Fairer way to rank memberships ! Do you agree?

[tiogar]

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?

[Fishfinger]

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.

[Go Richo 12]

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.

[mightytiges]

Threads like this always bring out the BF Hawk fans with their inferiority complex. Good stuff toigar    .

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  . 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.

[Beren]

Threads like this always bring out the BF Hawk fans with their inferiority complex. Good stuff toigar    .

Spot on  . 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?

[bojangles17]

Interersting contention , isn t the Hawk Tassy membership pack 2-3 games...which account for nearly 5,000

[tiogar]

Interersting contention , isn t the Hawk Tassy membership pack 2-3 games...which account for nearly 5,000

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.

[bushranger]

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.

[Chuck17]

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.

[Ramps]

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.

[tiogar]

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.

[Go Richo 12]

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!

[Fishfinger]

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.

[Fishfinger]

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.

[tiogar]

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.