Roast Rants, off-topic banter, who ignores who & what Greg Williams' relatives know

Remove this Banner Ad

Noidenous said:
That may well be the case, however it's a 2:1 investment, as is sponsorship. Not to mention membership without the gate numbers incentivising reserved seating purchases is a matter of diminishing return. That's where the real profit is made.

Not the best for something that goes on all year without attendance to coincide, regardless of the final amount. Certainly not anything to stake your club's existence on in the present day. Wouldn't at all be surprised if they actually sell the base membership at a loss to drive the gate.
Click to expand...

Your last two posts to Cursing Fijian actually sum up your position much more succinctly than everything posted beforehand.
The point behind my question to you was that I was concerned that you were conflating membership with attendance.
Clearly from your comments above that was not your intent.

My motivation to be a member is other than games attendance, and I'm sure that there are others in my situation.
I will also never be in a position to do as you do (attendance as a neutral) so the best thing for me is to pass my $'s to the club in the most effective manner available: and that's membership.

So whether you are correct about incentivising reserved seating or selling the base membership at a loss to drive the gate is not relevant to those of us who share my situation.

How many there are of us and how we fit in the club's calculations, I have no idea.

But we do exist and to that extent I think we lessen the validity of your original point.

(There may only be me. In which case the validity of your original point is lessened by a factor of 1. LOL).
 
CursingFijian said:
What can you substitute in its place that offers a better return on investment while giving the club the capacity to operate the business?

Do you also accept the premise that a membership is a very useful mechanism for connecting an AFL club with the greater community? It not only allows patrons to feel connected to their club of choice, by cultivating a sense of ownership, participation and contribution; it also allows players to feel representative of a community of individuals, charities and businesses and therefore bestows a sense of pride and purpose.
Click to expand...
Free advertising through the AFL and other exposure afforded by the media, especially where hype per game is the focal point of their pieces.

Membership in terms of getting an insight into the club's inner workings is an overlooked aspect of membership in and of itself. There's the payment made, and ultimately due to that payment, each member gets insights into the working of the club internally. It's effectively a paywall by another name. It's a contrite benefit to the paid member.
 
Noidenous said:
Free advertising through the AFL and other exposure afforded by the media, especially where hype per game is the focal point of their pieces.

Membership in terms of getting an insight into the club's inner workings is an overlooked aspect of membership in and of itself. There's the payment made, and ultimately due to that payment, each member gets insights into the working of the club internally. It's effectively a paywall by another name. It's a contrite benefit to the paid member.
Click to expand...

Noidenous I'm sorry but your logic is a bit convoluted, and I am struggling to understand your point. How does free advertising pay wages and buy training balls and pay electricity and put paint in the ground marking machine?

Again, what do you propose should replace memberships to generate a revenue stream for the club that can be used to run the day to day operations of the club, seeing as how you are saying memberships are inefficient.

Your second paragraph is just describing a membership. I don't even know where the contrition Is coming from? Whatever point you're trying to make there is largely lost on me. Dumb it down for me a little will you.

Again, I must ask do you think memberships are a useful tool to connect players to communities and communities to players?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sunny3193 said:
Your last two posts to Cursing Fijian actually sum up your position much more succinctly than everything posted beforehand.
The point behind my question to you was that I was concerned that you were conflating membership with attendance.
Clearly from your comments above that was not your intent.

My motivation to be a member is other than games attendance, and I'm sure that there are others in my situation.
I will also never be in a position to do as you do (attendance as a neutral) so the best thing for me is to pass my $'s to the club in the most effective manner available: and that's membership.

So whether you are correct about incentivising reserved seating or selling the base membership at a loss to drive the gate is not relevant to those of us who share my situation.

How many there are of us and how we fit in the club's calculations, I have no idea.

But we do exist and to that extent I think we lessen the validity of your original point.

(There may only be me. In which case the validity of your original point is lessened by a factor of 1. LOL).
Click to expand...
As I'd pointed out in an earlier post, there are situations where direct contribution is the only manner in which someone is able to tangibly support the club. ie. interstate or international fans. Also, there are those who need the discounted attendance, and that remains an uncontested truth.

The remainder who are effectively not restricted in such a manner aren't actually contributing by purchasing a base membership and failing to attend games. The aim of profitable membership is to secure attendance at home games, or at least the profit that comes with reserved seating purchases.

By purchasing a membership, saying 'job done' and not turning up to games or simply not turning up to games as a neutral, it minimises the perceived need for those reserved seats. It's only when the house is packed week in and week out that people are willing to shell out in advance - or in a much more guaranteed effect - that those more profitable seats are sold and it has an effect on telecasts.

