Author Topic: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?  (Read 2533 times)

Offline bojangles17

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5618
  • Platinum member 33 years
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2009, 12:43:36 PM »
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 ::)
RFC 1885, Often Imitated, Never Equalled

bushranger

  • Guest
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2009, 03:22:46 PM »
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.

Offline Fishfinger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2465
  • You can't put brains in an idiot
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2009, 03:23:01 PM »
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.
It's 50 of one and half a dozen of the other - Don Scott

Offline WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40385
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2009, 08:38:23 PM »
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.
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline tiogar

  • Jack Dyer medallist
  • ***
  • Posts: 155
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2009, 07:29:38 AM »
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.

Offline Fishfinger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 2465
  • You can't put brains in an idiot
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2009, 08:57:00 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 09:33:47 AM by Fishfinger »
It's 50 of one and half a dozen of the other - Don Scott

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2009, 02:28:38 PM »

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>

Offline Go Richo 12

  • Richmond tragic, bleeding heart, hopeless cricketer and terrible fisherman.
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2009, 02:49:55 PM »
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!

Offline True Thylacine

  • Tiger Rookie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2009, 03:48:12 PM »
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.