Resource 2024 Membership thread - it begins - with a kiss

[Woolly Mammoth]

$448 for cat 1 ranging through to $185 for Cat 7. Standing/Restricted view $155.

Not sure what category I’d come under. A seat not in the nose bleeds probably $300-400.

That's actually peanuts compared to what I thought it might be. I watched the 2014 Elim sitting literally below one of the play school windows at the top of the great Southern stand and it was a surreal experience, I loved it. A GF ticket in that exact spot would do me

 

[DaveyBoy123]

That's actually peanuts compared to what I thought it might be. I watched the 2014 Elim sitting literally below one of the play school windows at the top of the great Southern stand and it was a surreal experience, I loved it. A GF ticket in that exact spot would do me

Haha. The fact that there will be people that have no idea what you're talking about is sad! Both from a Play School perspective & an MCG perspective.

Most importantly, which one was it?

 

[Orange Peanut]

When we got the letter about "potential" gf tickets in the 2 years we made the prelim, you had to agree to "best available", and if you were successful in the ballot you paid whatever the price was on the section you were drawn in.
Not that it mattered

 

[Del191229]

l just heard that the Bulldogs and Saints will be doing something similar to as us....But there's nothing listed on their sites yet...

No, its a unique betrayal by our poor admin who have LIED.

That's what I told Kane Cornes when he DMd me anyway.

 

[year of the roo]

Give it a rest, SLF.

 

[Engimal v3]

North's membership comms have become really slack over the years tbh

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

Well it looks like a rookie error in comms by the new CEO - mistakes can be made for sure but lying/deliberately misleading long term rusted ons is a sure way to a short term career as an AFL CEO.

As for the poster on here who believes this is all a beat up by whining posters (and he himself was not impacted by these changes) do us all a favour and * off from this site - you are an embarrassment to true supporters who post on here and who put their hard earned into the club and have done so over decades.

Just preserving this post to highlight that this serial clown is accusing the CEO of lying and being singularly responsible for the communications mistake. (And no doubt unaffected personally by the reserved seating issue.) From what I can gather from this thread, even Chadwiko would acknowledge that any direct communication from Jen Watts has been honest and truthful enough, and that she has not tried to pass the buck or blame anyone else. It's clear the communications errors came from elsewhere within the organisation rather than Jen herself, albeit that Jen has been decent enough to acknowledge the mistakes and take ultimate responsibility as any good leader should. But this sort of ridiculous blame game is the best we can expect from someone who can't even get the spelling right on the names of two club legends.

 

[The Y Factor]

Just preserving this post to highlight that this serial clown is accusing the CEO of lying and being singularly responsible for the communications mistake. (And no doubt unaffected personally by the reserved seating issue.) From what I can gather from this thread, even Chadwiko would acknowledge that any direct communication from Jen Watts has been honest and truthful enough, and that she has not tried to pass the buck or blame anyone else. It's clear the communications errors came from elsewhere within the organisation rather than Jen herself, albeit that Jen has been decent enough to acknowledge the mistakes and take ultimate responsibility as any good leader should. But this sort of ridiculous blame game is the best we can expect from someone who can't even get the spelling right on the names of two club legends.

Jen has been fantastic and I support her 100% , snd all the North staff gor that matter.

I feel certain that this episode is done in the best interest of the club financially to help plan our way out of Tasmania.

However Jen is ultimately accountable for the strategy, operational plan on change management and initial communications.

People can judge for themselves.

I personally think she misjudged this one snd will learn from it.

 

[shintemaster]

Bro you're comparing Carlton's $995 seats to our $659 seats. Every club is affected, some will charge their fans for it while others will like ours pull back. I'll guarantee you the doggies and aints will either up the price for those bays or pull back as well.

Like I've said before, we've been lucky to have reserved wing seats at the lower goal side price.
I'm affected too but time to move on.

Carlton play 11 home games in Melbourne. Pro rata it's basically dead on.

Jen has been fantastic and I support her 100% , snd all the North staff gor that matter.

I feel certain that this episode is done in the best interest of the club financially to help plan our way out of Tasmania.

However Jen is ultimately accountable for the strategy, operational plan on change management and initial communications.

People can judge for themselves.

I personally think she misjudged this one snd will learn from it.

