Official Club Stuff 2017 Membership Tally

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

So I take you to still rely on Hawthorn generiousity to survive?

Jesus youd think the 16 or so minnows reliant on the heavy lifters would be more grateful to their overlords

The Tiges rattle some tins, get out of debt and have altogether become quite lippy. It's actually quite cute :)

How are those non ticketed memberships going, does the AFL still slash about 12k off your numbers when they audit?

Some of these Richmond fans hanging around this thread have almost pushed me into supporting hawthorn tomorrow. Almost.
 
The Hawthorn membership numbers are the biggest AFL open farce and joke in the industry.

Completely made up, and everyone knows it.

This is despite when compared to each other - last time Richmond made membership revenue figures available was 2014 - hawthorn members paid more on average.
memberrevenue2013.png


2014memberrevenue2.png

2015Memberrevenues.png


2016 Membership Revenue per Member
  • Gold Coast - $459.89 (includes ticketing)
  • Adelaide - $404.41
  • West Coast - $322.96
  • Fremantle - $317.24
  • Geelong - $274.77 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Brisbane - $240.59 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Melbourne - $193.58 (includes fundraising)
  • Essendon - $175.67
  • st Kilda - $174.44
  • Cartlon - $171.92
  • Hawthorn - $164.86
  • North - $160.98
  • Western Bulldogs - $159.99
  • GWS - $82.19 (includes merchandise)
 
This is despite when compared to each other - last time Richmond made membership revenue figures available was 2014 - hawthorn members paid more on average.
memberrevenue2013.png


2014memberrevenue2.png

2015Memberrevenues.png


2016 Membership Revenue per Member
  • Gold Coast - $459.89 (includes ticketing)
  • Adelaide - $404.41
  • West Coast - $322.96
  • Fremantle - $317.24
  • Geelong - $274.77 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Brisbane - $240.59 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Melbourne - $193.58 (includes fundraising)
  • Essendon - $175.67
  • st Kilda - $174.44
  • Cartlon - $171.92
  • Hawthorn - $164.86
  • North - $160.98
  • Western Bulldogs - $159.99
  • GWS - $82.19 (includes merchandise)

Ooooh, that must hurt
 
The reason why the membership numbers do not add up and a clearly fiction is because they do not correlate with drawing a crowd.

I am not saying that they are not paid for by someone, probably multiple corporates, but these 'members' don't turn up to games, which means that for all intents and purposes they are fictional
 
The reason why the membership numbers do not add up and a clearly fiction is because they do not correlate with drawing a crowd.

I am not saying that they are not paid for by someone, probably multiple corporates, but these 'members' don't turn up to games, which means that for all intents and purposes they are fictional
Nah that's not how it works

People that go to games don't have to be members or even supporters of either club playing

Every club has interstate and overseas members that don't get many or any opportunities to go to games but still want to support their clubs.

And the whole BigFooty crowds argument acts like every club member buys an 11 game membership at minimum and has not life outside of footy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The reason why the membership numbers do not add up and a clearly fiction is because they do not correlate with drawing a crowd.

I am not saying that they are not paid for by someone, probably multiple corporates, but these 'members' don't turn up to games, which means that for all intents and purposes they are fictional

Lol.

When you play 6 homers at the MCG (inc 2 against Vic clubs Coll, Geel and 4 against non Vic clubs Syd, WCE, GC, Adel) and 4 in Launceston what do you expect. I wonder what 'the army' (lol) would draw to homers if they played 4 out of 6 MCG homers against non Vic clubs?

Although it's kinda cute that the tiggy tigers are now drawing 40k to 50k to homers against non Vic clubs. I mean Hawthorn has been doing that for a decade but what's details when you have the yella n black :drunk:
 
This is despite when compared to each other - last time Richmond made membership revenue figures available was 2014 - hawthorn members paid more on average.
memberrevenue2013.png


2014memberrevenue2.png

2015Memberrevenues.png


2016 Membership Revenue per Member
  • Gold Coast - $459.89 (includes ticketing)
  • Adelaide - $404.41
  • West Coast - $322.96
  • Fremantle - $317.24
  • Geelong - $274.77 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Brisbane - $240.59 (includes gate reciepts)
  • Melbourne - $193.58 (includes fundraising)
  • Essendon - $175.67
  • st Kilda - $174.44
  • Cartlon - $171.92
  • Hawthorn - $164.86
  • North - $160.98
  • Western Bulldogs - $159.99
  • GWS - $82.19 (includes merchandise)

Game, Set, Match.
 
Last edited:
Nah that's not how it works

People that go to games don't have to be members or even supporters of either club playing

Every club has interstate and overseas members that don't get many or any opportunities to go to games but still want to support their clubs.

