Toast Crows pushing for 60,000 members in 2014

[Tex Appeal]

My thoughts on Trigg:

- The deed is done so sacking him for the Tippett saga isn't going to bring those picks back - there is some merit to letting him get back to his job and earn back the respect of the fans with some quality CEO work.
- Having said that, season memberships are down and maybe it's just time for a fresh start. Trigg has been CEO for many years and it makes sense to get a new gun CEO who has vision and people-power. Trigg's lost his audience as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Bacon8]

I am just sick of the spin and I will continue to challenge these tactics. Keep this in mind when the financials for this year are announced

You mean, the "low six figure" loss they've talked about?

 

[Slippery Pete]

My mate AFGM and I were continually accused of being apologists for the club until Tippettgate. It has changed the attitude of a lot of AFC members including myself.

Welcome to the dark side.

 

[Cap]

are season tickets down? the breakdown would be interesting.

 

[Slippery Pete]

this is what shits me about society today. peoples sense of entitlement.

this club owes you nothing, you owe them nothing in return

Actually according to the invoices I'll owe the club about $500 for next year.

A membership-based club owes nothing to its (paying) members? How did you come up with that one? Sounds legit.

 

[amer]

this board the Adelaide Crows board on bigfooty has nothing to do with Adelaide Crows management

so we don't have to put up with them at all.

You're right, we only have to put up with the club, run by not our management.

 

[Cap]

Actually according to the invoices I'll owe the club about $500 for next year.

A membership-based club owes nothing to its (paying) members? How did you come up with that one? Sounds legit.

well yes, for your $500, you get entry to the matches.

 

[Slippery Pete]

well yes, for your $500, you get entry to the matches.

Are you saying the club doesn't care whether I'm a member, or just buy a ticket at the gate every week?

 

[Cap]

Are you saying the club doesn't care whether I'm a member, or just buy a ticket at the gate every week?

hell no. The club would much prefer a membership as you pay your fees upfront and up to 12 months in advance.

 

[Bacon8]

hell no. The club would much prefer a membership as you pay your fees upfront and up to 12 months in advance.

Or 10 equal monthly installments.

Its the guaranteed income they want.

 

[Jack is Back]

You mean, the "low six figure" loss they've talked about?

Yes, the spin last year was "We did make a loss but it was only an accounting loss due to revaluing assets, we are and have always been cash flow positive".

Did it occur to anyone else that Roweys question on the financials was out of context with the general discussion. It reminded me of the Dorothy Dixes in parliament. The question and answer by Rob Chapman reminded me of the pre-budget "chats" with kevin Foley. release the bad news early but surround it in spin.

"The AFC has made a loss of $285,000 this year due to the costs of moving to Adelaide Oval (no mention of lawyer fees). We are confident of rising profits in the future for as far as the eye can see. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Steven Trigg for his outstanding work in turning around the finances of our club"

The Adelaide Football Club - The Spin Starts Here

 

[Cap]

Or 10 equal monthly installments.

Its the guaranteed income they want.

been keeping footy clubs in business for 100 years.

 

[Slippery Pete]

hell no. The club would much prefer a membership as you pay your fees upfront and up to 12 months in advance.

Ergo, the importance of members.

 

[Cap]

Yes, the spin last year was "We did make a loss but it was only an accounting loss due to revaluing assets, we are and have always been cash flow positive".

Did it occur to anyone else that Roweys question on the financials was out of context with the general discussion. It reminded me of the Dorothy Dixes in parliament. The question and answer by Rob Chapman reminded me of the pre-budget "chats" with kevin Foley. release the bad news early but surround it in spin.

"The AFC has made a loss of $285,000 this year due to the costs of moving to Adelaide Oval (no mention of lawyer fees). We are confident of rising profits in the future for as far as the eye can see. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Steven Trigg for his outstanding work in turning around the finances of our club"

The Adelaide Football Club - The Spin Starts Here

It was rumoured that a number of sponsors actually covered both the legal fees and the fines.

 

[Cap]

Ergo, the importance of members.

yes, but not in the context of having some sort of say in proceedings

 

[Slippery Pete]

yes, but not in the context of having some sort of say in proceedings

Clubs without members die.

Paying members, collectively, have the ultimate say in the club.

