One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: tiogar on January 02, 2009, 11:18:37 AM
-
I post on bigfooty under the name gaelictiogar and on the main board I posted a genuinely unbiased suggestion on how to stop the dick waving nonsense about membership numbers which have become an annual farce with clubs - us included it has to be admitted - introducing 5 game memberships and some carrying it to ridiculous extremes with 75 dollar mamberships and one game memberships ( no prizes for guessing who that is or whose fans jumped on me). A $75 4 game package is NOT the same as an 11 game package and should not be counted as the same. A $75 dollar limited games package is NOT the same as a $120 package.
I suggested that with some Unticketededs paying as much or more for membership as some ticketeds are, and with a host of different prices for different packages from 1 game to 17 that the real way, the fair way is to count up the income from TOTAL sales of ALL memberships.
That is obvious sense isn't it with everyone selling what are silly prided packages simply to puff up figures and some clubs taking this to extremes. Am I right on this or not?
-
1 membership (person) = 1 member.
It doesn't get any fairer or simpler than that. I think the level of membership should remain irrelevant.
The AFL have a valid reason to to have ticketed and non-ticketed.
I can even accept why some memberships which do not meet the ticketed criteria are given exceptions and count as ticketed. I don't think it's fair, though.
What I will never accept is the AFL not counting non-ticketed members as members.
-
In a way,but let us not forget... i live in the country, work and play footy on the weekends and therefore would be very lucky to catch 5 games a year, therefore the 5 game country membership is perfect for me. Im proud of being a member and therefore would be very cheesed to not have my membership counted as official. (i consider my membership more as a donation than a money saving device). Also many people cannot afford the membership that 11 games costs and therefore should not be denied the right to be counted. I think it is great that clubs cater for all types of membership and should be appluaded for thinking of ways to increase their revenue through clever marketing. I know that some people are annoyed that they pay more and recieve the same recognition as others who pay less but us country folk still have to pay for fuel and accomadation.
-
Threads like this always bring out the BF Hawk fans with their inferiority complex. Good stuff toigar ;D :thumbsup.
1 membership (person) = 1 member.
It doesn't get any fairer or simpler than that. I think the level of membership should remain irrelevant.
Spot on :thumbsup. We have close to 40,000 members (excluding the four legged, feathery two legged and scaley no legged kind lol).
As far as the clubs go though I agree toigar that total revenue (minus cost of production) from all membership packages is what really matters to a club's bottom line.
-
Threads like this always bring out the BF Hawk fans with their inferiority complex. Good stuff toigar ;D :thumbsup.
Spot on :thumbsup. We have close to 40,000 members (excluding the four legged, feathery two legged and scaley no legged kind lol).
As far as the clubs go though I agree toigar that total revenue (minus cost of production) from all membership packages is what really matters to a club's bottom line.
So does that mean that Thorns are still counting pet memberships in their total? ;D
-
Interersting contention , isn t the Hawk Tassy membership pack 2-3 games...which account for nearly 5,000 :o
-
Interersting contention , isn t the Hawk Tassy membership pack 2-3 games...which account for nearly 5,000 :o
It's 4 games and costs $75. So in effect they are counting several thousand people who pay $75 a head ( $45 less than our interstate for instance) as full ticketed members adn we are not allowed count many thousand who pay our nin ticketed price......its a joke.
Hawks will claim about 50,000 this year when the real number will be about 45,000 and we will be credited with about 34,000 when in fact we will sell upwards of 44,000. FARCE.
-
In a way,but let us not forget... i live in the country, work and play footy on the weekends and therefore would be very lucky to catch 5 games a year, therefore the 5 game country membership is perfect for me. Im proud of being a member and therefore would be very cheesed to not have my membership counted as official. (i consider my membership more as a donation than a money saving device). Also many people cannot afford the membership that 11 games costs and therefore should not be denied the right to be counted. I think it is great that clubs cater for all types of membership and should be appluaded for thinking of ways to increase their revenue through clever marketing. I know that some people are annoyed that they pay more and recieve the same recognition as others who pay less but us country folk still have to pay for fuel and accomadation.
I don't play footy anymore but I agree with this fully.
Being a country boy to.
-
Genuine question; does the RFC have one game memberships.
Reason why is that I only see one game a year in Sydney when the tiges play and that I would rather the money go to RFC than the Swans.
In regards to the original post I probably agree the more fairer way would be to talk in a sense of total membership sales. However I think everything such as advertising and promotion to sponsors and the public is based on having x amount of members and hence the rise of the silly schemes that are in existence.
-
I dont support how our club has a $75 non ticketed membership, this non ticketed membership should be increased by $60 to $135 and it should include access to 4 games against clubs not including Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, basically it should be for access to games against interstate clubs and low drawing melbourne clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn.
This new category should be included as a proper membership.
-
I dont support how our club has a $75 non ticketed membership, this non ticketed membership should be increased by $60 to $135 and it should include access to 4 games against clubs not including Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, basically it should be for access to games against interstate clubs and low drawing melbourne clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn.
This new category should be included as a proper membership.
Excellent idea. the fans are encouraged to go to games and the membership number jumps by thousands.
-
Why then could they not have a system that not only counts memberships but total games sold in membership packets? This would give a clearer indication of what fans are buying and put membership totals into context!
-
I dont support how our club has a $75 non ticketed membership, this non ticketed membership should be increased by $60 to $135 and it should include access to 4 games against clubs not including Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, basically it should be for access to games against interstate clubs and low drawing melbourne clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn.
This new category should be included as a proper membership.
More than 5 games is the criteria for ticketed (access to finals tickets).
