2010 Membership tallies....

[JeffDunne]

. . . and now have the 5th-highest sponsorship revenue in the AFL . . .

Is there a sane person on the planet that would actually believe that?


Christ you sprout some nonsensical bullshit.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Collingwood get 40-50k when they play interstate teams in Melbourne your team would be lucky to get 20k.

Leaving aside that this is, for the most part, not actually correct...

Why would 20k for a match against an interstate club not be "acceptable" exactly?

Aside from the fact that with the new stadium deals, the break-even point at the MCG is below that level anyway.

Somehow, I think if folks like you had your way, the number of Victorian clubs would end up being reduced to 4 - and wouldn't that be good for the game...

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Is there a sane person on the planet that would actually believe that?

Gosh, it's much easier to just play the man than it is to play the ball, isn't it?

Why exactly would there "not be a sane person on the planet that would actually believe" the simple facts in this instance? Are you of the belief that everyone else in the world is like you, Jeff?

Would this perhaps be like the utterly ludicrous call you made earlier on this year when you claimed with such force and confidence that we'd somehow only get 10k through the gate against West Coast, but then we ended up with over 23,000?

To reiterate, YES, our sponsorship revenues put us in the upper tier of AFL clubs on that score, and moreover, we're doing a helluva lot better both in terms of financial strength and membership than can be said for St Kilda, that's for sure.

I'll be very surprised if we don't have a substantially higher level of membership in 2010 than the Saints. And I wouldn't be surprised if our debt level, having increased net assets to the club as dramatically as we have, is already lower than St Kilda's.

 

[JeffDunne]

Maybe rather than moronically chanting the same mantra over & over & over & over . . . again, you might actually back up one of these ridiculous claims with something that resembles fact.

Common sense would tell you that Melbourne's sponsorship in the market place is worth significantly less than many other teams. In fact if I was a sponsor without a connection to football, I reckon Melbourne would rank 15-16 on the list of teams I'd be looking to support if money was no object. FWIW, I know one of Melbourne's match-day sponsors and I know they claim they spend bugger all compared to sponsors at other clubs for what they feel is pretty good exposure (given the price).

Now that's not to say Melbourne haven't received some donation in the form of sponsorship that exagerates their figures, but if that's the case then at least demonstrate those figures.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

(Figure it's time to jettison the ascerbic line here, and I will...)

I already did on previous occasions - our major sponsorships announced at the start of this year, from Hankook and Kaspersky, total $5.1 million over the next 3 years.

I'm not aware of the dollar figures from our smaller sponsors, but from what I've heard through the club, our total revenue in this regard does indeed put us in the upper tier of AFL clubs.

 

[JeffDunne]

i.e. you made it up.

As I suspected.

 

[skipper kelly]

Best off posting the list with a bit of source on top.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

The figures from Kaspersky and Hankook have been pretty well publicised - it's not like there weren't a bunch of articles about those sponsorships at the time...

i.e. you made it up.

Obvious troll is obvious - still at least I can say I sought to be less ascerbic, anyway.

 

[JeffDunne]

Why did you edit the post?

And I'm talking about the figures you deleted & not the immature bullshit you tacked on the end.


Do I guess those paltry sums were a figment of your imagination too?

Anything at all to back up your ridiculous claims? Anything?

 

[Hawkk]

On what basis do you make that claim?

The fact that we're tracking slightly down on this time last year

 

[Hawkk]

You know memberships mean crap all when clubs like Melbourne and Kangaroos get 30,000+ members, and when Hawthorn gets 50k+ members. Seriously it should be the money each clubs generates from them because some clubs deliberatly pump up their figures by offering bs memberships like 1 Game Armchairs and other related 2-3 game memberships.

It's a giant piss taking contentest with no clear definition to who wins. It's all about attendances, membership revenue, and club profits for each year if you want to see how big a club is.

A prime example of membership irrelevance is when Western Bulldogs have close to the same amount of members as Richmond yet cant bring any supporters through to the gates, or Hawthorn who claim to have so many members but only have similar or less people roll through the gates than Richmond (Go Figure?)

Of course playing 4 games a year at a 20,000 seat stadium does tend to distort figures...

 

[walhawk]

You know memberships mean crap all when clubs like Melbourne and Kangaroos get 30,000+ members, and when Hawthorn gets 50k+ members. Seriously it should be the money each clubs generates from them because some clubs deliberatly pump up their figures by offering bs memberships like 1 Game Armchairs and other related 2-3 game memberships.

It's a giant piss taking contentest with no clear definition to who wins. It's all about attendances, membership revenue, and club profits for each year if you want to see how big a club is.

(Go Figure?).

Er, we are the most profitable club too.

And memberships mean heaps - more members means more sposor exposure & access to membership database = bigger sponsorships.

