Official Club Stuff 2015 Membership - target 60 000+ REACHED

Remove this Banner Ad

Papa G said:
The Western Sydney Wanderers have a slight advantage over GWS, there are actually people in Western Sydney that play soccer and actually like the game.
Click to expand...

Oh that doesn't matter... the AFL firmly believe if they throw enough money at these people they will convert from the game they have been raised on and loved their entire lives to a new game they have no idea about. All it takes is money, same reason Tassy won't get a side cause they have no money... apparently
 
As long as the GWS crowds are comparable to Rugby they'll be happy. It's all about selling TV rights and sponsorships as the only true national game. They need 2 teams in all mainland States to sell that. The cost of propping up GC, GWS, Brisbane and (once all their COLA fueled traded players go) Sydney is more than worth that 10 times over. 2.6 billion for rights tell us that.

Clubs like ours are more than happy to help spin that story. With us bypassing the local Camry lovers for national or international sponsors, selling National exposure, not just Southern states, brings in more money than anything it costs us.

If Tasmania (or the NT as the other missing Aussie rules mad area without a team) get a large enough population / economy that TV or potential sponsors start whispering the game isn't paying enough attention to them they'll quickly get sides.

Personally I think losing 2 of North, Bulldogs, St. Kilda or Melbourne and having a team in Tasmania and one in NT would be better and worth more, but the difference is small enough the still VFL dominated AFL won't address that. We just have to hope, as our best bet, Melbourne still are as poor off-field once the AFL stops paying for their 'messiah'.
 
I think the Western Sydney venture will be a bottomless pit for AFL money for a generation. If not longer. Its ultimate success will depend on how long a game the AFL (and thus the other clubs) are prepared to play with their available money. Maybe some slick marketing and a period of on field success might see an upward trend in support but this was never going to be a short term thing. Sydney were an on and off field disaster for 14 years after the South relocation. The "Swanettes" were drawing a bigger following than the footy team. It is a high risk high reward long term venture. Personally I think it's a mistake. If they want to roll the dice on expanding the market then their resources would be better spent internationally.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

finbarr said:
There was already a simmering existing groundswell of support for soccer in Sydney, particularly the western suburbs. There is no such groundswell for Australian Football.
Click to expand...

And there wasnt supposed to be, and no one should have believed there was. GWS was never about the existing support (except maybe in Canberra), its about new supporters and the next generation.

It was never going to be quick and cheap, the Swans experience taught the league that.
 
If the AFL wanted the second Sydney team to be a success they could have started by giving the club a name, colour scheme, song, etc, that doesn't make them sound like some kind of traveling circus act. It sounds simple, but given the uphill battle they were always facing, the Marketing 101 failure that is that club's entire appearance and identity surely doesn't help anyone's cause.
 
The 14 western sydney council areas that make up western sydney only have one thing in common. Being stuck in traffic for too bloody long. They should have called them the Western Sydney Traffic. Everyone in the catchment area could then relate to them.
 
TeeKray said:
If the AFL wanted the second Sydney team to be a success they could have started by giving the club a name, colour scheme, song, etc, that doesn't make them sound like some kind of traveling circus act. It sounds simple, but given the uphill battle they were always facing, the Marketing 101 failure that is that club's entire appearance and identity surely doesn't help anyone's cause.
Click to expand...
Giants is such a poor name. Like 'Power' there's no real iconography for it. All a giant is is a big person lol, how do you make a brand image out of that? I cringe when they capitalise GIANTS in press releases and such.

The colours are fine (probably should use black instead of charcoal) but the guernsey is pretty meh. At least its not the as bad as Gold Coast's which is just a s**t logo slapped on a red jumper. Sidepanels aren't a bloody design element.

AFL missed 2 grand opportunities to make strong brands with a fairly fresh canvas - they sort of related the Suns to its location through its moniker but the visual aspects of their brand are so tame and generic.
 
Dylan8 said:
Giants is such a poor name. Like 'Power' there's no real iconography for it. All a giant is is a big person lol, how do you make a brand image out of that? I cringe when they capitalise GIANTS in press releases and such.