Agree.

Owning mistakes is all well and good - preventing them in the first place is why CEO's are paid the money they are. The minute this change was mooted thought should have been going into managing the impacts on members. Ultimately their attitude indicates a real issue within the organisation that goes beyond "accepting responsibility".

 

[Zondor]

Just preserving this post to highlight that this serial clown is accusing the CEO of lying and being singularly responsible for the communications mistake. (And no doubt unaffected personally by the reserved seating issue.) From what I can gather from this thread, even Chadwiko would acknowledge that any direct communication from Jen Watts has been honest and truthful enough, and that she has not tried to pass the buck or blame anyone else. It's clear the communications errors came from elsewhere within the organisation rather than Jen herself, albeit that Jen has been decent enough to acknowledge the mistakes and take ultimate responsibility as any good leader should. But this sort of ridiculous blame game is the best we can expect from someone who can't even get the spelling right on the names of two club legends.

Just preserving this post as you have added an S onto the end of Jen’s surname indicating to all in Sunbury what you really think of our CEO. :stern look

 

[blackshadow]

I'm still extremely miffed at the way this has been handled but after a few days to cogitate I will more than likely accept new seats.

While I wouldn't have liked having to move seats I would have found it much more palatable if the email sent out on Friday had spelled things out properly instead of hiding behind Marvel redevelopment as the reason. Yes, it was part of the reason but the main reason is the club trying to maximise revenue from the new facilities - that should have been spelled out clearly in the first place.

Will also be suggesting the club learn from this **** up and the way they have pissed off their most important asset (members) and to adopt a member first ethos.

A full review of the membership department should be undertaken with a focus on improving the member experience. I'd suggest a consultative group of members from all categories be utilised to get their feedback.

Some areas I see that need an overhaul are:
Member communications and engagement (anectdotal evidence from a number of people suggests that some people just don't receive club emails)
Member only areas not being polluted by sales to other clubs (the L2 stuff might be part of that improvement)
Better member experience for replacement games
An exit strategy from Tasmania needs to be outlined to members - having 11 home games in Melbourne can be used as leverage for membership
Membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive
Kids membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive - my kids are thrilled when their packs arrive but honestly they're a bit shit

 

[shintemaster]

I'm still extremely miffed at the way this has been handled but after a few days to cogitate I will more than likely accept new seats.

While I wouldn't have liked having to move seats I would have found it much more palatable if the email sent out on Friday had spelled things out properly instead of hiding behind Marvel redevelopment as the reason. Yes, it was part of the reason but the main reason is the club trying to maximise revenue from the new facilities - that should have been spelled out clearly in the first place.

Will also be suggesting the club learn from this * up and the way they have pissed off their most important asset (members) and to adopt a member first ethos.

A full review of the membership department should be undertaken with a focus on improving the member experience. I'd suggest a consultative group of members from all categories be utilised to get their feedback.

Some areas I see that need an overhaul are:
Member communications and engagement (anectdotal evidence from a number of people suggests that some people just don't receive club emails)
Member only areas not being polluted by sales to other clubs (the L2 stuff might be part of that improvement)
Better member experience for replacement games
An exit strategy from Tasmania needs to be outlined to members - having 11 home games in Melbourne can be used as leverage for membership
Membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive
Kids membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive - my kids are thrilled when their packs arrive but honestly they're a bit s**t

Whilst I agree completely - the frustrating thing is that all of these things have been told to the club ad neaseum. Both in direct surveys and on here. The either do not listen or are unwilling or unable to enact change. This current mess up was avoidable for a number of reasons, but what frustrates me the most is that solutions to ongoing gripes - such as the replacement game frustrations - would potentially be directly applicable to this current one.

As an example if we had a strong methodology for putting members into alternate reserved seats / bays depending on the game it is possible that for the current scenario impacted members might have been able to be given other options. It has got me flummoxed how after all this time a group of attending supporters can't just opt in ballot style and have their seats (in groups) allocated in North bays for replacement games. Some kind of token effort to actually attempt to replace the lost experience of a home game, even if the same seat isn't available.

