2012 Membership Tally - Part2

[dave10]

do you know why they did this and when does the etihad agreement expire?

The EFC say on the EFC membership thread its because it had feedback from its fans that they were sick of lining up just before first bounce at dome home games and being forced to miss large chunks of the first quarter.. They say that if every member has a season seat they will ensure they have few walk ups. Maybe the case but this is at the cost of members. The cynic in me thinks its a way of trading up members to higher $ packages so increasing the return per member. We are stuck there until 2025 I believe so we have some time ahead of us yet..

EDIT: part of this thread is here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=23378033#post23378033

 

[Madtiger2006]

Re: 2012 Membership Tally

Bigger jump today for the Blues. Over the 32K hump. Now 32,059 Members.

They've done 2 updates today 32,433 now. Must be the community camp sales

 

[Scodog10]

Re: 2012 Membership Tally

I think you just did.

But rest assured, your smug sense of superiority makes yours is at least twice as big by my reckoning...

Having a lend can be misconstrued in the written form so for that I apologize, because surely no-one could be as full of themselves as you took me to be in my previous post?? Maybe my biggest mistake was quoting the Hawks poster

As it is I do take some interest in the membership tallies of clubs, which is why I choose to read this thread and, if my club affords me the opportunity lol, then to post in it.

However the bickering that goes on between some Hawks and Tigers supporters (for the most part) can mean that voices just get lost in the crowd, which would annoy me if I had a legitimate question. It's in no way a reflection of your club, their club, my club or any club for that matter, but rather those who get involved in it.

Oh well part 1 will close soon so here's to less bickering about stuff that's irrelevant to the thread in the next instalment

 

[theflea]

Re: 2012 Membership Tally

I did not say there was not Hawk supporters and other supporters who do this.

I was replying to the dudes that posts the same shit, every time, every year, in the same thread.

i know i know but sometimes all of us feel obligated to answer a post.

 

[WWSD]

Re: 2012 Membership Tally

47,394 and Counting! Approx 3,800 up on same time last year.

 

[Glenn_]

Swans Membership @ 19,429

http://membership.sydneyswans.com.au/

 

[trevagreene]

Norf : 22,113

 

[Madtiger2006]

34,314 tigers

 

[Cudi_420]

34,314 tigers

North will have more members than Melbourne by 2013. Bookmark it.

 

[Madtiger2006]

North will have more members than Melbourne by 2013. Bookmark it.

Righto

 

[syl]

North will have more members than Melbourne by 2013. Bookmark it.

If Melbourne don't suprise this year then I have a feeling about that too. I will have to cancel my north membership and go back to multipleMelbourne ones!

 

[WWSD]

47,678 as of Feb 17th. Approx 4,000 up on the same time last year.

 

[DirrtyBee]

Crows total as at 17th Feb is 40,704

 

[Hornberger]

As of 23/2

Club                Members
Collingwood          53,000 
West Coast           50,000
Hawthorn             48,558
Adelaide             41,637
Essendon             39,858
Richmond             35,743
Carlton              33,783
Geelong              30,891
Port Adelaide        27,242
St Kilda             25,724
Melbourne            24,874
North Melbourne      22,982
Western Bulldogs     21,664
Sydney               20,219
Brisbane             14,426
Gold Coast            9,554
GWS                   5,521
Fremantle               N/A

 

[lionel_luthor]

Do 3 game or country memberships count in the official tally ? Would be a farce it it does.

 

[Barkly St End]

Do 3 game or country memberships count in the official tally ? Would be a farce it it does.

Interstate memberships are definitely counted - why shouldn't they be??

 

[Provost_]

Interstate memberships are definitely counted - why shouldn't they be??

I agree, all membership fees are money going to a club and provide membership rights. Attendance at games costs extra, that is built into those types of membership packages and that extra cost goes to the stadium not the club.

Pretty simple when you think about it, all memberships support the club directly financially.

I can be a member of a fishing club, pay my dues, sink piss at the club house at meetings, but never represent my club in competition, does that make my membership dollars less valuable to the club and does is the club able to fudge it's figures and hide me off the books
for tax and reporting purposes.... of course not.

I still don't know if pet memberships count though...

 

[lionel_luthor]

Membership figures can be misleading, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn had more membebrs then Carlton last year, yet we averaged the 2nd highest crowds of any team in Vic after Collingwood.

Baby and Pet memberships shouldn't count either IMHO.

 

[tigs2010]

Membership figures can be misleading, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn had more membebrs then Carlton last year, yet we averaged the 2nd highest crowds of any team in Vic after Collingwood.

Baby and Pet memberships shouldn't count either IMHO.

Hawthorn play what 4 games in a small stadium at Launceston? You had a far better season than us and Essendon so it would be reasonable to expect more people rocking up to games.

Nothing wrong with having baby memberships IMO. The kid will eventually start going to games and clubs reward members for years of service. Pets on the other hand.

 

[gaelictiogar]

Membership figures can be misleading, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn had more membebrs then Carlton last year, yet we averaged the 2nd highest crowds of any team in Vic after Collingwood.

Baby and Pet memberships shouldn't count either IMHO.

You are partly correct.

Neither attendance figures or membership sales can be regarded as indicating the "real" level of support of a club.

Attendance is hugely dependent of how well a team is doing onfield.

Membership sales are hugely dependent on both price ( cheaper packages will sell more ) and the creativity of clubs in designing packages that are both cheap and fall within the AFL audit.

I think most of us realise that headline membership figures have little meaning except in the field of off season marketing.

 

[mediumsizered]

Membership figures can be misleading, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn had more membebrs then Carlton last year, yet we averaged the 2nd highest crowds of any team in Vic after Collingwood.

Neither Essendon nor Richmond had more members than Carlton last season. The official AFL membership audit subtracted several thousand 'memberships' from both Essendon & Richmond's club tallies.

Carlton hasn't been bothering to count those memberships which the AFL does not include in their official numbers. Why Essendon & Richmond (& Richmond have been doing so for a few years now) bother to include them in their ongoing figures is anyone's guess.

 

[azza29]

Why Essendon & Richmond (& Richmond have been doing so for a few years now) bother to include them in their ongoing figures is anyone's guess.

It's a marketing exercise. Big numbers build momentum.

 

[Barkly St End]

Membership figures can be misleading, Essendon, Richmond and Hawthorn had more membebrs then Carlton last year, yet we averaged the 2nd highest crowds of any team in Vic after Collingwood.

Baby and Pet memberships shouldn't count either IMHO.

Baby and Pet memberhsips don't count - have never counted - they are just novelty items clubs sell to make revenue, like items of merchandise.

 

[telsor]

Neither Essendon nor Richmond had more members than Carlton last season. The official AFL membership audit subtracted several thousand 'memberships' from both Essendon & Richmond's club tallies.

Carlton hasn't been bothering to count those memberships which the AFL does not include in their official numbers. Why Essendon & Richmond (& Richmond have been doing so for a few years now) bother to include them in their ongoing figures is anyone's guess.

Richmond argument has always been that the count accurately shows the members of the Richmond football club.

If they meet AFL audit points is not the issue, those people are still club members, and with all due respect to the AFL, the RFC is the authority of who qualify as members of the club.

The AFL is well within their rights to audit that figure and revise it to meet their criteria, although as that figure doesn't actually mean much ( do clubs get more or less of anything as a result? ), I think the club's figure is actually more relevant.

 

[Madtiger2006]

If Hawthorn didn't play in tassie they'd have 40,000 at the moment instead of 47,000