Poin taken
PA1870
WE NEED 12 TEAMS - WHO SHOULD GO ?
- Thread starter Carey_is_King
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Poin taken
PA1870
- Dec 5, 2000
- 1,028
- 3
- Other Teams
- Kangaroos
- Thread starter
- #102
BomberBabe,
Blow it out your ear!
------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.
Blow it out your ear!
------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.
Bomber Babe,
point is, Hawthorn did have dogs and cats and post offices (Mount Martha Post Office was a Hawthorn member). This may have totalled no more that collectively 100, but still it did create an unfavourable perception amongst an already cynical football fraternity.
(I would also include the female equivalent of fraternity, but after a Chicken and Champagne breakfeast this morning I cannot remember the latin derivative of sister.)
------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
point is, Hawthorn did have dogs and cats and post offices (Mount Martha Post Office was a Hawthorn member). This may have totalled no more that collectively 100, but still it did create an unfavourable perception amongst an already cynical football fraternity.
(I would also include the female equivalent of fraternity, but after a Chicken and Champagne breakfeast this morning I cannot remember the latin derivative of sister.)
------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
Frodo, you may be right in what you said
re - 'It may be that if Subiaco and Football Park could accommodate as many people as the MCG that there would indeed by more interstate footy supporters than Victorian' -
Same thing applies here, if the G could hold 200,000 there are SOME games where they would still sell it out, i doubt very much that would happen anywhere else in the country.
sabre ,yes i was referring to an actual support base. This will change in time given population increases in other states and kids growing up with 'hometown' teams to support. But at the moment the combined 'VLF' sides (for want of a better way of phrasing it) would still be able to draw upon a larger actual support base. By 2010 i doubt that will be true anymore. Sorry for any confusion.
ptw/pa1870 good posts (as always) but there were some things i feel you both overlooked.
Yea i agree that if the AFL hadnt come into being that there would now be even less 'VFL' sides still around. Yet that would also hold true with interstate clubs in both the SANFL and WAFL.
You may lament the passing of Port vs Norwood drawing 35,000 through the gate. Yet what about Woodville vs Centrals (just an example) drawing 3,500 the same round? The SANFL sides had to meet player payments too.
Could all of the traditional SANFL sides have survived if that competition had stayed the same? The same thing applies to the WAFL,TFL etc. Those leagues were DYING too. This is something to many interstate supporters seem to forget. Sure your Port may have survived but what of Centrals,Sturt,Perth,Swan Districts? Would the fans of those clubs have been happy with a reduced local league and no Crows/Weagles alternative? Or perhaps they may have been lost to the game forever.
Its easy to blame the AFL, but the reality is clubs from Victoria have died also. Not just at the elite level, but the old VFA, the amateurs, country sides. This is happening to many clubs everywhere simply because it costs money to run these clubs and that cost is becoming harder and harder to meet for everyone in every league. Regardless if its the AFL or the TCFL. How many clubs have gone to the wall? You cannot blame the AFL for all of those clubs dying.
Its simply the times we live in now dont have the infrastructure for all those clubs to survive when you no longer have the mums in the canteen, the dads being the bootstudder after playing for 400 games. The kids dont want to join as they are busy with the 'game boys etc' and so the junior clubs cant get the numbers to field sides. Eventually the club merges or dies.
The same thing is happening in other sports around the nation, Rugby,Soccer,Cricket etc are all struggling at grass roots for numbers and money enough to survive. Is that the fault of the AFL and Vic clubs also?
Not every falling attendance/participation can be blamed squarly at an expanded AFL competition. Some perhaps, but not all.
Cheers.
re - 'It may be that if Subiaco and Football Park could accommodate as many people as the MCG that there would indeed by more interstate footy supporters than Victorian' -
Same thing applies here, if the G could hold 200,000 there are SOME games where they would still sell it out, i doubt very much that would happen anywhere else in the country.
sabre ,yes i was referring to an actual support base. This will change in time given population increases in other states and kids growing up with 'hometown' teams to support. But at the moment the combined 'VLF' sides (for want of a better way of phrasing it) would still be able to draw upon a larger actual support base. By 2010 i doubt that will be true anymore. Sorry for any confusion.
ptw/pa1870 good posts (as always) but there were some things i feel you both overlooked.
Yea i agree that if the AFL hadnt come into being that there would now be even less 'VFL' sides still around. Yet that would also hold true with interstate clubs in both the SANFL and WAFL.
You may lament the passing of Port vs Norwood drawing 35,000 through the gate. Yet what about Woodville vs Centrals (just an example) drawing 3,500 the same round? The SANFL sides had to meet player payments too.
Could all of the traditional SANFL sides have survived if that competition had stayed the same? The same thing applies to the WAFL,TFL etc. Those leagues were DYING too. This is something to many interstate supporters seem to forget. Sure your Port may have survived but what of Centrals,Sturt,Perth,Swan Districts? Would the fans of those clubs have been happy with a reduced local league and no Crows/Weagles alternative? Or perhaps they may have been lost to the game forever.
