Welcome everyone to One-Eyed Richmond's Tiger Forum Cheers from mightytiges and WilliamPowell.
Quote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 01:22:58 PMRFC should not be publishing the split between ticketed and non ticketed members. There should only be 1 number reflecting the total membership of the club and that is ticketed + non ticketed = total member number. Thats the number that should be on the website only. The split should only be needed for internal club consumption and should not be on the official club website.Agree Ramps. That's what Essendon do. The AFL can publish their farcicial figures later on in the year.
RFC should not be publishing the split between ticketed and non ticketed members. There should only be 1 number reflecting the total membership of the club and that is ticketed + non ticketed = total member number. Thats the number that should be on the website only. The split should only be needed for internal club consumption and should not be on the official club website.
Quote from: mightytiges on March 13, 2009, 04:39:54 PMQuote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 01:22:58 PMRFC should not be publishing the split between ticketed and non ticketed members. There should only be 1 number reflecting the total membership of the club and that is ticketed + non ticketed = total member number. Thats the number that should be on the website only. The split should only be needed for internal club consumption and should not be on the official club website.Agree Ramps. That's what Essendon do. The AFL can publish their farcicial figures later on in the year.We all agree except the club ... its about time they did something about this issue. And the solution is simple as stated above.
Quote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 06:59:54 PMQuote from: mightytiges on March 13, 2009, 04:39:54 PMQuote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 01:22:58 PMRFC should not be publishing the split between ticketed and non ticketed members. There should only be 1 number reflecting the total membership of the club and that is ticketed + non ticketed = total member number. Thats the number that should be on the website only. The split should only be needed for internal club consumption and should not be on the official club website.Agree Ramps. That's what Essendon do. The AFL can publish their farcicial figures later on in the year.We all agree except the club ... its about time they did something about this issue. And the solution is simple as stated above.True. Perhaps the club is trying to stay in the AFL's good books ???.
True. Perhaps the club is trying to stay in the AFL's good books ???.
Quote from: mightytiges on March 13, 2009, 08:02:21 PMQuote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 06:59:54 PMQuote from: mightytiges on March 13, 2009, 04:39:54 PMQuote from: Ramps on March 13, 2009, 01:22:58 PMRFC should not be publishing the split between ticketed and non ticketed members. There should only be 1 number reflecting the total membership of the club and that is ticketed + non ticketed = total member number. Thats the number that should be on the website only. The split should only be needed for internal club consumption and should not be on the official club website.Agree Ramps. That's what Essendon do. The AFL can publish their farcicial figures later on in the year.We all agree except the club ... its about time they did something about this issue. And the solution is simple as stated above.True. Perhaps the club is trying to stay in the AFL's good books ???.I think there is something in the clubs constitution regarding membership voting rights which affects the way RFC report membership numbers.
All I know is our non-ticketed members also have voting rights provided they are 18 or over. I couldn't find anything in the club's constitution unless it's been altered in the past couple of years.http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum//index.php?topic=379.0
Perhaps this needs to be brought to the clubs attention via a pertion(sp?) or at the next AGM because as it currently stands it is a poor reflection on the club and an unfair advantage for the other clubs over us. We have been a known as a smaller club for years on the back of incorrect comparison figures and worst of all losing potential sponsorship, TV coverage, ground deals and even possible trades because of it.Time to make a changeStripes
Quote from: Stripes on March 14, 2009, 12:23:41 PMPerhaps this needs to be brought to the clubs attention via a pertion(sp?) or at the next AGM because as it currently stands it is a poor reflection on the club and an unfair advantage for the other clubs over us. We have been a known as a smaller club for years on the back of incorrect comparison figures and worst of all losing potential sponsorship, TV coverage, ground deals and even possible trades because of it.Time to make a changeStripes Totally agree, it needs to be fixed!
I have had a bitch in here recently about the Qld members losing out by having the 'home' game status applied to a Melbourne game and not the Gold Coast game in July. Well, I need to acknowledge the club and the reality of the situation. Talking to a mate last night who is also a member and he rang the club to ask about the situation - seems that Qld members can nominate a Melbourne home game to replace the Gold Coast game and thus retain their home game entitlement for the local match up here. He did this and was then told his ticket is already "on it's way too him" so I will be making the call myself on Monday and will let you know the outcome. Only seems fair and good on the club if it turns out to be true.
Latest membership figures with thanks to WP at the season launch....Ticketed: 33kCombined: 41k
