2012 Membership Tally

[Jesus Baulks]

The reason why we are so low in revenue is because of the Tasmania deal. Due to the fact our members get less home games with a reserved seat, our prices are lower. If/once the Tasmania deal gets canned, then we obviously lose a few thousand members in Tasmania. But that being said, our membership prices will increase, and so will the revenue of course.

But I mean, seriously guys, does it really matter. I don't think it's unreasonable to say Collingwood, Geelong, Essendon, Hawthorn, Richmond & Carlton are all big clubs. There is no one club out of those 6 bigger than the other these days, besides Collingwood of course.

Lets just drop it and not argue about the same shit every ****ing day for the next 10 years.

I like how you trolled Carlton about their membership a page or two back, then proceeded to jump on your high horse and tried to act like you are above all the petty squabbling

 

[blaze036]

I had to scroll back 4 pages of richmond v hawthorn crap to find the actual membership tally!

Hawks have more members
Tigers get more revenue

Hawks won a premiership

Hawks win, discussion over!

 

[gaelictiogar]

I had to scroll back 4 pages of richmond v hawthorn crap to find the actual membership tally!

Hawks have more members
Tigers get more revenue

Hawks won a premiership

Hawks win, discussion over!

Tiresome isn't it?

A bit like the regular Carlton V Collingwood threads.

Collingwood have more members and more money but on the other hand 16>15 so Carlton win. Discussion over. Life can be so simple when we want it to be.

 

[blaze036]

Tiresome isn't it?

A bit like the regular Carlton V Collingwood threads.

Collingwood have more members and more money but on the other hand 16>15 so Carlton win. Discussion over. Life can be so simple when we want it to be.

Yes it is, good on u for trying to start another one!

 

[Hornberger]

As of 21/12

Club                Members
West Coast           41,066
Hawthorn             40,237
Essendon             28,933
Richmond             24,807
Geelong              23,800
Melbourne            20,623
Carlton              20,565
Western Bulldogs     18,086
North Melbourne      15,841
Port Adelaide        15,217
St Kilda             14,390
Sydney               11,745
Brisbane             11,051
Gold Coast            8,058
GWS                   2,462
Adelaide                985*
Collingwood             N/A
Fremantle               N/A

*New Members

 

[cash]

Why do Richmond fans have a massive insecurity over hawthorns membership numbers?

They surpassed essendon in recent years and not many bombers fans seem to care (there seems to be the odd one).

 

[theflea]

Why do Richmond fans have a massive insecurity over hawthorns membership numbers?

They surpassed essendon in recent years and not many bombers fans seem to care (there seems to be the odd one).

i would guess pure competition. insecurity? no.

 

[pantskyle]

WCE about done I would think. Subi can't hold many more. It's great that even before the year is out we have over 41000 members.

 

[Abaddon]

WCE about done I would think. Subi can't hold many more. It's great that even before the year is out we have over 41000 members.

and by round 1 2012 will still have 41,000 members

 

[telsor]

Why do Richmond fans have a massive insecurity over hawthorns membership numbers?

They surpassed essendon in recent years and not many bombers fans seem to care (there seems to be the odd one).

If, as suggest, posting (primarily negative) comments about other clubs indicates insecurity, the obvious question from looking at your posting history is.

Why are you so insecure about Richmond?

 

[Groupie_]

Can somebody tell me how much cheaper a Hawthorn or Essendon membership is than a Richmond one?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Can somebody tell me how much cheaper a Hawthorn or Essendon membership is than a Richmond one?

I have no idea what a Richmond membership costs, but I'm willing to pretty much guarantee you an Essendon membership costs more this year

 

[Groupie_]

I have no idea what a Richmond membership costs, but I'm willing to pretty much guarantee you an Essendon membership costs more this year

I was under the impression that they were cheaper than Richmond's in 2011?

 

[pantskyle]

and by round 1 2012 will still have 41,000 members

Well yes, we can't create seats.

