most affected by this.
According to Port Adelaide, the audit includes all membership products that meet certain criteria, applied consistently across the league’s 18 clubs, and Port’s share of the 8,000 Adelaide Oval stadium members based on a split of 28% being allocated to the club by the ground’s Stadium Management Authority.


(Seperate article, now paywalled)
Twelve of the 18 clubs have made membership gains this year and 10 have reached record memberships.
AFL membership ladder 2016-17
CLUB 2017 2016 VARIATION
Collingwood 75,879 74,643 +1.66%
Hawthorn 75,663 75,351 +0.41%
Richmond 72,669 72,278 +0.54%
Essendon 67,768 57,494 +17.87%
West Coast 65,064 65,188 -0.19%
Sydney 58,838 56,523 +4.10%
Adelaide 56,865 54,307 +4.71%
Geelong 54,854 50,571 +8.47%
Port Adelaide 52,129 53,743 -3.00%
Fremantle 51,254 51,889 -1.22%
Carlton 50,326 50,130 +0.39%
Western Bulldogs 47,653 39,459 +20.77%
Melbourne 42,233 39,146 +7.89%
St Kilda 42,052 38,009 +10.64%
North Melbourne 40,343 45,014 -10.38%
Brisbane 21,362 23,286 -8.36%
GWS Giants 20,944 15,312 +36.78%
Gold Coast 11,665 12,854 -9.25%
TOTAL 907,561 875,197 +3.70%
The figures are based on numbers after the July 31 deadline and include only games-based memberships, not social memberships.

Another link

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-16/afl-club-membership-tally-hits-new-high

 

[Tassie27]

All memberships are important to clubs I agree but the issue is whether they should be counted in the official audit or not.
There has to be a cutoff somewhere and for me I think full season tickets is a better representation aswell as $ per membership

The AFL need to establish a criteria that all clubs must follow for the count of memberships if we are to get a true comparison between clubs.

 

[The_Wookie]

The AFL need to establish a criteria that all clubs must follow for the count of memberships if we are to get a true comparison between clubs.

The AFL confirmed in 2016 that it had tightened membership regulations and to be counted as a member an individual must have a name, contact details, have contributed $50 to the club and received a membership pack. The official counts also include multiple memberships held by an individual. Pet memberships are not counted but the AFL confirmed babies and toddlers are included.

 

[tigerwill]

Edit* apologies, double post

 

[tigerwill]

The AFL confirmed in 2016 that it had tightened membership regulations and to be counted as a member an individual must have a name, contact details, have contributed $50 to the club and received a membership pack. The official counts also include multiple memberships held by an individual. Pet memberships are not counted but the AFL confirmed babies and toddlers are included.

I just found that article.
It seems like $50 is the minimum. Social club memberships don't count nor do free e-memberships
Probably taking liberties but I'd guess $50 might be a 3 game membership. Funny how the afl can count non access members when claiming how many members belong to afl club's, but then subtract that figure from official club totals. Fudging their own books? Maybe after some Federal funding $s

 

[The_Wookie]

I just found that article.
It seems like $50 is the minimum. Social club memberships don't count nor do free e-memberships
Probably taking liberties but I'd guess $50 might be a 3 game membership. Funny how the afl can count non access members when claiming how many members belong to afl club's, but then subtract that figure from official club totals. Fudging their own books? Maybe after some Federal funding $s

Average 3 game membership is about $80. This is literally a 1 game membership with some gear attached.

How are the AFL fudging their own books when they publish both figures? And theres no federal funding that Im aware of that is based around membership numbers.

 

[tigerwill]

Average 3 game membership is about $80. This is literally a 1 game membership with some gear attached.

How are the AFL fudging their own books when they publish both figures? And theres no federal funding that Im aware of that is based around membership numbers.

So the afl counts 1 game memberships?
But the figure they audit clubs on is match access memberships.

You agree they have 2 sets of figures. For what reason? To promote how popular the game is.
I'm not aware of any funding either. That doesn't mean they don't present membership figures when trying to attract Federal funding for such things as stadium upgrades or whatever they get the funding for. Similarly when they present their figures for participation numbers.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I stand corrected. I did specify, "I think the afl have a minimum...etc"
But I take it if you spend $50 you'd get a minimum 3 game membership. It doesn't count if the $50 is as a"social club" member. See the link/article below.
So my "thinking" may be sound.
http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=3997
2017 AFL Members
The AFL yesterday released the audited 2017 numbers for all AFL clubs. This years numbers included more than 7,000 AFLW members (although not all clubs, and not even all AFLW clubs had womens memberships), which comfortably puts the AFL membership tally at over 900,000. Forty-five per cent (3237 fans) of those AFLW people are new members to the AFL.
The AFL confirmed in 2016 that it had tightened membership regulations and to be counted as a member an individual must have a name, contact details, have contributed $50 to the club and received a membership pack. The official counts also include multiple memberships held by an individual. Pet memberships are not counted but the AFL confirmed babies and toddlers are included.

This means that some clubs lose some part of the membership numbers they tout in their membership tallies. Adelaide and Port Adelaide are the most affected by this.
According to Port Adelaide, the audit includes all membership products that meet certain criteria, applied consistently across the league’s 18 clubs, and Port’s share of the 8,000 Adelaide Oval stadium members based on a split of 28% being allocated to the club by the ground’s Stadium Management Authority.