All club memberships are proper memberships. The problem is the AFL won't count some proper memberships in their membership figures. Then they count some other proper memberships which also don't meet the criteria for ticketed by sanctioning them as ticketed, seemingly at their whim.
The $75 membership is good because it allows people who can't get to games to be members without too much outlay and is money into the club coffers.
-
Why then could they not have a system that not only counts memberships but total games sold in membership packets? This would give a clearer indication of what fans are buying and put membership totals into context!
The AFL are incapable of counting all memberships as it is. Expecting them to do something which actually involves a bit of effort is pipe dreams.
-
Isn't the real truth that bums on seats at games is what shows support? We are consistently yer on year down the field in recognised membership sales but consistently top 3 - yes we usually outdraw Carlton - in attendance. This recurrence again and again must indicate there is some discrepancy with how membership numbers show support.
-
I dont support how our club has a $75 non ticketed membership, this non ticketed membership should be increased by $60 to $135 and it should include access to 4 games against clubs not including Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, basically it should be for access to games against interstate clubs and low drawing melbourne clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn.
This new category should be included as a proper membership.
not a bad idea ramps, however I thought the club introduced this for a year or so...at a guess I would think may lead to some punters trading down from full memberships rather than trading up which prob negates any REAL benefit ::)
-
With all of this talk going on what happens to the people that just can't make it to any game what so ever but still want to be apart of the club.
Like old age pensioners and disabled pensioners and that sort of thing where they actually can't travel to game, then as it has been said before, paid for accomodation and whatever transport to get to the games.
I have no problems with paying out more money as I know it is for the club. But please have these people in mind while you are making these decisions on what is or isn't fair.
I'm a disabled pensioner and I find it really hard to travel so I know about the travel side of things as I would have to leave a week before the game to recooperate before the game, just so I could sit there to watch the game.
But if the price was to go up I would be more than willing to pay it, but it wouldn't make me go to game as it's too hard.
As much as I would love to attend matches, I just can't but oneday I will make it there.
-
6 is the minimum, Ramps. The criteria is worded as "access to more than 5 games".
Richmond's Country/Interstate 5 membership ($120) doesn't qualify and is only ticketed because the AFL sanctioned it as ticketed.
I think your idea would lose club members. Buggered if I'd accept a price hike from $76 up to $135 when I couldn't get to any games, which the Tiger Insider membership is for.
-
I dont support how our club has a $75 non ticketed membership, this non ticketed membership should be increased by $60 to $135 and it should include access to 4 games against clubs not including Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon, basically it should be for access to games against interstate clubs and low drawing melbourne clubs like Melbourne, North Melbourne and Hawthorn.
This new category should be included as a proper membership.
Cannot agree Ramps.
What about the elderly who simple cannot get to games but still want to be a member in some form?
I know Ma Powell couldn't get to games as she got older but still wanted to be a member - that $75 membership (Insider I think they call these days) is how she could do that.
-
So is $75 Tassie 4 gamers ARE memberships for AFL purposes ( and just wait and see they will be because the AFL want someone other than the Pies to break 50K and have Eddie storm off to do the same) why the hell are insider memberships which cost exactly the same NOT included?
OK if that's how it is lets sell insiders and tell buyers they have access to any 5 games they like bar Big 4. They don't have to go but can if they want to. In effect they are getting what hey are getting anyway and we can turn around and say Oh look we have 40,000.
-
The Tassie Hawks 4 gamer is counted as ticketed
........ and we can turn around and say Oh look we have 40,000.
We have 39,000 members (2008 season).
For some reason the AFL just don't count some of them (Tiger Insiders & MCC Tigers). No idea why, it's not real hard. The club has already separated them for finals ticket allocation purposes.
They say they only count memberships which have access to finals tickets. That's not true. They count Melbourne supporting MCC members who pay an extra small fee in the Melbourne FC membership figures even though it gives zero access to games.
It's an AFL caused anomaly, not the club. The AFL are pig headed about only counting memberships which meet a certain criteria.
I don't have a problem that there are exceptions to that criteria for some memberships but not others (Melbourne MCC member unfair add-on aside). I have a problem with the memberships which are not counted by the AFL. They are club members, the same as the ones counted.
-
Reason why is that I only see one game a year in Sydney when the tiges play and that I would rather the money go to RFC than the Swans.
I've lived interstate for many years now and been a member for most. I always looked at my membership as a donation (only ever attend 3-4 RFC games a year on average) and a crack at a finals ticket if we ever did the unthinkable. This year however, I feel just slightly miffed at the treatment the Qld members are getting. Not only is our membership basically a very generous donation (unless you are a well-heeled traveller) but the only stinking game we play in the Sunshine State for 3 years is our home game and we don't get access as a member! Surely it wouldn't have been too hard or expensive for the club to apply a 'local' rule to the Gold Coast game as a token of thanks to us 'interstaters'?
</rant>
-
Spot on Smokey, without pointing a finger at anyone(and i mean that as i have lived in melbourne and the sticks), the city folk seem to forget that there is a population that live outside the city limits. A population just as fanatical as the their city cousins and perhaps more generous as they rarely recieve the benefits that membership provide due to the tyranny of distance. Congrats to the Dawks for providing for their tassie supporters and the Afl for acknowledging them, how about recognising some of ours now!
-
I posted this on BF too much to the anxt of the Dawks supporters but my missus bought a 1 game membership which I thought was a bit of a farce to call a membership. I thought then and still do that a nmumber of members plus an amount of revenue would be a much more sensible approach. Then who cares about what consititutes a member.