Membership Moratorium

[Equus]

The Richmond Football Club also investigated the possibility of a moratorium, whereby former members could return and have their previous years of financial membership recognised. In effect, this meant that someone who was a member in 2006, 2007 and 2008, could come back to the Club in 2011 and, rather than being recognised as a first-year member, they would receive fourth-year member recognition.

The Club was considering a moratorium for 2011, however, feedback from the survey indicated that only 63% of members were fully supportive, with 17% opposed. The remaining 20% were undecided. That figure of 17% was seen as to high to make such a
decision and, as a result, the moratorium will not go ahead.

This was from the membership survey result which was conducted in the middle of this year.

I have started this topic to understand why some members are against this and why some members are for this.

Is it because people are opposed to the idea because we shouldn't be recognising 'deserters' who ditched the club when it was in dire need? That REAL supporters should stick fat with the club no matter how bad we are?

But on the other hand, what if the members hypothetically had finance issues back then and not able to renew despite nearly 30 years with the club wouldn't it be harsh? I mean they've spent 30 years of their life working towards this Platinum Membership status to only start back at square one. And wouldn't it make more business sense to entice these members back so that we can achieve our 3-0-75 goal?

Discuss.

edit: Poll inserted.

 

[Punt_Road_Roar]

I'm in favour of it. If a person cannot pay for a membership for a season or two they should'nt be looked down upon. We need to embrace that they still contributed some money to our great club.

The competition is now National, for the club to become strong it needs to embrace its supporters from all over Australia at any time and any place they come from.

FWIW I have been an RFC member since 95 when I started working and earning a decent crust.

 

[CoggaRules]

at the end of the day its all about signing up members and if there are former members out there that will react to the moratorium then so be it, it means $$ to the club.

FWIW if they are worried about reaction from the members that have stuck over the stretch, they could offer them a new car or an all expenses paid holiday to europe, as a thank you.

 

[rfctigerarmy]

...perhaps even both, Cogga?

 

[CoggaRules]

...perhaps even both, Cogga?

Depends on what make of car they offer.

If they need help on what car, have seen a few yellow and black mini coopers zooming around town, so they wont need to have 25,000 specially painted, they can order them from the standard stock and we can have 25,000 yellow and black mini coopers parked at the G at home games...

 

[PHX]

I think there needs to be a threshold, say 5 or 10 years, before you can be awarded a years moratorium.

While cogga has a point about it bringing members in, what about the members who may counter-act the gain by not signing up for the year because they know its still going to be there next year and they can carry on and save themselves the cash.

For that reason I'm on the opposed side for the straight out poll, but if they gave a 10 year threshold so it was seen as a reward for long time members who may have an issue as to them buying a membership one year I'd be okay with it.

 

[Roachy8]

Seems to me that all that needs to be done is for another category to be created.

Go for the usual cumulative total years of membership thing, regardless of if there were some breaks in the years, & then also perhaps recognise those that have continual, uninterrupted membership totals.

Not too hard to do I would have thought.

 

[Shere Khan]

$50 Fee/donation for every year you need to make up sounds good to me.

Miss for two years, then it's a $100 fee to re-instate your length of service.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

$50 Fee/donation for every year you need to make up sounds good to me.

Miss for two years, then it's a $100 fee to re-instate your length of service.

Has some merit, or at least something along these lines

 

[IDGAF]

I think members who voted against it are silly , selfish narrow-minded people .

Its about whats best for the RFC ... period .

If a moratorium is beneficial in increasing membership , or to be more specific , bring old members back into the fold then it can only be a good thing .

People need to put their egos to one side and be team players and forget about their own petty self interests . Its self interests that have driven this club into the ground for 25 years and from which we are only now beginning to recover from

 

[Shere Khan]

I think members who voted against it are silly , selfish narrow-minded people .

Its about whats best for the RFC ... period .

If a moratorium is beneficial in increasing membership , or to be more specific , bring old members back into the fold then it can only be a good thing .

People need to put their egos to one side and be team players and forget about their own petty self interests . Its self interests that have driven this club into the ground for 25 years and from which we are only now beginning to recover from

The counter argument there is that supporters should be happy to sign up and be a member whether there is a length of service or not. People refusing to sign up unless they get their length of service re-instated smacks more of egos and petty self-interests more than anything else.