Assuming it is only a few games a year where this capacity is expected to be critical they could have:

• Offered those members impacted the chance to upgrade those memberships for just the impacted games (at a reduced cost) and partake in the 2-3 premium level functions / catered events. Take the banked money from the big games and try to introduce a new audience to the offering in the smaller ones.
• Alternatively had these members retain their seats for the 4-5 nothing games we will no doubt get and have them allocated other premium seating / bays for the remainder.
• Use the extra money they are - apparently - going to be brining in to offer some mitigation to those impacted by the move. Either subsidise their seating slightly for a few years to offset the pain, offer them "free" of charge benefits to make it clear the decision wasn't made callously - access to rooms, membership upgrades, whatever

Having a methodology for allocating proper seating would enable many options. Smarter minds than mine will no doubt think of others. Would it be a nuisance to have 2 different reserved seats or only reserved seats for 5/7 games - probably. But we've done it before. I and many others here are old enough to remember having a reserved seat at the MCG and Docklands in the same season and managed to negotiate the complexity without our heads exploding. Why not an option at the same ground? Does the club really need these bays to run functions against teams we draw 20k against? If we're going to run these functions would it not make sense to try to make the most of these smaller crowds by encouraging those that actually attend games like these to attend?

 

[wolvesRoos]

When we got the letter about "potential" gf tickets in the 2 years we made the prelim, you had to agree to "best available", and if you were successful in the ballot you paid whatever the price was on the section you were drawn in.
Not that it mattered

Happier times...

 

[gokangas]

Can't find this info online - what does a GA ticket cost as a walk up at Marvel?

 

[wolvesRoos]

Member only areas not being polluted by sales to other clubs (the L2 stuff might be part of that improvement)

I think this happens to all clubs. I work at Marvel and are constantly getting complaints from fans on level 1 that there are opposition fans on the wing in their area. I check their tickets they are always valid. Often the customer themselves doesn't know they just got some ticket or upgrade of ticketmaster and I have had them volenteer to go and sit in another area if there is GA available on level 1

 

[wolvesRoos]

Can't find this info online - what does a GA ticket cost as a walk up at Marvel?

25 I think

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

My final thoughts on this are -

1. The email last Friday was ill judged.
2. On contact with the club we were given a take it or leave it response.
3. The result of point 2 was that people like myself ended up with much crappier seats with no comeback to the club.
4. Subsequent emails to and from the CEO would indicate the club were being slightly un truthful with the reasons for the removal of level 2 seats.
5. In the end the real truth appears to be North wanting to maximize revenue from the new dining room - perhaps to partly cover lost Tassie revenue as exit from Tassie will obviously happen soon enough.
6. It took complaints direct to the CEO for me to be offerred seats more closely aligned to where I was ( I have 11 seats). The solution was one I suggested last Friday but was told no. The CEO has acknowledged this error.
7. One positive is the merging of the bays so that they are all full members bays - hopefully this will keep opposition supporters out which I believe is another reason for the clubs move.
8. If other tenant clubs take a different path to North and retain those seats for their members then you’d have to suggest North have miscread the room on this one as clearly it’s a CLUB decision not the AFL or Marvel. Members would be rightly pissed if that’s the outcome.

All in all this process has not been handled well and we will lose members because of it. I had to make 3 phone calls and sent/received numerous emails to resolve this which was unfortunate. The club should have had a better handle on the solutions before putting this to members - they started a bushfire but forgot they needed fire trucks to put it out.

 

[KickItAnywhere34]

Whilst I agree completely - the frustrating thing is that all of these things have been told to the club ad neaseum. Both in direct surveys and on here. The either do not listen or are unwilling or unable to enact change. This current mess up was avoidable for a number of reasons, but what frustrates me the most is that solutions to ongoing gripes - such as the replacement game frustrations - would potentially be directly applicable to this current one.

As an example if we had a strong methodology for putting members into alternate reserved seats / bays depending on the game it is possible that for the current scenario impacted members might have been able to be given other options. It has got me flummoxed how after all this time a group of attending supporters can't just opt in ballot style and have their seats (in groups) allocated in North bays for replacement games. Some kind of token effort to actually attempt to replace the lost experience of a home game, even if the same seat isn't available.