 

[Tas]

Pretty happy how we are tracking to date. 15,841 at 22/12, that is about 2k up on this time last year, includes about 1,500 Tassie game members, many of these early birds taking up the reserved seating option.

I think it is the first time we have cracked 15k before Christmas.

 

[finders]

Pretty happy how we are tracking to date. 15,841 at 22/12, that is about 2k up on this time last year, includes about 1,500 Tassie game members, many of these early birds taking up the reserved seating option.

I think it is the first time we have cracked 15k before Christmas.

I think that Tassie will be your saviour esp the games being in Hobart dont forget Hobart is more than double the size of Launceston and the locals love their footy.

 

[azza29]

I was under the impression that they were cheaper than Richmond's in 2011?

Not sure about 2011, but I don't think the jump has been that big for 2012. Essendon High Mark/Silver memberships have always been pricey. Overall, some differences between the packages so it's not quite apples with apples, but to compare (all adult prices)...

Entry level (11 home games):
Essendon - $225 (Bronze Basic, GA at MCG, reserved seat at Etihad)
Richmond - $185 (Access 11, GA)

Middle tier (premium reserved seats at 11 home games):
Essendon - $552 (Silver)
Richmond - $315 (Premium 11)

Top tier (prime reserved seats at 11 home games):
Essendon - $638 (High Mark - sold out)
Richmond - $395 (Premium Plus 11)

Looks like Richmond is cheaper across the board. Scarcity of seats at Etihad is probably the justification for Essendon's higher prices. Seriously need a seat resale system given that even a 'sold out' game has plenty of spare seats these days.

 

[Kwality]

and by round 1 2012 will still have 41,000 members

The waiting list grows, the money is in the bank, lowest membership churn - cant have everything.

Most expensive membership in the land?

Reserved seating sold out, money in the bank?

 

[telsor]

Not sure about 2011, but I don't think the jump has been that big for 2012. Essendon High Mark/Silver memberships have always been pricey. Overall, some differences between the packages so it's not quite apples with apples, but to compare (all adult prices)...

Entry level (11 home games):
Essendon - $225 (Bronze Basic, GA at MCG, reserved seat at Etihad)
Richmond - $185 (Access 11, GA)

Middle tier (premium reserved seats at 11 home games):
Essendon - $552 (Silver)
Richmond - $315 (Premium 11)

Top tier (prime reserved seats at 11 home games):
Essendon - $638 (High Mark - sold out)
Richmond - $395 (Premium Plus 11)

Looks like Richmond is cheaper across the board. Scarcity of seats at Etihad is probably the justification for Essendon's higher prices. Seriously need a seat resale system given that even a 'sold out' game has plenty of spare seats these days.

Not so sure your comparisons are equivilent.

Just had a look at the 'High Mark' and it looks more like Richmond's 3121 package ( $925 ), but none of these really match up like for like.

 

[Tas]

I think that Tassie will be your saviour esp the games being in Hobart dont forget Hobart is more than double the size of Launceston and the locals love their footy.

I am not sure about saviour, it will be a great injection of revenue while Docklands is a black hole sucking all our home game money and there is the potential to develop a secondary market in Tasmania.

The current arrangement is good for us, good for Hobart, good for Cricket Tasmania, good for AFL Tasmania and good for Tasmania in general. There is a much more equitable division of the spoils of these matches than there is in say Launceston.

But, if they are getting their own team next then I don't see it as a long-term solution. I'd be happy for us to develop a long-term relationship but if they want their own team then Hawks and us will be moving on irrespective of intention or desire to continue.

 

[Off The Couch]

I am not sure about saviour, it will be a great injection of revenue while Docklands is a black hole sucking all our home game money and there is the potential to develop a secondary market in Tasmania.

The current arrangement is good for us, good for Hobart, good for Cricket Tasmania, good for AFL Tasmania and good for Tasmania in general. There is a much more equitable division of the spoils of these matches than there is in say Launceston.