If people aren't able to attend games despite their base level of will (money, time, commitment), they're more likely to purchase reserved seating, leading to greater gate takings. Supply and demand.

As a Green Bay fan, I only have to look as far as supply and demand to provide substantiation. Currently there's an approximate 30 year waiting list on season tickets for their home games. This has been the case since the mid-90s despite the 'dark ages' from the late 60s through to the start of the 90s.

The concept of low attendance only affecting poorly performed teams isn't actually reflective of the ability for supporters to get to games or bring others to them.
 
Last edited:
CursingFijian said:
Noidenous I'm sorry but your logic is a bit convoluted, and I am struggling to understand your point. How does free advertising pay wages and buy training balls and pay electricity and put paint in the ground marking machine?

Again, what do you propose should replace memberships to generate a revenue stream for the club that can be used to run the day to day operations of the club, seeing as how you are saying memberships are inefficient.

Your second paragraph is just describing a membership. I don't even know where the contrition Is coming from? Whatever point you're trying to make there is largely lost on me. Dumb it down for me a little will you.

Again, I must ask do you think memberships are a useful tool to connect players to communities and communities to players?
Click to expand...
Free advertising breeds desire for attendance, which leads to less outlay for membership and sponsorship alike, as well as promoting the club to new fans.

Membership revenue could easily be replaced by gate takings with zero to minimal outlay for those takings.

For the entire season, there was $100k in match expenses outlaid at $1.6m revenue (yes, Etihad). That's a 16:1 investment. For the $2.9m profit on sponsorship last season, we had to spend exactly the same amount. 5.8 - 2.9 = 2:1. If you drive the desire for reserved seating, you're increasing the amount of revenue taken for minimal outlay, as well as driving your sponsorship for minimal outlay.

AFL clubs have things arse-backwards.

Membership numbers are used as the 'buy stuff' number to project towards businesses advertising through the club. The TV rights alone drive many more 'certified purchase' numbers. If you sell out games often enough that the league are forced to organise fee-to-air televisation on a regular basis, you're getting a massive amount of relatively free advertising for both the club and its sponsors.

Like any paywall, insider information made available to those who pay has an extremely short-lived period before that same limited knowledge becomes common knowledge. Aside from trading and draft selections, the only other area requiring a measure of secrecy is matchday tactics. The little information offered to paid members is frivolous at best and hardly worthy of the membership price.

That said, and this isn't directed at yourself... why do I need to submit a 2000-word essay on the matter? I sure as hell don't see anyone else willing and able to articulate their position in such a manner. Absolute proof is for people who absolutely aren't able to internalise abstract concepts.
 
Last edited:
Noidenous said:
Free advertising breeds desire for attendance, which leads to less outlay for membership and sponsorship alike, as well as promoting the club to new fans.

Membership revenue could easily be replaced by gate takings with zero to minimal outlay for those takings.

For the entire season, there was 100k match expenses output at $1.6m revenue (yes, Etihad). That's a 16:1 investment. For the $2.9m profit on sponsorship last season, we had to spend exactly the same amount. 5.8 - 2.9 = 2:1. If you drive the desire for reserved seating, you're increasing the amount of revenue taken for minimal outlay, as well as driving your sponsorship for minimal outlay.

AFL clubs have things arse-backwards.

Membership numbers are used as the 'buy stuff' number to project towards businesses advertising through the club. The TV rights alone drive many more 'certified purchase' numbers. If you sell out games often enough that the league are force to organise them being televised on a regular basis, you're getting a massive amount of relatively free advertising for both the club and its sponsors.
Click to expand...

OK. So when channel 7 advertises a game how is that not free advertising? When the print media writes articles on upcoming games how is that not free advertising for match attendance. We already benefit from the media beast that creates the hype that surrounds AFL football.

Anyway, so St Kilda gets paid by the number of people that walk in the door to watch a game. How do we know what that number will be? If we don't know how can we plan our business? Is it possible that total revenue takings may fall since people like austinn, sunny and myself will no longer be contributing financially? Also, all football overheads have to be offset against the only saleable item which is match day revenue. So the match day revenue to expense ratio deteriorates dramatically from the 16:1. How are we funding the off season when there are no gate takings? Is it through your alternative paywall to see the inner workings of the club? Because that sounds like a membership?

Membership numbers are not used as the 'buy stuff' number. That statement is Trumpesque in it's falseness, and only serves to weaken your position. It's all about the media exposure, across traditional platforms print/radio/TV as well as the newer ones Twitter/Facebook. Exposure is directly related to on field success. On field success is related to our ability to have the right people and infrastructure in place. Getting the right people and infrastructure is directly related to effective planning and operation. Effective planning can only occur when there is a solid funding forecast.

