Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread Part 10

[Visenfest]

- Drink drives and flees the scene of a car crash.
- Vehemently defends a mid career footy player who rearranged the face of a first year player.

What a guy.

 

[TheFVK]

- Drink drives and flees the scene of a car crash.
- Vehemently defends a mid career footy player who rearranged the face of a first year player.

What a guy.

Who woulda thunk the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Coobk001]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

SEN Calling the Crows out on their membership number forging. Taken far too long, but at least someone's finally called it out.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

SEN Calling the Crows out on their membership number forging. Taken far too long, but at least someone's finally called it out.

A Kane Cornes written article. That will fire up the crowies - called him a failed fireman - think thats the name of their thread.

 

[wannabejack]

A Kane Cornes written article. That will fire up the crowies - called him a failed fireman - think thats the name of their thread.

Looks like he likes to start fires now.

 

[Papa G]

Just stating the obvious really isn't worth a whole article is it? Will get its intended response from expected sources I suppose?

Have yet to look at their board but will assume the usual mouth breathers will be frothing?

On the odd occasion I've looked at their board, outside the habitual cases, there is this one relatively new idiot that has stood out to me. Ad Victoriam. There's not a lot worse than somebody who thinks they are smart/wise/learned...... but simply are not.

 

[Grave Danger]

Looks like he likes to start fires now.

Fahrenheit 451 - the temperature at which digital memberships that aren't worth the paper they're written on catch fire.

 

[HighBudget]

Why would Kane Cornes of all people get our current membership figure so wrong?

 

[simba_]

can someone please link some information about the whole crows buying facebook views from turkey thing? it's too funny to not bring up again, especially in light of more fake online business

 

[tribey]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

SEN Calling the Crows out on their membership number forging. Taken far too long, but at least someone's finally called it out.

Wouldn’t be that big a deal if Fagan hadn’t made that patronising song and dance about ‘data not tallies’ when we topped them after the AFL audit in 2015 or 2016.

To then count a glorified emailing list in their club membership tally is ridiculous.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Onya SEN, calling out the liars for what they are, but as SEN said, once the AFL audits the number to the much lower number the ship will have sailed. What an a-hole franchise they are.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

 

[charcolechaddy]

Onya SEN, calling out the liars for what they are, but as SEN said, once the AFL audits the number to the much lower number the ship will have sailed. What an a-hole franchise they are.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

But 95% of their members are as dumb as batshit, even after all the crap they where fed last year they still think they don’t feed them lies .

At least when our club put out crap our members call them out.

You just need to look at the thread title for last years camp.

 

[kirky]

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2019/01/14/has-adelaide-fudged-their-membership-numbers/

SEN Calling the Crows out on their membership number forging. Taken far too long, but at least someone's finally called it out.

We don’t make a big song and dance about it, only Kane sought to raise it. At the end of the day the important thing is the $$$$ generated from memberships. We disclose it clearly in our financial accounts unlike a lot of AFL clubs.

I would rather the tally based on 11 game memberships not 1, 3 or 5 game memberships.

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4121

 

[scotty13]

Does the AFL have 'laws' surrounding memberships that the clubs must adhere to? Maybe they need to add that any membership figure you publicly release can only feature members that meet certain criteria...
We all know the crows only do what they do so they can say they are far in front of us on the membership numbers, when we know that they aren't actually that far in front.

If we employed the same strategy though, maybe we would have had a second major sponsor for 12mths already?

 

[kirky]

Does the AFL have 'laws' surrounding memberships that the clubs must adhere to? Maybe they need to add that any membership figure you publicly release can only feature members that meet certain criteria...
We all know the crows only do what they do so they can say they are far in front of us on the membership numbers, when we know that they aren't actually that far in front.

If we employed the same strategy though, maybe we would have had a second major sponsor for 12mths already?

All a membership has to do is be more than $50- for audit purposes.

Crows have their free digital membership which gets removed at the audit. Don’t have an issue removing them but what the digital does if give access to sponsors of our whole membership base (11 game, 3 game, interstate and digital) - it is a smart strategy.

 

[scotty13]

All a membership has to do is be more than $50- for audit purposes.

Crows have their free digital membership which gets removed at the audit. Don’t have an issue removing them but what the digital does if give access to sponsors of our whole membership base (11 game, 3 game, interstate and digital) - it is a smart strategy.

Yes, so if the AFL stipulated than any membership figure released (prior to audit) can only be those that are $50 or greater then this nonsense will stop.

 

[Duck Farmer]

All a membership has to do is be more than $50- for audit purposes.

Crows have their free digital membership which gets removed at the audit. Don’t have an issue removing them but what the digital does if give access to sponsors of our whole membership base (11 game, 3 game, interstate and digital) - it is a smart strategy.

I can see how getting nothing for my digital membership other than having my details sold on for marketing purposes will help me forge a strong connection and feeling of belonging to the club.

 

[kirky]

I can see how getting nothing for my digital membership other than having my details sold on for marketing purposes will help me forge a strong connection and feeling of belonging to the club.

Pretty sure those signing up are fully aware why they are doing it.

They might be on the waiting list for an 11 game membership and still want to be connected to the club. We have one of the highest 11 game membership bases in the AFL and as previously advised the $$$ we generate from our members is clearly shown in our annual financial report (unlike most other clubs). Reckon that’s being totally truthful to your member base.

I’m a half full kind of opinion rather than half empty - each to their own.

 

[kirky]

Yes, so if the AFL stipulated than any membership figure released (prior to audit) can only be those that are $50 or greater then this nonsense will stop.

