2011 NMFC Membership Tally

[keeno 111]

I got mine, I like the looks of the north end package.

 

[trevagreene]

9/11 - 7403

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

Ticking over nicely IMO. Need a bit of a late November/early Dec rush to get to Euge's 15k by 15 Dec target. But not insurmountable.

 

[trevagreene]

Family Day on the 11/12 should bring up the numbers quite nicely..

 

[Tas]

I don't think we will get close to 15k but 10k would still be a solid result given our peak uptake is over Feb-March.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

I don't think we will get close to 15k but 10k would still be a solid result given our peak uptake is over Feb-March.

Tas - your negativity makes the Membership Unicorn cry.

 

[Tas]

Tas - your negativity makes the Membership Unicorn cry.

lol

I would be stoked to crack 15k, I have faith in the club, just not in our older supporters.

Like all clubs that survived hard times, I think we will need a generation change before we hit any lofty heights. Perhaps we have enough young supporters thanks to the 90s that this can be in the short-term. I hope so. Because I do not have a lot of faith in our older supporters.

Judging by the BF bitterness factor compared to other clubs I think we will need some time to blossom. 15k pre-christmas would put us on track for 35-40k. The St Kilda/Bulldogs like bandwagon would have to roll in for that kind of support imo at this point in time.

It is all about baby steps. I can see the light at the end of the tunnel but I think we need to be realistic in terms of expectations and goals. Otherwise optimism can turn quickly into doom and gloom predictions if lofty goals are not met.

 

[SweetLeftFoot]

FWIW - I don't think well get 15k by 15/12. But I reckon we'll give it a shake. And already we're seeing improvements in memberships. I'd expect as at a bare minimum to be at about 12k by Christmas. We've never done that before.

Thjis is why I'm so worried about Tassie. I think now the darkest period has gone and Tassie talk can only be a distraction.

But then, I suppose we need to raise revenue quick.

 

[The Other Dean]

9/11 - 7403

Tragic loss of life, but they have their own country's invasive foreign policy to blame.

 

[Tas]

FWIW - I don't think well get 15k by 15/12. But I reckon we'll give it a shake. And already we're seeing improvements in memberships. I'd expect as at a bare minimum to be at about 12k by Christmas. We've never done that before.

Thjis is why I'm so worried about Tassie. I think now the darkest period has gone and Tassie talk can only be a distraction.

But then, I suppose we need to raise revenue quick.

I don't have my previous membership numbers with me but don't think we have hit 15k pre-christmas before, from memory we didn't get that high in the Roosergence year.

I'd be very happy with 10k and good sales in Jan, Feb and March. That would give us 30k in a canter.

I guess I haven't factored in the effect of 3 game memberships, I assume those who haven't purchased 11 game memberships in previous years who do not go to many games might go for a 3 game membership this year.

Tassie would add another 3-5k token numbers to our total from 2012 onwards if we do go there, interstate members had inflated our numbers in the past more than "sympathetic" support members ever did. But you can crack 100k members, if you only get 25k to home games then the membership total is fairly irrelevant and nobody believes you have that support level.

Our major issue is our support is splintered. We probably have more real supporters than either Saints or Bulldogs, but most of their supporter base in local. We have strong numbers in WA, SA, Tas, etc. It has weakened our local support and spread it nationally, but it makes it difficult when playing home games when you can't utilise that support.

That is my only beef with Tassie, imo we needed to grow supporters locally to make playing games in any one place viable so when we have 40k members it means we have the majority of those members here, not 50% of them here. Having 40k members and 20k in Melbourne doesn't help us at all because we need bums on seats.

I would have preferred to see a target of 10k by Christmas and see us smash it rather than set 15k and fall short. Even if you still have 12k one is more optimistic than the other.

 

[Limerick]

9 Jan 2008 = 15,235.
1 Jan 2009 = 9,124
4 Jan 2010 = 10,096
First fig for Jan 11 predicted as 11,500
2011 game membership will be 32,000 unless derailed by the Tassie issue.

 

[Groggyk]

As mentioned earlier, the intangible is the effect of the three game membership package.

Would it be fair to say that students and those with less disposable income would be expected to perhaps wait a little longer before commiting?

Would be interesting to hear from those in this demographic.

 

[MaccaRoo]

+4 as of 5 mins ago

Signed up Troo Roo for life for first time too

Just one thing though, when you login to your account, why does it say "Renew Your 2010 Membership"?

 

[r_boy]

As mentioned earlier, the intangible is the effect of the three game membership package.

Would it be fair to say that students and those with less disposable income would be expected to perhaps wait a little longer before commiting?

Would be interesting to hear from those in this demographic.