Your position is starting to look a little tenuous and I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You need to accept that memberships are a critically important mechanism for the club to create cash flow that breathes life into the business.

The only other alternative is to be fully funded by the AFL, which is a whole new Pandora's box.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
CursingFijian said:
OK. So when channel 7 advertises a game how is that not free advertising? When the print media writes articles on upcoming games how is that not free advertising for match attendance. We already benefit from the media beast that creates the hype that surrounds AFL football.

Anyway, so St Kilda gets paid by the number of people that walk in the door to watch a game. How do we know what that number will be? If we don't know how can we plan our business? Is it possible that total revenue takings may fall since people like austinn, sunny and myself will no longer be contributing financially? Also, all football overheads have to be offset against the only saleable item which is match day revenue. So the match day revenue to expense ratio deteriorates dramatically from the 16:1. How are we funding the off season when there are no gate takings? Is it through your alternative paywall to see the inner workings of the club? Because that sounds like a membership?

Membership numbers are not used as the 'buy stuff' number. That statement is Trumpesque in it's falseness, and only serves to weaken your position. It's all about the media exposure, across traditional platforms print/radio/TV as well as the newer ones Twitter/Facebook. Exposure is directly related to on field success. On field success is related to our ability to have the right people and infrastructure in place. Getting the right people and infrastructure is directly related to effective planning and operation. Effective planning can only occur when there is a solid funding forecast.

Your position is starting to look a little tenuous and I get the feeling you are arguing for the sake of arguing. You need to accept that memberships are a critically important mechanism for the club to create cash flow that breathes life into the business.

The only other alternative is to be fully funded by the AFL, which is a whole new Pandora's box.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Quite frankly, this is getting tedious. I've already rationalised all of it and now it's come full circle.



Nobody knows how many memberships will be sold. This is not a solid funding forecast.

Exposure is not absolutely reliant on on-field success. See the Green Bay example earlier.

I've been responding to people who want to argue.

I don't and won't accept that memberships are the be-all and end-all to club operation.
 
Smoke_Me_AKipper said:
1. It has been said by people far more intelligent than I that one reason Trump got in was due to the apathy of the people to current politicians who were more interested in themselves and their expenses rather than serving the community. Do you think the last 15 years of politics has been inspiring? It has been the opposite I would suggest
2. The police do not have the powers they need. They put these people away only to have them out on bail the same day. This issue shines a light on the poor bail/parole laws that allow these mongrels to be released when they shouldn't be. The rights of some deranged individuals should not be put ahead of the rights of the community as a whole
3. It is not just confined to current labor govt but tell us Dan how many level crossings have you replaced? They are focusing on the wrong issues - focus on the lack of mental health care and services in general. Focus on the scourge that is ICE. Focus particularly in rural Victoria where ICE is rife and there is not the infrastructure to cope with it
4. I think they are linked. I think the amount of violent crime around the city and against police/ambos/doctors/nurses which has increased is linked to ICE.
5. You've got it wrong JOOP, so friggin wrong - it is the not the police's fault. In fact it is the opposite. You have totally misread what I've said. It is the Police command/Govt fault - not the police. I also know a number of cops and they are more worried about having a complaint made against them by a deranged scum that might have had their rights impeded because they had to be tackled to the ground and arrested than being able to police. The police need more help and more powers and be able to do their job and stop the bad guys.
Click to expand...
1. Actually stats show that Trump didn't receive a larger number of votes than any other Republicans that ran before him, moreso that people dropped off Clinton. Still not sure how that is relevant to our STATE government. And yes I think the last 15 years the state government have improved things for us. Even the Liberal government that held power for 12 of those years.

2: So too many criminals get let out on bail? Where do you draw the line on who remains in jail? Where do you house these criminals? Where do you get the funding to build more prisons to stop over crowding? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to pay for criminals to be housed in jail?

3: Are you saying that the Andrews government are failing against crime because they have focused on level crossings? Are you unhappy with jobs this infrastructure has created? Are you unhappy with the lives these level crossings will save? You do understand a budget yes? Just because the government is building level crossings doesn't mean they aren't concentrating on drug related crimes too, evident by the an extra $45 million added to fight the 'ice epidemic' through ways of rehabilitation, family and community support and task forces to stop manufacturers and distributors. All easily read here:
https://ice.vic.gov.au/

4: YOU think that do you? Despite what stats prove this is what you think? Excellent theory.

5: how did I get it wrong when you wrote and I quote "when will Victoria police and the labor government realise they are losing the battle against crime'. No mate, you got it wrong, crime is going down, that is not losing it's improving.