(Seperate article, now paywalled)
Twelve of the 18 clubs have made membership gains this year and 10 have reached record memberships.
AFL membership ladder 2016-17
CLUB 2017 2016 VARIATION
Collingwood 75,879 74,643 +1.66%
Hawthorn 75,663 75,351 +0.41%
Richmond 72,669 72,278 +0.54%
Essendon 67,768 57,494 +17.87%
West Coast 65,064 65,188 -0.19%
Sydney 58,838 56,523 +4.10%
Adelaide 56,865 54,307 +4.71%
Geelong 54,854 50,571 +8.47%
Port Adelaide 52,129 53,743 -3.00%
Fremantle 51,254 51,889 -1.22%
Carlton 50,326 50,130 +0.39%
Western Bulldogs 47,653 39,459 +20.77%
Melbourne 42,233 39,146 +7.89%
St Kilda 42,052 38,009 +10.64%
North Melbourne 40,343 45,014 -10.38%
Brisbane 21,362 23,286 -8.36%
GWS Giants 20,944 15,312 +36.78%
Gold Coast 11,665 12,854 -9.25%
TOTAL 907,561 875,197 +3.70%
The figures are based on numbers after the July 31 deadline and include only games-based memberships, not social memberships.

Another link

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-16/afl-club-membership-tally-hits-new-high

That article by the AFL media ijourno is wrong. And it's not the first time their AFL's own media people dont know there what the rules and regulations are.

Since 2011 non access memberships have beern counted in the audited totals. You can be a club member with club membership rights but no game access rights to be counted. If social club rights are different to football club rights then they won't be counted.. As The_Wookie said they’ have tightened things up but as long as it meets the 4 criteria of at least $50, a name, contact details and membership pack then they are counted.

 

[The_Wookie]

So the afl counts 1 game memberships?
But the figure they audit clubs on is match access memberships.

You agree they have 2 sets of figures. For what reason? To promote how popular the game is.
I'm not aware of any funding either. That doesn't mean they don't present membership figures when trying to attract Federal funding for such things as stadium upgrades or whatever they get the funding for. Similarly when they present their figures for participation numbers.

They dont need to present membership figures. They can point to actual attendance figures.

And when they present participation numbers, any one worth their salt should read past the headline. The AFL has always broken down the figures.

 

[tigerT]

As the post above you stated though it appears access to games isn’t in the criteria, does anyone know this for sure?
If a person buys a 3 game membership and then later in the season decides to buy another are they then counted twice?
I know a few Crows fans who have purchased 3 game memberships at the start of the season and then due to other factors have purchased another one mid season

yes they are twice counted

 

[Gralin]

The whole game day thing doesn't allow for absentee, overseas, interstate etc type members.

Some people cannot get to a game but want to support their club, they don't need access to games so a non access membership is a way for them to contribute

that is one reason they have a $$$ cut off without game day requirement

 

[Rabman]

Until Adelaide Oval increases its capacity our membership (AFL wise) wont increase, majority of our games are sold out and along with other clubs have one of the highest amount of 11 games members in the competition.

 

[Great8]

Until Adelaide Oval increases its capacity our membership (AFL wise) wont increase, majority of our games are sold out and along with other clubs have one of the highest amount of 11 games members in the competition.

Crows memberships will always be strong but as you said there is no room for growth as AO won’t ever increase its capacity

 

[tigerwill]

That article by the AFL media ijourno is wrong. And it's not the first time their AFL's own media people dont know there what the rules and regulations are.

Since 2011 non access memberships have beern counted in the audited totals. You can be a club member with club membership rights but no game access rights to be counted. If social club rights are different to football club rights then they won't be counted.. As The_Wookie said they’ have tightened things up but as long as it meets the 4 criteria of at least $50, a name, contact details and membership pack then they are counted.

So only those non access memberships that cost a minimum $50 count.
If it's a "free" non access membership it doesn't count.
So when I said "I think" the afl count a minimum number of access to games, it should have been a minimum of $50, a persons name,contact details etc.
The (amended) point still stands. "Free" non access memberships aren't counted. E-memberships such as the crows "we fly as one" for example.

As I said previously we had such memberships ie "On the Bench"and "Tiger Insider" as free non access memberships. The membership numbers were posted on the RFC website and the afl audited the numbers down. I'm sure the RFC website doesn't include them at all now.

 

[tigerwill]

They dont need to present membership figures. They can point to actual attendance figures.

And when they present participation numbers, any one worth their salt should read past the headline. The AFL has always broken down the figures.

They might if they want to attract Fed funding for upgrading club facilities. Ie upgrading training grounds and the football club/"community" facilities. A fair chunk of money going into upgrades is dependent on clubs being open to the "community" to use. I'm not sure how much influence having 10k club members would have vs 70k club members. But I think it may have some bearing. That and the estimated number of community groups it's available to.
I get your point about attendance figures. It's probably a better indication but for clubs, they're at the whim of the afl to get marquee time slots. That can have a bearing. We were "penalised" by the afl for having a poor 2016, but attendance figures were very strong all the same. Maybe because a winning season helps. Other clubs have been in the same position, other poorer performing clubs have had more marquee games ie Carlton a year or so ago..