Its easy to blame the AFL, but the reality is clubs from Victoria have died also. Not just at the elite level, but the old VFA, the amateurs, country sides. This is happening to many clubs everywhere simply because it costs money to run these clubs and that cost is becoming harder and harder to meet for everyone in every league. Regardless if its the AFL or the TCFL. How many clubs have gone to the wall? You cannot blame the AFL for all of those clubs dying.
Its simply the times we live in now dont have the infrastructure for all those clubs to survive when you no longer have the mums in the canteen, the dads being the bootstudder after playing for 400 games. The kids dont want to join as they are busy with the 'game boys etc' and so the junior clubs cant get the numbers to field sides. Eventually the club merges or dies.
The same thing is happening in other sports around the nation, Rugby,Soccer,Cricket etc are all struggling at grass roots for numbers and money enough to survive. Is that the fault of the AFL and Vic clubs also?
Not every falling attendance/participation can be blamed squarly at an expanded AFL competition. Some perhaps, but not all.
Cheers.
B
BMD
Guest
Grendel, fantastic point.
One of the main reasons for the decline in the numbers of sporting clubs of all varieties all over the country is that Australians are becoming spectators rather than participators.
This is not to deny that the entry of SA/WA teams into the AFL played a significant role in the decline of the local competitions. But it's not the only reason.
PS sorority (for CGH)
One of the main reasons for the decline in the numbers of sporting clubs of all varieties all over the country is that Australians are becoming spectators rather than participators.
This is not to deny that the entry of SA/WA teams into the AFL played a significant role in the decline of the local competitions. But it's not the only reason.
PS sorority (for CGH)
H
Hawkforce.
Guest
You know, CJH, that the people who advertised that "cats and dogs" story in the early days of 1997 were the club and its supporters themselves.
At the time, you'll remember, we had just come through a failed attempt to merge, and gathered a fighting fund of $800 000 to pay the debt that the previous board had thought spelled their doom.
After that we were left with the legal and administrative costs incurred by the merger. There was no question of recompense for failed merger partners from the AFL.
So in around about january of 97, when the club (still in administrative readjustment and being supplemented with volunteers) realised that the response from our supporter base was far bigger than we had hoped (20000 members was a dream) we wanted to tell the world about our supporters who, stung from apathy and contentment after the previous two decades of almost invariably making the finals, were buying junior memberships for their dogs!
Most of them had a muddy paw print for a signature!
The thought that people would one day suggest that Hawthorn were somehow falsely inflating their membership base was unimaginable to us in January 1997.
Suddenly, in early 1998 there were grumbles of discontent from clubs, most of whom were struggling to increase their own membership base as well as they would lke.
The upshot of it all is that by the end of 1998 the AFL instituted some new policies to do with membership including banning the counting of corporate memberships (previousy capped at 1000 for all clubs); not counting free junior memberships (essendon topped the league with 3500 junior freebies).
In 1999, when the hawks got their 32000 members (a couple of thousand of which were "Waverley sympathisers", a lot whom were Saints fans) every single name was written on the stand at Glenferrie.
And verified by the AFL.
Just thought you'd like to know the real story. Not the perceived one.
At the time, you'll remember, we had just come through a failed attempt to merge, and gathered a fighting fund of $800 000 to pay the debt that the previous board had thought spelled their doom.
After that we were left with the legal and administrative costs incurred by the merger. There was no question of recompense for failed merger partners from the AFL.
So in around about january of 97, when the club (still in administrative readjustment and being supplemented with volunteers) realised that the response from our supporter base was far bigger than we had hoped (20000 members was a dream) we wanted to tell the world about our supporters who, stung from apathy and contentment after the previous two decades of almost invariably making the finals, were buying junior memberships for their dogs!
Most of them had a muddy paw print for a signature!
The thought that people would one day suggest that Hawthorn were somehow falsely inflating their membership base was unimaginable to us in January 1997.
Suddenly, in early 1998 there were grumbles of discontent from clubs, most of whom were struggling to increase their own membership base as well as they would lke.
The upshot of it all is that by the end of 1998 the AFL instituted some new policies to do with membership including banning the counting of corporate memberships (previousy capped at 1000 for all clubs); not counting free junior memberships (essendon topped the league with 3500 junior freebies).
In 1999, when the hawks got their 32000 members (a couple of thousand of which were "Waverley sympathisers", a lot whom were Saints fans) every single name was written on the stand at Glenferrie.
And verified by the AFL.
Just thought you'd like to know the real story. Not the perceived one.
Hawkforce,
I think the 'cats and dogs' story came about when Hawthorn were drawing crowds *significantly* below their membership figures. From memory, they drew 13,000 against Fremantle and 15,000 against West Coast, yet they claimed to have nearly 35,000 members. That's 35,000 fully paid up people that had free entry into every Hawthorn home game. Yet for some reason, a vast majority of them chose not to go. This strange phenomenon doesn't seem to happen with other clubs, at least to that extent. So what was the explanation? While I don't think it was literally 'cats and dogs' buying memberships, i'd put money on that Hawthorn gave away thousands of memberships to sponsors up to the value of the sponsorship. (eg. sponsorship worth 100k, memberships worth $100, give them 1,000 memberships) Therefore you could literally claim they were paid for, yet still artificially inflate your membership figures.