But nah you're right. * the Police. * the government.
 
joop said:
1. Actually stats show that Trump didn't receive a larger number of votes than any other Republicans that ran before him, moreso that people dropped off Clinton. Still not sure how that is relevant to our STATE government. And yes I think the last 15 years the state government have improved things for us. Even the Liberal government that held power for 12 of those years.

2: So too many criminals get let out on bail? Where do you draw the line on who remains in jail? Where do you house these criminals? Where do you get the funding to build more prisons to stop over crowding? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to pay for criminals to be housed in jail?

3: Are you saying that the Andrews government are failing against crime because they have focused on level crossings? Are you unhappy with jobs this infrastructure has created? Are you unhappy with the lives these level crossings will save? You do understand a budget yes? Just because the government is building level crossings doesn't mean they aren't concentrating on drug related crimes too, evident by the an extra $45 million added to fight the 'ice epidemic' through ways of rehabilitation, family and community support and task forces to stop manufacturers and distributors. All easily read here:
https://ice.vic.gov.au/

4: YOU think that do you? Despite what stats prove this is what you think? Excellent theory.

5: how did I get it wrong when you wrote and I quote "when will Victoria police and the labor government realise they are losing the battle against crime'. No mate, you got it wrong, crime is going down, that is not losing it's improving.

But nah you're right. **** the Police. **** the government.
Click to expand...

So you propose that violent criminals should be released into society?
 
joop said:
1. Actually stats show that Trump didn't receive a larger number of votes than any other Republicans that ran before him, moreso that people dropped off Clinton. Still not sure how that is relevant to our STATE government. And yes I think the last 15 years the state government have improved things for us. Even the Liberal government that held power for 12 of those years.

2: So too many criminals get let out on bail? Where do you draw the line on who remains in jail? Where do you house these criminals? Where do you get the funding to build more prisons to stop over crowding? Are you willing to pay more in taxes to pay for criminals to be housed in jail?

3: Are you saying that the Andrews government are failing against crime because they have focused on level crossings? Are you unhappy with jobs this infrastructure has created? Are you unhappy with the lives these level crossings will save? You do understand a budget yes? Just because the government is building level crossings doesn't mean they aren't concentrating on drug related crimes too, evident by the an extra $45 million added to fight the 'ice epidemic' through ways of rehabilitation, family and community support and task forces to stop manufacturers and distributors. All easily read here:
https://ice.vic.gov.au/

4: YOU think that do you? Despite what stats prove this is what you think? Excellent theory.

5: how did I get it wrong when you wrote and I quote "when will Victoria police and the labor government realise they are losing the battle against crime'. No mate, you got it wrong, crime is going down, that is not losing it's improving.

But nah you're right. **** the Police. **** the government.
Click to expand...

You have not read a single thing I said. If I had all the answers hotshot I sure wouldn't be on here talking to you, I'd actually be doing something about it. Hmmm people dropped off Clinton I wonder why that is??? I said that this shines a light on the poor laws around this issue. The funding to build extra jails might come from all the level crossing works? Playing the saving lives card - good one. Legislating against people who are too stupid to realise that when the red lights flash you dont cross the train lines. That is what we do in this country legislate for stupid people. Maybe people need to start taking more responsibility for their actions as opposed as depending on the Govt to take care of them. Yes the Govt has finally started to address it but are nowhere near where they need to be on this issue and probably a year or two late. Ah another blind freddy who believes the stats and that they couldnt possibly be manipulated at all. No certainly not. As for the last point I refer to you to the first point of this paragraph. But no everything is fine, the violence in the city, nope. The issues with APEX - nope. ICE - its fine the govt has given $45m - everything is awesome. Nothing to see move on
 
joop said:
Yes, let's hope the government really stamp down on 45% increase of 'transport regulation offences'.
Click to expand...

yes 674 transport offences.

Are you trying to be a smartarse?
What have you got to say about nearly 43000 assaults last year?
54000 break and enters?
5000 dangerous and negligent acts?