Assuming it is only a few games a year where this capacity is expected to be critical they could have:

• Offered those members impacted the chance to upgrade those memberships for just the impacted games (at a reduced cost) and partake in the 2-3 premium level functions / catered events. Take the banked money from the big games and try to introduce a new audience to the offering in the smaller ones.
• Alternatively had these members retain their seats for the 4-5 nothing games we will no doubt get and have them allocated other premium seating / bays for the remainder.
• Use the extra money they are - apparently - going to be brining in to offer some mitigation to those impacted by the move. Either subsidise their seating slightly for a few years to offset the pain, offer them "free" of charge benefits to make it clear the decision wasn't made callously - access to rooms, membership upgrades, whatever

Having a methodology for allocating proper seating would enable many options. Smarter minds than mine will no doubt think of others. Would it be a nuisance to have 2 different reserved seats or only reserved seats for 5/7 games - probably. But we've done it before. I and many others here are old enough to remember having a reserved seat at the MCG and Docklands in the same season and managed to negotiate the complexity without our heads exploding. Why not an option at the same ground? Does the club really need these bays to run functions against teams we draw 20k against? If we're going to run these functions would it not make sense to try to make the most of these smaller crowds by encouraging those that actually attend games like these to attend?

In the first year of Marvel in 2000 we had reserved seats on the wing on level 3 for home games and for the away games we had reserved seats behind the goals on level 3. So yes it’s been done before and has some merit if it could be done again.

 

[wolvesRoos]

Is there also a chance that the club is not going to take the dinning room. Which means they can't take the seats either as they are attached. That falls a bit more on the it's a marvel development reason

 

[kool kangas]

So after calming down my decision still stands.

1: l will sit in either the seats allocated to me or check out the unreserved areas on arrival for better seat locations.

2: If Ben McKay

32

Ben Mckay

Age

27

Ht

202cm

Wt

104kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.5

2star

K

3.7

1star

HB

3.8

3star

M

2.7

3star

T

1.7

4star

MG

77.2

1star

D

7.5

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

88.5

2star

D

7.0

2star

K

3.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.0

4star

MG

67.8

1star

leaves l will not be sponsoring another player.

3: Have elected to withdraw 1 of our Premiership Members tickets..

So all up it will cost the club around $3700 in revenue P.A....which is no doubt not a lot for them but a lot for me..

 

[gokangas]

Had to call membership this morning as I wanted to change my membership level and must say they attended to my enquiry very efficiently.

 

[Chadwiko]

From what I can gather from this thread, even Chadwiko would acknowledge that any direct communication from Jen Watts has been honest and truthful enough, and that she has not tried to pass the buck or blame anyone else.

First things first, let me say that I fully support Jen Watt and our club's leadership. I am not one of those people who pot them for dumb reasons.

In saying that, I think Jen probably relied too heavily on 'corporate speak' in some of her communications with me and other members. There was clearly an attempt to mitigate member angst about losing seats, but in doing so it came across as (either deliberately or clumsily) trying to obfuscate the actual reasoning.

Is that an awful crime on Jen's part? No. Of course not.

But it could have been handled better.

 

[Chadwiko]

Had to call membership this morning as I wanted to change my membership level and must say they attended to my enquiry very efficiently.

If you don't mind me asking, what change did you request?

I'm considering requesting a downgrade from Premiership Club to Social Club on Level 1.

 

[The Anvil]

Membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive
Kids membership packs are sub-standard compared to what other clubs receive - my kids are thrilled when their packs arrive but honestly they're a bit s**t

I bring this up in the survey every year, as every year when it arrives my wife mocks the club (and probably me for signing them up) based on the quality of what is provided.

Surely, it can't be hard to provide a drink bottle that doesn't leak for instance and is BPA Free. Or a backpack that is capable of carrying something more than a postage stamp before it loses a seam or the zip breaks.

 

[Chadwiko]

I bring this up in the survey every year, as every year when it arrives my wife mocks the club (and probably me for signing them up) based on the quality of what is provided.

Surely, it can't be hard to provide a drink bottle that doesn't leak for instance and is BPA Free. Or a backpack that is capable of carrying something more than a postage stamp before it loses a seam or the zip breaks.

Give kids stuff they'll actually use and have the added benefit of promoting the club in schools and kindys etc.

Drink bottles, pencil cases, backpacks, lunch boxes, hats/beanies, footys.