The colours are fine (probably should use black instead of charcoal) but the guernsey is pretty meh. At least its not the as bad as Gold Coast's which is just a s**t logo slapped on a red jumper. Sidepanels aren't a bloody design element.

AFL missed 2 grand opportunities to make strong brands with a fairly fresh canvas - they sort of related the Suns to its location through its moniker but the visual aspects of their brand are so tame and generic.
Click to expand...

Western Sydney Wolves was the mock-up of mock-ups. And then we got the equivalent of dickskids featuring Palestine Folau
 
tribey said:
Western Sydney Wolves was the mock-up of mock-ups. And then we got the equivalent of dickskids featuring Palestine Folau
Click to expand...
Man, how good is the Wanderers brand. Traditional, awesome looking monogram/logo which stands out amongst s**t like the Perth Glory/Adelaide Utd style shlock in a competition whose fans likely also support a European team, where traditional strong looks reign supreme. Nailed it. The uniforms are strong, black + primary colour is always going to be a winner with white as a tertiary - and with such an elegant, simple hooped looked. Hng. Gorgeous. I might even support A-league if one of the Melbourne teams wore that beautiful kit. The GIANTS (sic), in comparison, look like a weaker version with their orange and gray blocks.

Since then Brisbane has a reworked badge to mimic the traditional look and have reverted to a far simpler all orange kit. Absolute winner. Some branding things are so obvious you wonder how people are paid to produce some of the s**t that comes out in sport.
 
To put the second last break down on the 2015 numbers as we start building up to 2016. The final breakdown for this thread will come in March 2016 when the AFL release their annual report and break down the 54,057 into Adult, Concession, Junior, Total Access, Non Access Total.

Our final number was 60,475. Here is KT's and the club's story and break down on 26th August.

http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2015-08-26/port-adelaide-rises-into-afl-membership-top-six

I put this break down on The Footy Industry Thread
[QUOTE="sverik25,]So a large portion of Adelaide and Port Adelaide's claimed membership has been removed from the official AFL figures. Anybody know why?[/QUOTE]
Its mainly due to the AOSMA footy members who get access to 22 games. These are basically the old SANFL/AAMI members who got access to 22 games and historically were counted in both clubs total - ie double counting, but both clubs got paid the same amount that the AFL paid clubs when an AFL Member ticked a club in the club support box. It was $138 for an adult in 2013 dont remember what the 2015 figure is.

2015
54,057 audited AFL figures
5,126 of the 8,009 AOSMA Footy members counted in our total but not the AFL's
1,292 others not counted pets, babies and some but not all Magpies
=====
60,475

2014
48,989 audited AFL figures
5,278 of the 8,206 AOSMA Footy members counted in our total but not the AFL's
1,483 others not counted pets, babies and some but not all Magpies
=====
55,750

Wookie did this breakdown

PortAdelaidemembers1992-2015.png


Koch's breakdown as told to MMM
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...60-000-reached.1078058/page-205#post-40501537

And bomberclifford did this guestimate

Ok, based on the various new info people have provided, I've updated the graph and it's even more telling.

Here's the raw data.
167312_c41814811391f811764b9bd88cc767f5.png


And here's the new graph, with SMA memberships shown as a portion of the total 11 game members for each clubs. (It's obvious that these are included in the 11 game totals for both clubs as pointed out by other Forza and Malibu.) I've adjusted Adelaide's 3 games to be 5000 as per the radio interview with Koch. (I've not seen anything confirming this from the Crows but I'll keep digging.)

167318_551105cf5f743459ca6f1476929f3ddc.png
 
Last edited:
Papa G said:
What's your guess at average revenue per member REH?
Click to expand...
I reckon we will get around $9mil in total which means an average of $150 - thats net of GST. Those 8,000 SMA members we are only getting $50 per member and all those 10,000 non access memberships we would struggle to average $100 from them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Papa G this is my guess for Port in 2015 and WCE in 2014 as West Coast provide their $$ collected from membership in their accounts and is in the table above in post # 5213. In all this you have to remember to remove GST from the advertised prices. 1/11th of the membership fees goes to the government.