I will be getting an 8 game membership after exams are done (16th November). Have tried doing it online (like I usually do) but it keeps saying that my account is locked... can only assume that it's because I entered the wrong password a few times.

How long does it take by phone anyone?

 

[Kimbo]

Our major issue is our support is splintered. We probably have more real supporters than either Saints or Bulldogs, but most of their supporter base in local. We have strong numbers in WA, SA, Tas, etc.

It has weakened our local support and spread it nationally, but it makes it difficult when playing home games when you can't utilise that support.

Tas, the conclusion you've reached here isn't valid. Stronger number of supporters in WA, SA and Tas (assuming you're right and these are 'strong', or at least 'stronger' than for Saints or Bulldogs), doesn't weaken local support. Had we played games in WA, SA or Tas then I'd agree with you that this support may have come at the expense of Victorian support.

But, clearly, it hasn't. Support in the states you've mentioned is irrelevant to local support. In fact, if it is 'strong' then it is propping up local numbers, making the local situation more concerning. Stronger numbers in those states only makes us stronger.

If the point you're making is related to Greg Miller's 'travelling Kangaroos' regime and the lack of focus on building local support, then that's another matter. I'd imagine those ill-conceived and poorly executed ventures lost more Victorian members than were gained in Sydney, Canberra or Gold Coast.

 

[Groggyk]

I will be getting an 8 game membership after exams are done (16th November). Have tried doing it online (like I usually do) but it keeps saying that my account is locked... can only assume that it's because I entered the wrong password a few times.

How long does it take by phone anyone?

I'm a True roo for life r_boy and I upgraded to an Archers package in about 5 minutes.

 

[Tas]

Tas, the conclusion you've reached here isn't valid.

How is my conclusion not valid?

Stronger number of supporters in WA, SA and Tas (assuming you're right and these are 'strong', or at least 'stronger' than for Saints or Bulldogs), doesn't weaken local support.

There is an opportunity cost. The time, effort and money we spent developing other markets at the expense of targeting and developing local markets does in fact make you weaker if your supporter base is splintered to the point ours is.

Had we played games in WA, SA or Tas then I'd agree with you that this support may have come at the expense of Victorian support.

I think Miller's push with a national brand/focus did stimulate greater support at a national level at the expense of greater local support.

I have no issues with attempts to grow national support as long as it doesn't come at the expense of local growth. When the suburban football barriers came down, that was the time to plant seeds in communities that were previously closed to us and we saw the writing on the wall and set out to develop ties with Casey before any other club had made such a move but we let it go to push for interstate markets.

But, clearly, it hasn't.

I strongly disagree on this point.

Support in the states you've mentioned is irrelevant to local support. In fact, if it is 'strong' then it is propping up local numbers, making the local situation more concerning. Stronger numbers in those states only makes us stronger.

That would be the case if clubs had infinite resources, but that isn't the case. Clubs have finite resources. The more money/effort you spend in other markets, the less time/money/effort you have for the local market.

This Tasmanian push will require pre-season camps and games in Tasmania at the expense of Ballarat, you can't tell me there is no opportunity cost.

If the point you're making is related to Greg Miller's 'travelling Kangaroos' regime and the lack of focus on building local support, then that's another matter. I'd imagine those ill-conceived and poorly executed ventures lost more Victorian members than were gained in Sydney, Canberra or Gold Coast.

It is in part to do with that, but it is also the mentality and perception. Us playing interstate turns away local members, like it or not it happens. Playing in other markets makes you more accommodating to potential supporters in other markets.

But, to play games and thrive anywhere, you need a concentration of supporters in one area. This is ultimately my concern. It will take time, effort and resources to make Tasmania work, stuff which wont be put into Ballarat or other local regions.

I think it is naive to believe there are no consequences to our actions. I am not saying it is all bad, we will develop more support in Tasmania and will derive a shitload more cash from cleaner stadiums, but it will take away some focus we were putting into Ballarat.

AFL don't want us to develop this market in Ballarat, it would help to remove out dependency on their constant interfering and we wouldn't be in a position to just accept any shit they shovelled our way. I'd be extremely reluctant to pursue anything the AFL believed was good for us.

 

[ThePezDispenser]

Have all Troo Roo for life members from the last couple of years been included yet?

Or is that all done the 22nd of November?

 

[MagicalRoos]

I would have preferred to see a target of 10k by Christmas and see us smash it rather than set 15k and fall short. Even if you still have 12k one is more optimistic than the other.

I realize you are trying to be realistic but that is defeatist talk.

You reach for the stars. If you don't get there at least you might still end up on the moon.

 

[Kimbo]

How is my conclusion not valid?

