2012 Membership Tally

[SleepingGiant]

Say what you like about Hawthorn's membership levels but gees they have done an amazing job from where they were in the mid 90's. Kudos to them for turning it around and I hope North can do the same.

I hope North can too, I liked them in the 90's when carey was swinging. Don't be fooled as Hawthorn just offer cheap memberships to boost the tally. Richmonds membership revenue (as an example) was higher than theirs last year so we in fact had more members if prices were in equality.

You will find if you analyse Norths revenue your not that far behind at all.

 

[Hornberger]

As of 20/12

Club                Members
West Coast           40,751
Hawthorn             40,237
Essendon             28,933
Richmond             24,336
Geelong              23,800
Melbourne            20,623
Carlton              20,158
Western Bulldogs     17,965
Port Adelaide        15,217
North Melbourne      15,041
St Kilda             14,390
Sydney               11,001
Brisbane             10,215
Gold Coast            7,981
GWS                   2,462
Adelaide                985*
Collingwood             N/A
Fremantle               N/A

*New Members

 

[BLue_Bloys]

I hope North can too, I liked them in the 90's when carey was swinging. Don't be fooled as Hawthorn just offer cheap memberships to boost the tally. Richmonds membership revenue (as an example) was higher than theirs last year so we in fact had more members if prices were in equality.

You will find if you analyse Norths revenue your not that far behind at all.

That's true to a degree....

Hawthorn should capitalise on this in the next few years, it's much easier to convert a member paying $75 to increase to $175 than it is a non member.

 

[Bardo State]

That's true to a degree....

Hawthorn should capitalise on this in the next few years, it's much easier to convert a member paying $75 to increase to $175 than it is a non member.

We offer cheaper memberships due to the availability of Melbourne games.

This is however, probably inevitable. But I don't quite see how we have "less" members than any other club due to slightly lower revenue. The membership revenue is affected by Tasmanian members, reduced prices for Mebourne due to availability of games and a very high number of junior members (higher than any club in the league a couple years ago by a fair margin. Not sure what the 2011 numbers were.)

 

[SleepingGiant]

We offer cheaper memberships due to the availability of Melbourne games.

This is however, probably inevitable. But I don't quite see how we have "less" members than any other club due to slightly lower revenue. The membership revenue is affected by Tasmanian members, reduced prices for Mebourne due to availability of games and a very high number of junior members (higher than any club in the league a couple years ago by a fair margin. Not sure what the 2011 numbers were.)

Well it is simple, clubs have members to raise revenue to increase profits. That is the ONLY purpose of having them. As a result the club with the highest revenue has the more members. If Hawthorn could put the prices of their memberships up --> less sold, only to increase revenue they would. As a result the Hawthorn and Collingwood membership figure is grossly overstated given Richmond's revenue from membership is greater than Hawthorns. There is no other way to put it.

Teams can give excuses left right and centre however revenue talks and numbers don't mean anything. If a club has a low revenue to membership number ratio (such as Hawthorn) then they are engaging in my opinion borderline insecure behaviour to try and gain publicity. Which I might add they have done very well, they have a lot of people on here decieved.

 

[Bardo State]

Well it is simple, clubs have members to raise revenue to increase profits. That is the ONLY purpose of having them. As a result the club with the highest revenue has the more members. If Hawthorn could put the prices of their memberships up --> less sold, only to increase revenue they would. As a result the Hawthorn and Collingwood membership figure is grossly overstated given Richmond's revenue from membership is greater than Hawthorns. There is no other way to put it.

Teams can give excuses left right and centre however revenue talks and numbers don't mean anything. If a club has a low revenue to membership number ratio (such as Hawthorn) then they are engaging in my opinion borderline insecure behaviour to try and gain publicity. Which I might add they have done very well, they have a lot of people on here decieved.

Hawthron offer what they beleive are fair prices for what the members receive. This is not in order to drum up publicity, it is just offering a fair price for what the supporters receive. I'm sure Richmond would do the same if they were in the situation Hawthorn was in.

I do agree that at the end of the day the point of memberships is to generate revenue and therefore would classify Richmond as more successful in this area. However it is a trade off. We take a hit in membership revenue and in return we get an (financially) amazing deal with the Tasmanian government giving us greater financial security and the ability to expand our supporter base in a generally neglected market.