But a few posts back you were agreeing with how it was all confirmation bias.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Smoke_Me_AKipper said:
You have not read a single thing I said. If I had all the answers hotshot I sure wouldn't be on here talking to you, I'd actually be doing something about it. Hmmm people dropped off Clinton I wonder why that is??? I said that this shines a light on the poor laws around this issue. The funding to build extra jails might come from all the level crossing works? Playing the saving lives card - good one. Legislating against people who are too stupid to realise that when the red lights flash you dont cross the train lines. That is what we do in this country legislate for stupid people. Maybe people need to start taking more responsibility for their actions as opposed as depending on the Govt to take care of them. Yes the Govt has finally started to address it but are nowhere near where they need to be on this issue and probably a year or two late. Ah another blind freddy who believes the stats and that they couldnt possibly be manipulated at all. No certainly not. As for the last point I refer to you to the first point of this paragraph. But no everything is fine, the violence in the city, nope. The issues with APEX - nope. ICE - its fine the govt has given $45m - everything is awesome. Nothing to see move on
Click to expand...
$45m is like throwing a feather at a tornado, that $300m+ that was wasted on the never built freeway expansion would come in handy right about now.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
yes 674 transport offences.

Are you trying to be a smartarse?
What have you got to say about nearly 43000 assaults last year?
54000 break and enters?
5000 dangerous and negligent acts?

But a few posts back you were agreeing with how it was all confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
Are those stats convictions are they?
 
Smoke_Me_AKipper said:
You have not read a single thing I said. If I had all the answers hotshot I sure wouldn't be on here talking to you, I'd actually be doing something about it. Hmmm people dropped off Clinton I wonder why that is??? I said that this shines a light on the poor laws around this issue. The funding to build extra jails might come from all the level crossing works? Playing the saving lives card - good one. Legislating against people who are too stupid to realise that when the red lights flash you dont cross the train lines. That is what we do in this country legislate for stupid people. Maybe people need to start taking more responsibility for their actions as opposed as depending on the Govt to take care of them. Yes the Govt has finally started to address it but are nowhere near where they need to be on this issue and probably a year or two late. Ah another blind freddy who believes the stats and that they couldnt possibly be manipulated at all. No certainly not. As for the last point I refer to you to the first point of this paragraph. But no everything is fine, the violence in the city, nope. The issues with APEX - nope. ICE - its fine the govt has given $45m - everything is awesome. Nothing to see move on
Click to expand...
Youd be doing something about it? Unlike the government right? Bloody hell I do not pity the world you live in.
 
joop said:
Are those stats convictions are they?
Click to expand...

OK Joop.
My car wasn't stolen last year.
People haven't had their doors kicked in, threatened and robbed.
That Jeweller that was robbed twice by the same gang was all fake video.
People are not getting carjacked.

ITS ALL GOOD MAN!!!!
 
A lot of spirited discussion has been moved to the rants thread - but this doesn't mean the discussion must end - just that it was a bit over the top for the main Saints board. The rules still apply here - remember if you wish to participate in this discussion - confront the idea espoused, not the person espousing it.
 
With the Razzies nominations for 2017 having just been announced I thought it might be slightly amusing to see which movies people saw in 2016 that were absolute stinkers.

A couple spring to mind for me, though I have also listed a couple as merely "disappointments".

Disclaimer: I actually liked Batman vs Superman o_O
Double disclaimer: Some that were no doubt well nominated I have not seen. I didn't like Zoolander. I saw no reason to put myself through Zoolander 2.
Triple disclaimer: I haven't seen Sausage Party yet

Stinkers
Independence Day: Resurgence
It has to be said that I didn't see this movie with any great expectations, but within about 15min I was thinking to myself, 'Self, how on earth did anyone make something worse than the original? Quite an effort really."

Jurassic World
This was better than expected. That I expected it to be a steaming pile of crap, and it elevated itself to merely a pile of crap, is not a huge leap up the ladder.

Jack Reacher: Don't Look Back or Never Look Back or whatever the smeg it's called
I quite liked the first installment of the Jack Reacher movies, despite the main character not being the physically imposing beast he is portrayed as in the books. Maybe I was mostly amused at how people would stand up for the books as though they were likely to be shortlisted for the Booker prize or something. The sequel sucks.

Disappointments
X-Men: Apocalypse
It's not that this movie was bad, it just didn't seem to have the same oomph as past X-Men offerings. Maybe that universe is getting a little stale. Maybe I should be watching something other than action / comic book adventures (I really did, some of them were even quite good. I can't think of a stinker in that area). New Logan trailer looks pretty good though.

Suicide Squad
It was probably bad but I have a soft spot for DC.

I'm sure I've missed some.
 
Joffaboy said:
God there are some dumb campaigners on Facebook. One wants to trade a first and Paddy for Fyfe. My eyes are bleeding
Click to expand...

Bit cowardly don't you think? Coming on here, anonymously, and attacking some guy who voiced his opinion on a more public domain.

Snipe away.
 
Masquerade said:
Bit cowardly don't you think? Coming on here, anonymously, and attacking some guy who voiced his opinion on a more public domain.

Snipe away.
Click to expand...

Bit harsh mate, he didn't name anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top