Because we haven't been investing time into WA, SA nor (yet) Tas. If we've got strong numbers there, it has nothing to do with an 'investment' on our part.

In the case of WA, more to do with the Cable, Glendinning, Krakouer brothers, Spencer, Kelly who attracted supporters prior to the emergence of the Eagles. Even now, a number of Eagles and Dockers supporters have a soft spot for us for this reason.

There is an opportunity cost. The time, effort and money we spent developing other markets at the expense of targeting and developing local markets does in fact make you weaker if your supporter base is splintered to the point ours is.

I get opportunity cost. But what time, effort and money was put into developing these markets?

I have no issues with attempts to grow national support as long as it doesn't come at the expense of local growth. When the suburban football barriers came down, that was the time to plant seeds in communities that were previously closed to us and we saw the writing on the wall and set out to develop ties with Casey before any other club had made such a move but we let it go to push for interstate markets.

I agree with the first sentence, and we're reaping what we've sown at this point.

This Tasmanian push will require pre-season camps and games in Tasmania at the expense of Ballarat, you can't tell me there is no opportunity cost.

I'm not. I thought you were talking about existing WA, SA and Tas members? No?

But, to play games and thrive anywhere, you need a concentration of supporters in one area. This is ultimately my concern. It will take time, effort and resources to make Tasmania work, stuff which wont be put into Ballarat or other local regions.

I understand, but you started out saying...

We have strong numbers in WA, SA, Tas, etc. It has weakened our local support and spread it nationally, but it makes it difficult when playing home games when you can't utilise that support.

I understand where you're coming from re Tassie, but don't use existing WA, SA and Tas members to prop up the argument.

 

[John Dorian]

The North End looks very interesting.

Anyone else planning to sit there?

 

[Tas]

Because we haven't been investing time into WA, SA nor (yet) Tas. If we've got strong numbers there, it has nothing to do with an 'investment' on our part.

In the case of WA, more to do with the Cable, Glendinning, Krakouer brothers, Spencer, Kelly who attracted supporters prior to the emergence of the Eagles. Even now, a number of Eagles and Dockers supporters have a soft spot for us for this reason.


I get opportunity cost. But what time, effort and money was put into developing these markets?


I agree with the first sentence, and we're reaping what we've sown at this point.


I'm not. I thought you were talking about existing WA, SA and Tas members? No?


I understand, but you started out saying...

We have strong numbers in WA, SA, Tas, etc. It has weakened our local support and spread it nationally, but it makes it difficult when playing home games when you can't utilise that support.

I understand where you're coming from re Tassie, but don't use existing WA, SA and Tas members to prop up the argument.

I didn't mean that we put a lot of effort in SA, WA and Tas because we have obviously not played games there. We have put in time, money and resources into Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast and now possibly Tasmania instead of strengthening our ties to communities in Victoria. That is where the opportunity cost lies.

SA, WA and Tasmania are more about pre-existing ties back before these states had football representation in the VFL/AFL and meant that while our supporter base is reasonable at a national level it is splintered with groups not large enough in any area to sustain a football club into the future.

We MUST increase our supporter base in Melbourne to survive/thrive long-term. Part of that is from elements beyond our control like FTA exposure, the other part is within our control in terms of the markets we focus on and develop.

If we neglect Victoria, like the AFL want us to do, then it wont matter how noble our intentions are to remain here. We must have a 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 year plan and each major step we take should be part of a greater strategy with the major goals in mind.

If not, then Aylett and all the other knockers will be vindicated. And by knockers I am not talking about boobies.

 

[Dan]

I didn't mean that we put a lot of effort in SA, WA and Tas because we have obviously not played games there. We have put in time, money and resources into Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast and now possibly Tasmania instead of strengthening our ties to communities in Victoria. That is where the opportunity cost lies.

SA, WA and Tasmania are more about pre-existing ties back before these states had football representation in the VFL/AFL and meant that while our supporter base is reasonable at a national level it is splintered with groups not large enough in any area to sustain a football club into the future.

We MUST increase our supporter base in Melbourne to survive/thrive long-term. Part of that is from elements beyond our control like FTA exposure, the other part is within our control in terms of the markets we focus on and develop.

If we neglect Victoria, like the AFL want us to do, then it wont matter how noble our intentions are to remain here. We must have a 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 year plan and each major step we take should be part of a greater strategy with the major goals in mind.

If not, then Aylett and all the other knockers will be vindicated. And by knockers I am not talking about boobies.

Moving on......10/11/10 7941

 

[DarwinRoo]

500 in a day. Good work.

 

[Bigeasy]

500 in a day. Good work.

Tasmanians?