While there might be some genuine cases where people were financially strapped, I think the norm will be some members just dropped off because we were crap. Now that the RFC Choo Choo train is heading in the right direction, they want to jump onboard again. It's the members who remained members during our darkest years that kept the club alive. Labelling them as petty when it's the bandwagoners who are looking for a free ride is pretty amusing.

Actually, I'll revise the $50 thing for every year of reinstatement needed. Change it to whatever one of those non-ticketed "on the bench" or whatever memberships cost in the years an ex-member wants to make up.

 

[IDGAF]

The counter argument there is that supporters should be happy to sign up and be a member whether there is a length of service or not. People refusing to sign up unless they get their length of service re-instated smacks more of egos and petty self-interests more than anything else.

While there might be some genuine cases where people were financially strapped, I think the norm will be some members just dropped off because we were crap. Now that the RFC Choo Choo train is heading in the right direction, they want to jump onboard again. It's the members who remained members during our darkest years that kept the club alive. Labelling them as petty when it's the bandwagoners who are looking for a free ride is pretty amusing.

Actually, I'll revise the $50 thing for every year of reinstatement needed. Change it to whatever one of those non-ticketed "on the bench" or whatever memberships cost in the years an ex-member wants to make up.

LMAO .... Exhibit #A

LMAO @ people refusing to sign up because the "length of their member" is effected by the length of their membership . or more pertinently ... members getting shirty because they feel length of their membership somehow extends the length of their member

A more simple stipulation for the moratorium would be you are only eligable for one lapse .

...FWIW ... i cannot stand people who feel they have more ownership and rights over a "club" than others , and yes ... it is petty to put self interests ahead of the club . very petty

 

[Shere Khan]

I'm confused. So you agree with me or are you just LMYO incoherently ?

 

[IDGAF]

I'm confused. So you agree with me or are you just LMYO incoherently ?

I think its pretty clear in a "coggarules" kind of way

 

[shububu]

I've lapsed over the years and if someone who has had the funds or always able to get to the games to justify their membership than good for you and go have that rib removed to congratulate yourself.

Just have two parts to it...how many times you have been a member even if you have lapsed and one which says if its consecutive.

 

[peejay]

I voted against it. Purely because the system is seen as a reward for continual membership. Bring in another category if you like but you cannot have continual membership rewards for people who are not continual.

And it has nothing to do with some people thinking their membership is "better" than others.

Next year i will be out of Australia from rounds 2 - 16. I want to maintain my status so i will buy a membership - would be much easier if i said it would not be worth while for me and in the pre recognition days i would not have. It gives me another reason to join again.

I get amused when people say it's ok for people who have money - look we all have money and we all decide what we do with it. A basic membership is within the reach of anyone who is working full or part time. I had one right through my student days because i gave up other stuff to pay for it.

Same arguement applies to people who do not get to the games because it is hard ( I mean , wet, on TV, hard to drive to etc) there is a place for these supporters and members at any club but those that make the extra effort IMO are considered more fanatical and deserve extra regonition because of it. And of course i do not mean people who can't get to games for work, health, etc issues.

I am lucky because i live very close to the MCG but you know what? I made a deliberate choice to live there because of the access to the G and to Punt Road and the extra mortage repaymensts i need to make to live there means i cannot do other things i would like - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE.


Having said all that , if they bring in a Moratorium i wouldn't care - good luck to any who can benefit from it. All i have done is explain why i voted against it.

 

[Tiger_Stripes]

Depends on what make of car they offer.

If they need help on what car, have seen a few yellow and black mini coopers zooming around town, so they wont need to have 25,000 specially painted, they can order them from the standard stock and we can have 25,000 yellow and black mini coopers parked at the G at home games...

That would have to be the most awesome promotion ever, imagine if we partnered with a car company, and if you buy an RFC membership you got like $1000 of extras along with a Y&B paintjob, they'd sponsor us for less dollars to cover the cars but we'd recoup it in publicity and memberships haha

 

[Equus]

He [Brendon Gale] said the club had more than 40,000 members when non-ticketed members were taken into account, and 100,000 lapsed members over the past decade.