And the whole BigFooty crowds argument acts like every club member buys an 11 game membership at minimum and has not life outside of footy.

rubbish.
 
Wow what an articulate response I can see you are a deep thinker

Care to explain why you think it's rubbish?

On the back of their "membership" hawthorn should have the biggest crowds in the country.

Even though they have been successful, they still don't even crack the top 4 in crowds

They still need to relocate half their home games to Tasmania.

This is not what a huge club with massive support need to do, because if they had so many fans, they would just stay in Melbourne.

The membership numbers are a farce, at a guess 20,000 of them are gifts from corporates to staff.

They arent real members, and thats why they can't get real crowds, and they have to relocate to tasmania

This is why it is rubbish, and everyone in the industry knows it.
 
On the back of their "membership" hawthorn should have the biggest crowds in the country.

Even though they have been successful, they still don't even crack the top 4 in crowds

They still need to relocate half their home games to Tasmania.

This is not what a huge club with massive support need to do, because if they had so many fans, they would just stay in Melbourne.

The membership numbers are a farce, at a guess 20,000 of them are gifts from corporates to staff.

They arent real members, and thats why they can't get real crowds, and they have to relocate to tasmania

This is why it is rubbish, and everyone in the industry knows it.

Lol

Fun Fat of the Day. Despite playing no less then 4 home games at a venue with a captive audience of less then 18,000 Hawthorn has featured in the top 4 for home and away attendance in no less then 6 of the last 9 competed seasons (including the last 3 on the dot)

Mammoth attendances against the Lions notwithstanding imagine if the Tigers took 4 of their homers to a smaller venue. I guess that's why Hawthorn can draw 60,000 plus against non Vic clubs whilst certain posters claimed that a mere 57,000 was probably a record agai st the Swans. Even in the Hawks worst season since George W ran the world they still drew a pretty mediocre 52,000 against the Swans on a cold winters night...

As for playing games in Tasmania, I guess that's why Hawthorn has an operation that is quite literally double the size of the tiggy tigers.

Eat em Alive Jack :drunk:
 
Last edited:
Nah that's not how it works

People that go to games don't have to be members or even supporters of either club playing

Every club has interstate and overseas members that don't get many or any opportunities to go to games but still want to support their clubs.

And the whole BigFooty crowds argument acts like every club member buys an 11 game membership at minimum and has not life outside of footy.

Add to this:

1) massive uptake in three game memberships (at many melb clubs)

2) hawks have a much higher proportion of junior members than any other club. Kids go to fewer games because they need an available adult to take them to the game, school holidays, family stuff, difficulty around late night games and late sunday games, and being grounded for being a dick

3) people dont buy a membership to save on admission UNLESS its a three gamer. Most 11 gamers dont go to 11, and most reserve seats a cheaper via the ticketing agencies. You buy a membership partially to attend, but mostly as a sign of your financial commitment to your club.

4) tv being live makes it much easier for members to say "**** it, its wet, too cold, and the club already has my money"
 
Add to this:

2) hawks have a much higher proportion of junior members than any other club. Kids go to fewer games because they need an available adult to take them to the game, school holidays, family stuff, difficulty around late night games and late sunday games, and being grounded for being a dick

This. Hawthorns junior numbers have been great for years. The last breakdown of memberships (club by club) was issued in 2014 - Hawthorn have double the junior members of everyone else - almost 1/3rd of the total. Note as well the number of non access memberships held by Collingwood (12k), Essendon (15k) and Richmond (8k) compared to Hawthorn (120). (The last two annual reports havent had any such breakdowns included)

AFLmembers-official2014.png


2013AFLmembersfinal.png

2012AFLmembersfinal.png

2011AFLmembersfinal.png
 
Last edited:
Add to this:



2) hawks have a much higher proportion of junior members than any other club. Kids go to fewer games because they need an available adult to take them to the game, school holidays, family stuff, difficulty around late night games and late sunday games, and being grounded for being a dick
"
because they offer in their family memberships two adults and four kids
all or most other clubs offer two adults & two kids

simple explanation to the larger numbers
 
because they offer in their family memberships two adults and four kids
all or most other clubs offer two adults & two kids

simple explanation to the larger numbers
Yep, the numbers seem too disproportionate for it to be simply greater underlying support or Hawks doing well marketing to kids. It's a technical reason and not really representative.
 
Yep, the numbers seem too disproportionate for it to be simply greater underlying support or Hawks doing well marketing to kids. It's a technical reason and not really representative.
having been so successful of late its understandable that they will have large support by kids, but nearly double to the next club! NO!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Official Club Stuff 2017 Membership Tally

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top