Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Atleast we have real members unlike Richmond’s membership total. 100,000 members and yet only drew 32,000 last year against Brisbane lol
Richmond’s memberships total is.......
View attachment 631591
I love you. You’re the best you magnificent bastard. Long may you post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah naah.Get off our board. Post your fake membership numbers on your own board.
LololololI love you. You’re the best you magnificent bastard. Long may you post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah naah.
It was a ripping retort. Genuinely laughed out loud.
WGAF who has the most members anyway?
You lost mate?Thank you. For the record, my chihuahua is a big Richo fan and has been attending games since 2005.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's real commitment right there. All these bandwagon fans can piss off, your chihuahua has 'em covered.Thank you. For the record, my chihuahua is a big Richo fan and has been attending games since 2005.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's real commitment right there. All these bandwagon fans can piss off, your chihuahua has 'em covered.
70, 539
Are you at the season launch Jen?70, 539
Probably wrong thread but it's interesting looking at the membership numbers vs. attendance for 2018.
How can anyone take the Richmond membership total seriously when they average 3'800 more people to a game than us, yet have 25'000 more members...
The clubs clearly fudging their membership numbers are Richmond and Hawthorn. Hawthorn is just as bad with 80'000 members (5'000 more than us) yet has an average attendance of 36'000 (14'000 less than us). Yes they play a couple of games in Tasmania, but what both these clubs have in common is their highest attended game of the year never eclipsed their membership total (90151 for Richmond and 73189 for Hawthorn).
I don’t think they are ‘fudging’, but I don’t think membership is an accurate representation of relative size of supporter bases given it requires a financial outlay - socioeconomic factors influence the numbers and let’s face it, stereotypes aside, Collingwood traditionally has a strong lower and working class contingent. I’d imagine we would have more ‘would be’ members than most if you removed the cost, as silly as it sounds given it’s not exactly exorbitant.
I'd rather focus on our own club rather than dissing anyone else. Not worth the trouble.
Very well said by both of you. Plenty won't agree, but e.g. I actually find it insulting and embarrassing that we have a thread on the "home page" with "Carlscum" in it's title. It's childish and unnecessary.Well said.
I'm of the same view about other clubs and their players in general.
This is our board to discuss our club.
End of mini rant
And the safest way to avoid such matters is not mention Carlton in any shape in the title.Very well said by both of you. Plenty won't agree, but e.g. I actually find it insulting and embarrassing that we have a thread on the "home page" with "Carlscum" in it's title. It's childish and unnecessary.
I just don't have the hatred for some opposition clubs that so many supporters seem to have, Saintly. Not for Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, any of them.And the safest way to avoid such matters is not mention Carlton in any shape in the title.
Everyone wins then.
That reads to me as Collingwood do a really poor job of properly pricing their memberships to maximise membership totals. Not sure why we should pay $50 more for a GA home and away membership than Richmond. Also not sure why the Richmond Legends equivalent (Ponsford reserve home and away plus Grand Final) costs $635 while we need to pay $910.I don’t think they are ‘fudging’, but I don’t think membership is an accurate representation of relative size of supporter bases given it requires a financial outlay - socioeconomic factors influence the numbers and let’s face it, stereotypes aside, Collingwood traditionally has a strong lower and working class contingent. I’d imagine we would have more ‘would be’ members than most if you removed the cost, as silly as it sounds given it’s not exactly exorbitant.
That reads to me as Collingwood do a really poor job of properly pricing their memberships to maximise membership totals. Not sure why we should pay $50 more for a GA home and away membership than Richmond. Also not sure why the Richmond Legends equivalent (Ponsford reserve home and away plus Grand Final) costs $635 while we need to pay $910.
I'm sure you're right re. socioeconomic status and its effect.Good point, I didn’t know that. Even if they were at parity I suspect we would have more who couldn’t afford to pay if - but that’s a good call out.
That reads to me as Collingwood do a really poor job of properly pricing their memberships to maximise membership totals. Not sure why we should pay $50 more for a GA home and away membership than Richmond. Also not sure why the Richmond Legends equivalent (Ponsford reserve home and away plus Grand Final) costs $635 while we need to pay $910.