I will disagree with you on one thing though. While Richmond do generate more membership revenue, it is undebatable that Hawthorn has more members.

 

[Prince Imperial]

Serious question and I'm not having a crack but are the Saints numbers way down compared to the same time last year? I see their website is currently showing 14390 as at 18/12/11 but on 22/12/10 they were proudly reporting 24000 members. Of course they could be just about to announce a big increase but this seems a vast difference.

http://www.saints.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/5315/newsid/106426/default.aspx

 

[telsor]

Well it is simple, clubs have members to raise revenue to increase profits. That is the ONLY purpose of having them. As a result the club with the highest revenue has the more members. If Hawthorn could put the prices of their memberships up --> less sold, only to increase revenue they would. As a result the Hawthorn and Collingwood membership figure is grossly overstated given Richmond's revenue from membership is greater than Hawthorns. There is no other way to put it.

Teams can give excuses left right and centre however revenue talks and numbers don't mean anything. If a club has a low revenue to membership number ratio (such as Hawthorn) then they are engaging in my opinion borderline insecure behaviour to try and gain publicity. Which I might add they have done very well, they have a lot of people on here decieved.

I think you're confusing quantity and quality.

Hawthorn has a greater quantity of members.
Other teams have a higher quality of members ( at least in terms of more $ per member ).

Of course, to really matter, you need both.

 

[Rocky_Star_Pro]

We had the third highest Victorian membership in 2011... higher than both Essendon and Richmond!

No you didn't.

 

[Rioli magic]

As a result the Hawthorn and Collingwood membership figure is grossly overstated given Richmond's revenue from membership is greater than Hawthorns.

Do you have a link to Richmond's revenue for membership?

 

[eldorado]

Don't be fooled as Hawthorn just offer cheap memberships to boost the tally.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Why does this sort of post tend to come from (a minority of) supporters from the same team?

 

[Prudster]

Well it is simple, clubs have members to raise revenue to increase profits. That is the ONLY purpose of having them. As a result the club with the highest revenue has the more members. If Hawthorn could put the prices of their memberships up --> less sold, only to increase revenue they would. As a result the Hawthorn and Collingwood membership figure is grossly overstated given Richmond's revenue from membership is greater than Hawthorns. There is no other way to put it.

Teams can give excuses left right and centre however revenue talks and numbers don't mean anything. If a club has a low revenue to membership number ratio (such as Hawthorn) then they are engaging in my opinion borderline insecure behaviour to try and gain publicity. Which I might add they have done very well, they have a lot of people on here decieved.

I don't know about other Hawthorn supporters, or Hawthorn as a club, but i am extremely pleased that Hawthorn has/had the most junior memberships in recent times. I don't remember which year it was from, but Hawthorn had significantly higher junior numbers than other clubs. While junior memberships, and Tassie memberships may not produce the same financial figures as other types of memberships, they give Hawthorn a greater potential to not only grow our membership numbers further, but also to increase revenue per member.

Hawthorn's membership campaigns are extremely successful, getting numbers, and targeting the youth and areas for potential growth (Tassie).

TBH, i don't understand why you are so hung up on Hawthorn's numbers. Hawthorn is successful in getting more people to sign up, while Richmond is more successful at getting members to pay more money. Either way, members should be happy with what they get, and that they get to be a part of great clubs with great history. Why does it have to be a pissing contest? Our dick is longer than yours, but yours is slightly thicker. So what?

Also, just on the bolded bit, not every thing is about money. I'm sure Hawthorn could put membership prices up, but memberships are meant to be about the fans getting to see the team, support the team, and most importantly, not have to be super rich to do so.

 

[hawker11]

I think you're confusing quantity and quality.

Hawthorn has a greater quantity of members.
Other teams have a higher quality of members ( at least in terms of more $ per member ).

Of course, to really matter, you need both.

Sorry but that is rubbish. There is more to membership than a fundraising campaign. Back in 1996 the general admission members that voted against the merger offered more quality than the lucrative members that voted for it...