Surely the club that wins the Most Memberships Race is the club with the most members - it's actually very easy to define the winner.
And, for the second year running, that club will be Hawthorn.

 

[walhawk]

We will have more members by Xmas than the Roos, Dees or Dogs will have by June 2010.
We are 20K already!
We might not beat last year's 53K or so, but should hit 50K again.

This does not mean we are claiming to be the biggest club in Melbourne - everybody know we are number four behind Pies, Dons & Blues, but what is does show is that we have a developed membership culture at Hawthorn which will keep us strong for the forseeable future.

Off field we are number one and that is worth crowing (hawking) about.

Suck it up opposition fans.

 

[goldcoastfc]

Er, we are the most profitable club too.

And memberships mean heaps - more members means more sposor exposure & access to membership database = bigger sponsorships.

Surely the club that wins the Most Memberships Race is the club with the most members - it's actually very easy to define the winner.
And, for the second year running, that club will be Hawthorn.

I thought Collingwood and the West Coast had been the most profitable clubs the last few years?

West Coast Eagles remain football's undisputed financial kings, with the club today revealed as the most profitable team in the AFL... More...

Or are we just comparing Melbourne clubs? Because the Eagles also had the most members this year when you include all memberships with their huge waiting list. And Adelaide have dropped off a bit recently but they will probably get 50k next year.

Would you expect the Hawks to drop off much after last season? They have climbed over 70% after the Hawks started looking good (31k in 2007 to 53k in 2009), any chance some might drop off after missing the finals?

 

[billyboutsis]

We will have more members by Xmas than the Roos, Dees or Dogs will have by June 2010.
We are 20K already!
We might not beat last year's 53K or so, but should hit 50K again.

This does not mean we are claiming to be the biggest club in Melbourne - everybody know we are number four behind Pies, Dons & Blues, but what is does show is that we have a developed membership culture at Hawthorn which will keep us strong for the forseeable future.

Off field we are number one and that is worth crowing (hawking) about.

Suck it up opposition fans.

i want to sign up my pot plant to a hawthorn membership...shouldnt be an issue yeah?

 

[Rosstickle]

Of course playing 4 games a year at a 20,000 seat stadium does tend to distort figures...

That's 2 more games than Richmond. Or 40-60,000 fewer people per year, or about 2,000 a game.

 

[Hawkk]

That's 2 more games than Richmond. Or 40-60,000 fewer people per year, or about 2,000 a game.

How so?

We played 3 extra games - inc. Brisbane, North Melbourne and St Kilda who all have many, many more Melbourne based fans than Adelaide (at Carrara)

Notwithstanding we still drew more then you last season anyway

4. Hawthorn Hawks 22 892,017 40,546
5. Richmond Tigers 22 868,938 39,497

Imagine what shape Richmond would be in if/when they only play Collingwood, Carlton once in a season and Essendon at Ethiad....

 

[Hawkk]

i want to sign up my pot plant to a hawthorn membership...shouldnt be an issue yeah?

When less than half you 'membership' attend a home game, well yes

 

[Tulip]

13063 is a good effort by a club by now, regardless of the fact we're wooden spooners!

 

[nuttinbutapeanut]

The figures from Kaspersky and Hankook have been pretty well publicised - it's not like there weren't a bunch of articles about those sponsorships at the time...



Obvious troll is obvious - still at least I can say I sought to be less ascerbic, anyway.

God forbid you shouldn't edit your posts.

 

[Rosstickle]

How so?

We played 3 extra games - inc. Brisbane, North Melbourne and St Kilda who all have many, many more Melbourne based fans than Adelaide (at Carrara)

Notwithstanding we still drew more then you last season anyway

4. Hawthorn Hawks 22 892,017 40,546
5. Richmond Tigers 22 868,938 39,497

Imagine what shape Richmond would be in if/when they only play Collingwood, Carlton once in a season and Essendon at Ethiad....

Geelong and Richmond would've drawn around 20,000 more at the G than at Skilled. We ussually get around 35,000 to Crows games in Melbourne too. So thats about 45,000 more we would've got.

 

[Leedawsom]

Best off posting the list with a bit of source on top.

Hoping for a number that is above the capacity. Cos that is what everyone is doing. Especially in the Grand Final.

 

[jonoman89]

My dick is 8 inches long. Is that a good enough answer for this thread?

 

[smasha]

Richmond number one,again in terms of passion and loyalty.

 

[legitimatic]

Why did you edit the post?

And I'm talking about the figures you deleted & not the immature bullshit you tacked on the end.


Do I guess those paltry sums were a figment of your imagination too?

Anything at all to back up your ridiculous claims? Anything?

Wouldn't be expecting Wona to post in this thread again.