But, if they are getting their own team next then I don't see it as a long-term solution. I'd be happy for us to develop a long-term relationship but if they want their own team then Hawks and us will be moving on irrespective of intention or desire to continue.

Why is that?

 

[azza29]

But, if they are getting their own team next then I don't see it as a long-term solution. I'd be happy for us to develop a long-term relationship but if they want their own team then Hawks and us will be moving on irrespective of intention or desire to continue.

I reckon the AFL will be looking to relocate Melbourne teams rather than create new ones next time around. By process of deduction, Roos and Saints would be at the top of the list (Pies, Blues, Bombers, Tigers are the big 4. Hawks have a huge member base. Melbourne can't move. Bulldogs are a key team in the growing west).

Not that I'm advocating this as a sensible course of action at all, by the way. As sport becomes a bigger and bigger business money, rather than fans and heritage, will dictate where a team plays (just look at the NFL).

 

[Tas]

Why is that?

Because that is the deal the local government signed off on and recently re-signed despite complaining for the last two years how the Hawks screwed them on the original deal.

There is a lot of political influence involved in the decisions made in Tassie and it often doesn't result in what is best. But, it is a boon for the Hawks, doesn't really matter why it is as it is, the end result is good for the Hawks.

 

[Off The Couch]

Because that is the deal the local government signed off on and recently re-signed despite complaining for the last two years how the Hawks screwed them on the original deal.

There is a lot of political influence involved in the decisions made in Tassie and it often doesn't result in what is best. But, it is a boon for the Hawks, doesn't really matter why it is as it is, the end result is good for the Hawks.

And it's also been good for Tasmania - the Greens actually had the upper hand iirc and could of stifled the deal at any given time in the last round of negotiations had they wished to do so - there are some people who are not happy with the deal and that's fine but if the government wasn't happy they wouldn't have re-signed regardless of what political influences you perceive to be involved, in fact the influences really couldn't have been any different from the AFL trying to put its two cents worth in and going behind the hawks back.

The hawks have poured a substantial amount of their own money into the upgrade of the stadium and its continual upkeep, not as though they can rip it down when their done. They also spend a large amount of time in the community as evidenced by the number of kids now wearing hawks guernseys and the continual increase in Tasmanian memberships. You can try to insinuate that it's a one way street but it's not.

Still sounds a little like sour grapes from you imo, maybe because the government refused to come to the party on the hobart proposal. The hawks were proven, the kangaroos weren't - seems quite simple really when considering their previous track record.

 

[Tas]

I reckon the AFL will be looking to relocate Melbourne teams rather than create new ones next time around. By process of deduction, Roos and Saints would be at the top of the list (Pies, Blues, Bombers, Tigers are the big 4. Hawks have a huge member base. Melbourne can't move. Bulldogs are a key team in the growing west).

Not that I'm advocating this as a sensible course of action at all, by the way. As sport becomes a bigger and bigger business money, rather than fans and heritage, will dictate where a team plays (just look at the NFL).

It is complicated though because the AFL is so dependant on broadcasting revenue. AFL can't say North can go to Tasmania, Dogs can go to Darwin, etc without it having a huge impact on what the AFL will generate if the AFL turn a lot of decent rating games into a lot of poor rating games, it will reduce their broadcasting revenue substantially.

It is the ONLY reason the AFL have got off our backs.

While the dream is for a truly national competition with it being evenly spread, it just doesn't work that way. The only reason we have GWS and GC is for the potential long-term broadcasting benefit. That upside doesn't exist in Tasmania, Darwin, Canberra or other regional areas.

WA could easily host another side but would it make the AFL more money? No, it is the only reason there isn't another team in WA.

The problem is the cost of running a club now is so high it pretty much puts most new clubs in new locations out of the running. It is so far above that of an NRL club it isn't funny and it is going to bite the new clubs in there rear I am afraid. While in the short-term there wont be any issues, I have doubts about the long-term viability of GWS and GC.

After the Fitzroy/Bears experience I doubt any club will be queuing up for a merger.