"When you factor in all those things we don’t think 75,000 members is fanciful."

Link

100,000 lapsed members in the last decade itself. And by enticing another 5% with whatever incentive to get them rejoin, it won't be too bad for our football club.

Whatever the case, I think the Richmond FC would have to consider this next season if they really want to get that elusive 75,000 in the next 5 years.

 

[BF Tiger]

I voted against it. Purely because the system is seen as a reward for continual membership. Bring in another category if you like but you cannot have continual membership rewards for people who are not continual.

And it has nothing to do with some people thinking their membership is "better" than others.

Next year i will be out of Australia from rounds 2 - 16. I want to maintain my status so i will buy a membership - would be much easier if i said it would not be worth while for me and in the pre recognition days i would not have. It gives me another reason to join again.

I get amused when people say it's ok for people who have money - look we all have money and we all decide what we do with it. A basic membership is within the reach of anyone who is working full or part time. I had one right through my student days because i gave up other stuff to pay for it.

Same arguement applies to people who do not get to the games because it is hard ( I mean , wet, on TV, hard to drive to etc) there is a place for these supporters and members at any club but those that make the extra effort IMO are considered more fanatical and deserve extra regonition because of it. And of course i do not mean people who can't get to games for work, health, etc issues.

I am lucky because i live very close to the MCG but you know what? I made a deliberate choice to live there because of the access to the G and to Punt Road and the extra mortage repaymensts i need to make to live there means i cannot do other things i would like - BUT THAT IS MY CHOICE.


Having said all that , if they bring in a Moratorium i wouldn't care - good luck to any who can benefit from it. All i have done is explain why i voted against it.

I'm with Peejay. I lived in the UK for four years and bought a membership every season just to keep the continuity.

If we do have a moratorium though can I claim the +/-5 years when I was a kid that there are no records for?

 

[Bojangles17]

listen , there was probably a time in the clubs recent history that someone would be strung up for mere mention of this.however, I agree the club should continue to build on being more contemporary, we could possibly write into the constitution some valid reasons someone could possibly miss as a listed member IE. terminal illness, financial hardship there could be a couple more

RFC official, diarise it please and debrief the board at next opportunity

 

[WATIGE]

I too am against giving the moratorium in the simple straight back in format.

Would agree to any number of "make up" versions.

EG - pay for the most basic membership for the year(s) missed.
- become a member again and when you have been in for the same amount of time as you had previously racked up then you get the previous years back ( I say this one with the thought that these style of reurners wont have racked up many years.
- allow the moratorium for those that have been members for five,ten or whatever and were only out for 20% of equivalent time.
- have a "rollover membership" that is put in place to cover the lapse before it occurs.
- as a once off to get members back but with none of the rewards items being given.
- proven hardship (registered bankruptcy, critical illness etc)
- etc etc etc.

I am just one of those people who hate seeing people get something for nothing.

 

[shububu]

I dont want anything for it..just not have my membership say im a first time member. No rewards.....reward the continous ones.

 

[CoggaRules]

I think its pretty clear in a "coggarules" kind of way

LMAO..love ya work dude..you are indeed learning the craft...and yep anyone who has a problem with the club opening up all avenues to entice ex-members back onto the books, indeed has a problem. They would most certainly trundle out that they are "true" supporters, just after they suggest that the ex-members should be punished when signing up and adding $$$ to the club that they are "true" supporters of.
As i said way back...the deal with the outward display of loyalty emblazened on the caps should be put to rest and everyone is just a member and the size of their member is not measured.

 

[WATIGE]

While I unashamably wear the "tagged" merch they send out it would not worry me if it was untagged. The jacket, shirt, badges and other stuff that visually overpowers the tagged merch cetainly doesn't proclaim memebership or length of.

Why should some on again off again supporter be rewarded with the same respect by the club as continuous members, when they don't show the club the respect of keeping up a continual membership?

Shububu - respect

 

[CoggaRules]

the short answer to all the hoo haa is that if you aint got a problem with those petty 3 game and i use the word loosely, "memberships", then you most certainly should not have a problem with people booking full memberships, be it returning or whatever..a full membership = more $$ to the club, however and by whatever means they get more full members is for the benefit of this club and its future.