Because whilst we have the ludicrous situation of 1, 3 and 11 game memberships it doesn’t reflect the $$$ each club generates from its membership base.

If you were to do it correctly so you can compare apples to apples (other than it being a big dick competition) they should show how many 1 game, 3 game and 11 game members you have and the $$$ generated from those memberships. But that won’t happen.

 

[scotty13]

Because whilst we have the ludicrous situation of 1, 3 and 11 game memberships it doesn’t reflect the $$$ each club generates from its membership base.

If you were to do it correctly so you can compare apples to apples (other than it being a big dick competition) they should show how many 1 game, 3 game and 11 game members you have and the $$$ generated from those memberships. But that won’t happen.

But the issue isn't the $$ made from memberships but the amount of legitimate members a club has. Otherwise we should do a deal with the Chinese Government, that every single chinese person automatically receives a PAFC digital membership... screw 100,000 members that Richmond might break this year... try 1.3billion members

 

[Coobk001]

We don’t make a big song and dance about it, only Kane sought to raise it. At the end of the day the important thing is the $$$$ generated from memberships. We disclose it clearly in our financial accounts unlike a lot of AFL clubs.

I would rather the tally based on 11 game memberships not 1, 3 or 5 game memberships.

http://www.footyindustry.com/?page_id=4121

Lol what a load of crap, you've been trumpeting these ridiculous figures for 2 years now. And pumped up the chase for the 90,000th member last year.

Now you've been called out, you're all "Oh the numbers aren't important, we weren't really bragging"

What a load of crap.

If my club had done what yours has done, I'd just be shaking my head and saying, you know what, we were stupid for bragging and imbelishing our numbers with fake memberships. So we deserve to cop whatever crap we get.

When Port had some good member figures on the back of AO and the One club movement, the Crows fans were quick to come up with garbage like "Oh you're counting pet members", "Lol poort, they're counting 400 pet members, they don't have 60k members they have only 59,600 members, lol, lol, lol, port such liars"

Yet your club comes out and counts over 20,000 fake members and all good nothing to see here. Gimme a break.

Kane Cornes is spot on and it is an article that should've been written a year ago.

 

[Janus]

Pretty sure those signing up are fully aware why they are doing it.

They might be on the waiting list for an 11 game membership and still want to be connected to the club. We have one of the highest 11 game membership bases in the AFL and as previously advised the $$$ we generate from our members is clearly shown in our annual financial report (unlike most other clubs). Reckon that’s being totally truthful to your member base.

I’m a half full kind of opinion rather than half empty - each to their own.

It's got nothing to do with being on the waiting list for AFC. You have to take out a General Admission membership at $105 to get on that.

All it is is a data mining exercise that devalues the memberships of every other club as being nothing more than a mailing list if your numbers are counted in the same manner.

Because whilst we have the ludicrous situation of 1, 3 and 11 game memberships it doesn’t reflect the $$$ each club generates from its membership base.

If you were to do it correctly so you can compare apples to apples (other than it being a big dick competition) they should show how many 1 game, 3 game and 11 game members you have and the $$$ generated from those memberships. But that won’t happen.

Who cares how much money is generated? The idea of membership numbers is a gauge on how many people are committed enough to be a financial member of your club - to spend $50 or more in a season. $50 was the cut off point because $50 is a significant investment in something you don't really care about. No one is throwing away $50...they want something back in return for that money.

When Richmond get up and say '70,000 members', it's 70,000 REAL members. 70.000 people who are loyal enough to the club to buy products based on the companies that support them.

When Collingwood get up and say '70,000 members', it's 70,000 REAL members. 70.000 people who are loyal enough to the club to buy products based on the companies that support them.

When Adelaide get up and say '70,000 members', it's 50,000 real members and 20,000 FAKE members. 20,000 people who can't even be bothered to buy a $50 membership...so why would they buy a product based on the companies that support Adelaide? And yet the AFC is trying to convince sponsors that they are on the same playing field as a Richmond or a Collingwood and so far in front of Port Adelaide.

It's duplicitous and egregious.

 

[El Zorro]

All a membership has to do is be more than $50- for audit purposes.

Crows have their free digital membership which gets removed at the audit. Don’t have an issue removing them but what the digital does if give access to sponsors of our whole membership base (11 game, 3 game, interstate and digital) - it is a smart strategy.

Sounds good. But calling newsletter subscribers members is false advertising. Shouldn't be allowed.

 

[JUSTWORK]

Sounds good. But calling newsletter subscriber members is false advertising. Shouldn't be allowed.

Absolutely shouldn’t be allowed. It’s falsafying your membership numbers to try one up other clubs and falsely present yourself to attract sponsors.

AFL should put strict rules in place and harsh penalties to what the crows are doing. Being stripped of a few hundred, maybe even a thosand or so come audit time is one thing. But to be stripped of 20-30 thousand is rediculous.

To have digital members is one thing but to actually count them in your official membership tally is a joke. What’s next counting people who like you on FB/instagram ?

 

[charcolechaddy]

W

Pretty sure those signing up are fully aware why they are doing it.

They might be on the waiting list for an 11 game membership and still want to be connected to the club. We have one of the highest 11 game membership bases in the AFL and as previously advised the $$$ we generate from our members is clearly shown in our annual financial report (unlike most other clubs). Reckon that’s being totally truthful to your member base.

I’m a half full kind of opinion rather than half empty - each to their own.

hat brag to everyone that you have 90,000 members then put the truth in a 50 page doc, yer real transparent.

Yes you do have great membership why bullshit the fact?