The SMA increased the Adult membership by $100, the Concession by $50 and Juniors by $30 in 2015 over 2014, and these increases were split between the 2 SA clubs, I am going to assume that the $50 includes GST and therefore if you take GST out and only about 75% of members are full adult fees the average we got per member was $40.

All those non access memberships were babies, kids, juniors, footy club members only and Magpies only memberships, domestic digital, international digital and about half are kids so that is $40 or less, footy club only is $75 and a Magpies home game was $115, home and away $185, digital was $140 domestic, $150 international, so I reckon net of GST an average of $60 is reasonable.

In the Access members we had 7,000 GA members who only paid an adult fee of $175 ( inc GST), some paid the extra $20 for the wait list, 5,000 were 3 gamers paying adult fees of $100 (inc GST) and then about 2,500 who lived in Melbourne or bought interstate and country memberships which gave them access to at least 3 games. Those cost around $125-$160 inc GST for an adult membership. So $225 might be at the higher end of an estimate for access members average but I reckon its at least $200.

Kwality, I had a crack at the 2014 WCE split given the total access membership was 41,502 and the non access was 17,027 for total membership of 58,529. Media reports always talk about a waiting list of 13,000 - 14,000 members who were charged $55 (inc GST) in 2014 so I said 14,000 for this category. The other 3,000 non access members I know pay more than the wait list guys and get other benefits. You have very few 3 gamers in your total access members, or Vic based fans that get all your games in Melbourne and are in the access total, and that your 11 game memberships across all categories are the highest on average in the league, because of the supply and demand imbalance. Do you reckon my table is in the ball park for West Coast??

upload_2015-12-2_15-42-9.png
 
Last edited:
Papa G said:
So that $10.5 million net revenue figure jumped from $4.2 million in just 2 years. In 2013, that net revenue would have put us 2Nd in the AFL only behind West Coast and in front of Collingwood. Unfuggingbelievable.
Click to expand...
Where did I say it was a net revenue? In the other thread I said the stadium return figure is probably a net one.
 
Papa G said:
So that $10.5 million net revenue figure jumped from $4.2 million in just 2 years. In 2013, that net revenue would have put us 2Nd in the AFL only behind West Coast and in front of Collingwood. Unfuggingbelievable.
Click to expand...

Is it just the membership numbers Papa, or does it reflect the way it is reported, e.g seating dollars added in? Either way :thumbsu::thumbsu: !! REH is probably on the ball as usual.

That the AFL don't require some level of transparency in these numbers gives me the tom ****, but transparency & the AFL in matters financial are unrealistic.
 
Papa G said:
So that $10.5 million net revenue figure jumped from $4.2 million in just 2 years. In 2013, that net revenue would have put us 2Nd in the AFL only behind West Coast and in front of Collingwood. Unfuggingbelievable.
Click to expand...

It is unbelievable, particularly since that figure is likely gross not net. $10.5 million in 2013 would have put you behind West Coast (17.2 million), Collingwood (16.6 million), Fremantle (12.7 million) and just ahead of Essendon on 10.3 million.
 
In 2013 Adelaide had 46,500 members and a s**t load were 11 gamers and their net membership revenue was $7.6mil which according to the article in The Age with that graph Adelaide's net figure was 4th behind WCE $16.0m Coll $10.4m and Freo $10.2m.
Adelaide in 2013 had
Season ticket sales and AFL membership $9.338m plus
Membership income $1.591m

So looks like our net membership revenue would have been in the $7.0m to $7.5m range.

Edit: That 2013 membership net revenue article in the Age in May 2014
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...eal-figures-for-your-club-20140506-zr5tt.html

upload_2016-1-30_11-6-32.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HinkleysHeroes
Resource 2024 Membership - 55,704 as at April 5th
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
321
Views
22K
Stryke
Stryke
gbear
  • Poll
Resource 2023 Membership - Audited Figure 64,041 - New Club Record
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
71K
TeeKray
TeeKray

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top