What do you expect hawthorn to do? Charge 7 home games (+4 replacement games) the same amount as 11 home games? There were over 4000 members in tas before the sponsorship, so this huge fudging of numbers you claim has only at this stage added approx 5000 extra to the total (not factoring Vic members that dropped off or downgraded a reserved seat after the tassie deal began).

Hawthorn attract a higher number of members than Richmond, and for some time now. Deal with it!

 

[telsor]

Sorry but that is rubbish. There is more to membership than a fundraising campaign. Back in 1996 the general admission members that voted against the merger offered more quality than the lucrative members that voted for it...

What do you expect hawthorn to do? Charge 7 home games (+4 replacement games) the same amount as 11 home games? There were over 4000 members in tas before the sponsorship, so this huge fudging of numbers you claim has only at this stage added approx 5000 extra to the total (not factoring Vic members that dropped off or downgraded a reserved seat after the tassie deal began).

Hawthorn attract a higher number of members than Richmond, and for some time now. Deal with it!

I believe I was clear that I was only referring to $ per member.

There can be good reasons for this, such as is the case with Hawthorn, and conversely clubs like WCE does relatively better because all their members require reserved seats.

Neither special case changes the basic fact that the clubs with higher 'quality' members make additional money as a result.

 

[Hodgies Heroes]

Thanks to all the financial geniuses from other clubs trying to help us out

To all the accountants who have states that "memebership revenue " is the only thing that counts - please never , ever get a job in the business world.

Reveue is not everything - there are many clubs that get higher revenue than others because of higher reserved seat sales, more expensive packages etc.

But guess what - these also cost the clubs more... in fact they cost them a fortune.

There are also clubs that spend a massive amount more on membership advertising than others.

So what is the benefit of this higher revenue when you have even higher costs ???? Nothing.



At the end of the day - no fan of any club should worrry about what other clubs are doing, no two clubs memebrship numbers, revenues or profits can be compared to each other because of vastly diffferent circumstances with Stadiums, draws, package types etc.

Fans should just look at your own club, and look for improvement in your own position relative to where you have been.

 

[hawker11]

I believe I was clear that I was only referring to $ per member.

There can be good reasons for this, such as is the case with Hawthorn, and conversely clubs like WCE does relatively better because all their members require reserved seats.

Neither special case changes the basic fact that the clubs with higher 'quality' members make additional money as a result.

I still take exception to the term 'quality' being used, though maybe the hawks are doing it wrong? Perhaps next year the print the cost of the membership on the scarves instead of te number of consecutive years

 

[theflea]

I still take exception to the term 'quality' being used, though maybe the hawks are doing it wrong? Perhaps next year the print the cost of the membership on the scarves instead of te number of consecutive years

i think quality is poor choice of words. imo there will always be an argument for numbers(marketing)v revenue. which is better i dont know but then i like both. i tend to think that hawks have a low $ number purely bc of the tassie connection. its just the way it is. i also think that price gouging fans into paying nearly 1k so you can get a gf ticket is just as bad. nearly all clubs do this .

 

[Joshen]

Having a large amount or members regardless of revenue from them makes you more attractive in terms of sponsorship which would in turn bring in extra revenue.

I'm fairly sure Hawthorn are very well supported by HSBC and Tasmania

 

[Aphrodite]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue
We had the third highest Victorian membership in 2011... higher than both Essendon and Richmond!

No you didn't.

GordonBlue is correct.

The final figures don't lie ........

(2010 figures in brackets)

AFL club memberships as of June 30, 2011

Collingwood 71,271 (57,408)
Hawthorn 56,224 (53,978)
Adelaide 44,719 (45,545)
Carlton 43,791 (40,480)
West Coast 43,216 (44,160)
Fremantle 42,762 (39,854)
Essendon 42,559 (40,589)
Richmond 40,184 (35,960)
Geelong 39,343 (40,326)
St Kilda 39,276 (39,021)
Melbourne 36,937 (33,358)
Port Adelaide 32,581 (29,092)
Sydney 27,106 (28,671)
Western Bulldogs 29,710 (32,077)
North Melbourne 28,761 (26,953)
Brisbane 20,792 (26,779)
Gold Coast 11,141 (NA)

AFL club memberships as of June 30, 2011

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=118901

 

[Groupie_]

GordonBlue is correct.

The final figures don't lie ........