Even the most ardent Hawthorn supporter would have to say that when less than a third of your members show up to a game, despite every one of them having free entry, it looks a bit suss.
I think the 'cats and dogs' story came about when Hawthorn were drawing crowds *significantly* below their membership figures. From memory, they drew 13,000 against Fremantle and 15,000 against West Coast, yet they claimed to have nearly 35,000 members. That's 35,000 fully paid up people that had free entry into every Hawthorn home game. Yet for some reason, a vast majority of them chose not to go. This strange phenomenon doesn't seem to happen with other clubs, at least to that extent. So what was the explanation? While I don't think it was literally 'cats and dogs' buying memberships, i'd put money on that Hawthorn gave away thousands of memberships to sponsors up to the value of the sponsorship. (eg. sponsorship worth 100k, memberships worth $100, give them 1,000 memberships) Therefore you could literally claim they were paid for, yet still artificially inflate your membership figures.
Even the most ardent Hawthorn supporter would have to say that when less than a third of your members show up to a game, despite every one of them having free entry, it looks a bit suss.
H
Hawkforce.
Guest
Rob,
Read my post again - after 98 all memberships had to be verifiable by the AFL.
As for your crowd figures, Hawthorn got 28000 against the Lions in 97; over thirty thousand against the Swans; 50000 against Port in the pouring rain for the 99 Night GF; 75000 for the last game at Waverley; 40000 against Freo for JD's last game.
Hawthorn have a traditionally eccentric attendance rate. 92000 is still the record at Waverley - Coll Vs Hawks.
Hawthorn can hope to pull a maximum 40000 strong support for a big match. This is smaller than Essendon Collingwood and Richmond by about 20000, but as good or higher than most Victorian Clubs.
Our attendances have been growing since 97, as has our membership to supporter ratio.
Make no mistake, Rob, the "Cats and Dogs" members story is no more than a spiteful slur by envious Clubs who are not performing as well as they should.
Do you really think the AFL would have allowed either Hawthorn or St Kilda to fudge or give away memberships when they were about to underwrite the move from Waverley?
Every name on every membership was accountable after the 32000 members reached in 1999. This figure, as stated, was inflated by a Waverley protest vote, and the adjustment came in 2000 with a drop back to 27000.
Like I said the real story is far more boring than the perceived one.
But the facts only back up the former.
Read my post again - after 98 all memberships had to be verifiable by the AFL.
As for your crowd figures, Hawthorn got 28000 against the Lions in 97; over thirty thousand against the Swans; 50000 against Port in the pouring rain for the 99 Night GF; 75000 for the last game at Waverley; 40000 against Freo for JD's last game.
Hawthorn have a traditionally eccentric attendance rate. 92000 is still the record at Waverley - Coll Vs Hawks.
Hawthorn can hope to pull a maximum 40000 strong support for a big match. This is smaller than Essendon Collingwood and Richmond by about 20000, but as good or higher than most Victorian Clubs.
Our attendances have been growing since 97, as has our membership to supporter ratio.
Make no mistake, Rob, the "Cats and Dogs" members story is no more than a spiteful slur by envious Clubs who are not performing as well as they should.
Do you really think the AFL would have allowed either Hawthorn or St Kilda to fudge or give away memberships when they were about to underwrite the move from Waverley?
Every name on every membership was accountable after the 32000 members reached in 1999. This figure, as stated, was inflated by a Waverley protest vote, and the adjustment came in 2000 with a drop back to 27000.
Like I said the real story is far more boring than the perceived one.
But the facts only back up the former.
Didn't Carlton only draw just over 12,000 to a game against Port this season. Bearing in mind they had over 25,000 members.
So it's not that strange of a phenomenon.
[This message has been edited by Same Old's (edited 23 December 2000).]
Hawkforce,
Thanks for filling us in on the factual story behind Hawthorns memberships. I knew the general gist of it, but not the detail.
BTW, I wasn't having a crack at Hawthorn in my previous post - merely pointing out a fact to BomberBabe.
I am envious at Hawthorn's determination to build a bigger membership base - in other posts I have berated Richmond for not doing everything in our power to retain / build memberships. Maybe because we get large membership sales fairly easily it has built in a fair degree of apathy. Bit us on the bum this year as we were down 3,000 members which roughly translates to $300,000 in lost revenue or half our loss.
------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
Thanks for filling us in on the factual story behind Hawthorns memberships. I knew the general gist of it, but not the detail.
BTW, I wasn't having a crack at Hawthorn in my previous post - merely pointing out a fact to BomberBabe.
I am envious at Hawthorn's determination to build a bigger membership base - in other posts I have berated Richmond for not doing everything in our power to retain / build memberships. Maybe because we get large membership sales fairly easily it has built in a fair degree of apathy. Bit us on the bum this year as we were down 3,000 members which roughly translates to $300,000 in lost revenue or half our loss.
------------------
This is a hallucination and these faces are in a dream. A computer generated environment; a fantasy island you can do anything and not have to face the consequences.
Similar threads