 

[cmndstab]

While I agree that this figure is inflated to the point of making comparisons to previous membership figures a complete waste of time, it's worth remembering how the AFL has regularly complained that our membership figures have not kept up with the growth of other clubs in the AFL. We keep hearing about how the Crows were once the club with the best membership figures, and now we're middle-of-the-road. And with that public perception rife, the AFL now treats us as such.

Nobody ever bothers to mention, outside of a footnote, that Hawthorn counts membership sales to pets and unborn children. They just talk about how they're a great club who have turned their membership figures around. If we can artificially pad our figures with bogus memberships and 3 game packages to look more competitive in the eyes of the nation, then I'm all for it. I want people to associate our club with large numbers of members, whether the figures are representative of reality or not.

 

[Cap]

Clubs without members die.

Paying members, collectively, have the ultimate say in the club.

well in its current form the club is owned by the SANFL

so at this point we are just ticketed members.

however like the misconception that somehow we vote for politicians to do what we say, even if we get a member based board, there is no indication that they will do exactly what the members want.

 

[Cap]

While I agree that this figure is inflated to the point of making comparisons to previous membership figures a complete waste of time, it's worth remembering how the AFL has regularly complained that our membership figures have not kept up with the growth of other clubs in the AFL. We keep hearing about how the Crows were once the club with the best membership figures, and now we're middle-of-the-road. And with that public perception rife, the AFL now treats us as such.

Nobody ever bothers to mention, outside of a footnote, that Hawthorn counts membership sales to pets and unborn children. They just talk about how they're a great club who have turned their membership figures around. If we can artificially pad our figures with bogus memberships and 3 game packages to look more competitive in the eyes of the nation, then I'm all for it. I want people to associate our club with large numbers of members, whether the figures are representative of reality or not.

I agree, that is why I can't believe the bullshit on this board.

60k Members would be astounding, regardless of if it counts 3 game members, because the average person isn't going to think far beyond, far out 60K members.

 

[Slippery Pete]

well in its current form the club is owned by the SANFL

so at this point we are just ticketed members.

however like the misconception that somehow we vote for politicians to do what we say, even if we get a member based board, there is no indication that they will do exactly what the members want.

Interesting article here.


http://www.backpagelead.com.au/the-...on-panel/3609-afl-club-members-who-fares-best

 

[Jack is Back]

It was rumoured that a number of sponsors actually covered both the legal fees and the fines.

That would be classic spin. Our money from sponsors falls (I can't see them giving the AFC a whole lot more money because Steven Trigg screwed things up) but we keep the costs "off the books".

In 2014 sponsorship soars and Steven Trigg has dragged the club out of the financial depths (after dragging us into the mire in the first place).

 

[cmndstab]

I agree, that is why I can't believe the bullshit on this board.

60k Members would be astounding, regardless of if it counts 3 game members, because the average person isn't going to think far beyond, far out 60K members.

It can be used as excellent PR. The AFL is all chuffed about Port's "resurrection", and I guess they probably should be. But it would be damn nice to be able to turn around to them and say "hey, we also grew by 20% with the move to Adelaide oval. How about some more marquee matches? How about better timeslots?"

The AFL isn't going to complain that the figures are padded with lesser categories of membership.

 

[Cap]

Interesting article here.


http://www.backpagelead.com.au/the-...on-panel/3609-afl-club-members-who-fares-best

I figured as much re the Crows.

clearly we aren't alone in not really being a member voting based club.

 

[Cap]

That would be classic spin. Our money from sponsors falls (I can't see them giving the AFC a whole lot more money because Steven Trigg screwed things up) but we keep the costs "off the books".

In 2014 sponsorship soars and Steven Trigg has dragged the club out of the financial depths (after dragging us into the mire in the first place).

oh, I didn't get the rumour from the Crows.

 

[Jack is Back]

oh, I didn't get the rumour from the Crows.

That's not the point. Hitting up sponsors for a major F-up that not only weakened us financially but more importantly removed 3 or 4 quality kids doesn't solve the problem. We could have been in a fantastic position with the move to Adelaide Oval and the exciting group of young players that we have at the end of 2011. Failing to add to the list for 2 years will come back to bite us. Our financial position should be strong with the move to Adelaide Oval but not as good as it should be.