(2010 figures in brackets)

AFL club memberships as of June 30, 2011

Collingwood 71,271 (57,408)
Hawthorn 56,224 (53,978)
Adelaide 44,719 (45,545)
Carlton 43,791 (40,480)
West Coast 43,216 (44,160)
Fremantle 42,762 (39,854)
Essendon 42,559 (40,589)
Richmond 40,184 (35,960)
Geelong 39,343 (40,326)
St Kilda 39,276 (39,021)
Melbourne 36,937 (33,358)
Port Adelaide 32,581 (29,092)
Sydney 27,106 (28,671)
Western Bulldogs 29,710 (32,077)
North Melbourne 28,761 (26,953)
Brisbane 20,792 (26,779)
Gold Coast 11,141 (NA)

AFL club memberships as of June 30, 2011

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=118901

What a load of shit. Does not matter if the AFL separates ticketed from non ticketed. The fact of the matter here is that both the Tiges and the Dons sold more memberships than Carlton in 2011.

Its quite embarrassing really that the blues have played finals 3 years in a row and have lower membership numbers than the RFC. Not to mention revenue..

Membership Revenue:
Richmond - $11,992,714
Hawthorn - $11,705,117
Carlton - $11,617,793
Essendon - $10,363,690

 

[GordonBlue]

What a load of shit. Does not matter if the AFL separates ticketed from non ticketed. The fact of the matter here is that both the Tiges and the Dons sold more memberships than Carlton in 2011.

Its quite embarrassing really that the blues have played finals 3 years in a row and have lower membership numbers than the RFC. Not to mention revenue..

Membership Revenue:
Richmond - $11,992,714
Hawthorn - $11,705,117
Carlton - $11,617,793
Essendon - $10,363,690

Wow interesting numbers there... thanks for the info!

I agree with you that it doesn't really matter if the AFL counts it or not, all it matters is what the club makes out of it. They are very impressive figures from Richmond and it's a credit to them that they have come up with a method to achieve maximum reward from their memberships.

The Hawthorn number is very interesting and wow Essedon are $1.6m off the tigers when their numbers (both ticketed and un-ticketed) are pretty even....

 

[BLue_Bloys]

What a load of shit. Does not matter if the AFL separates ticketed from non ticketed. The fact of the matter here is that both the Tiges and the Dons sold more memberships than Carlton in 2011.

Its quite embarrassing really that the blues have played finals 3 years in a row and have lower membership numbers than the RFC. Not to mention revenue..

Membership Revenue:
Richmond - $11,992,714
Hawthorn - $11,705,117
Carlton - $11,617,793
Essendon - $10,363,690

Just curious, does Richmond's revenue include that donated through the FTF?

Carlton's should increase this year as level 2 premium has been limited to captains club, which costs around $700

 

[UpTheGuts]

Membership Revenue:
Richmond - $11,992,714
Hawthorn - $11,705,117
Carlton - $11,617,793
Essendon - $10,363,690

Didn't know that. Pretty impressive, presuming accuracy

Maybe some of our numbers included contributions made to the FTF by folks when renewing? There was a little box you could tick I seem to recall if you wanted $25- $whatever added on.

Even if they did, that's a darn good effort. Good stuff Tiges Huge turnaround from the old days when membership got you a card, some dodgy sunnies and an email once a month that would always crash my system.

MCG is a huge selling point, but also should theoretically lower the member yield as there is less of an incentive to assure yourself a reserved seat.

In respect to finals tickets, do other clubs preference those members who have been financial supporters of the club for > 10 consecutive years? We do. Not that it's been a huge bonus in a while!

 

[GordonBlue]

Having a large amount or members regardless of revenue from them makes you more attractive in terms of sponsorship which would in turn bring in extra revenue.

I'm fairly sure Hawthorn are very well supported by HSBC and Tasmania

Not true... I would say more people rocking up to games and more TV viewers would do alot more than having membership numbers! Not to mention supporter base...

Where Hawthorn is more lucrative for sponsors than Richmond lies in on-field success where Hawthorn has the bigger chance of playing in Finals and Grand Finals.... for now

 

[Rioli magic]

Didn't know that. Pretty impressive, presuming accuracy

They're not accurate.