Final Membership Totals 2013

Remove this Banner Ad

RandB said:
Have the off field dramas had a tangible effect on Essendon's figure? i.e. does anyone know how they are tracking compared to same time last year?

Tigers going very well btw.
Click to expand...


Synth has been doing a great job updating our board with a progress graph each week. This is the latest taken on Thursday. As of today we are currently sitting at 43,899 members.



hhRKd7J.png
 
MadBomberman said:
Well well well. The three clubs with the highest membership numbers in Victoria are all based at the MCG...
Nothing new there. Etihad will always compromise our membership numbers and attendances. I don't think we will have a chance to move to the G unless one of the current tenants move out (considering that Carlton want to move there). Collingwood won't leave. Nor will Richmond or Melbourne. Hawthorn are probably more likely than the others, but still very very unlikely.

Considering the circumstances, our membership numbers aren't too bad. Obviously would have been much better if we weren't being investigated. We might see a spike in membership numbers next year IF we are cleared and if we do reasonably well this year
Click to expand...

You still generate good membership dollars tho.
 
RandB said:
Have the off field dramas had a tangible effect on Essendon's figure? i.e. does anyone know how they are tracking compared to same time last year?

Tigers going very well btw.
Click to expand...
It did have an effect. Our Membership numbers have slowed right down. In fact, one of the days it decreased which was a little surprising.
There would be some that will refrain from getting a membership in case the club is found guilty and hence 'wasting' their money. Remember back when it was first revealed, the media made it out to look like we wouldn't see round 1 as the club run the risk of being suspended for 2 years. That would definitely discourage a few supporters, especially the new members
 

Log in to remove this ad.

MadBomberman said:
Yep. membership revenue generated from last year was second highest behind only Collingwood I think
Click to expand...

All Melbourne Clubs in 2012, from their Annual Reports (except Richmonds)
  • Collingwood - $16,229,531
  • Essendon - $9,367,066
  • Hawthorn - $9,028,307
  • Carlton - $8,953,054
  • Richmond - $7,600,000 * (officials via email)
  • St Kilda - $7,353,883
  • Melbourne - $5,619,605
  • North Melbourne - $5,108,901
  • Western Bulldogs - $5,027,548
Geelongs total of 11 million + includes gate reciepts.
 
Carlton and Essendon are locked in at Etihad until 2025. I know the Blues have the split for home games with the G, but unless the games are made up somehow they wont be able to until Etihad is bought out.
This is my next question to Essendon and particularly WC/Freo members. You 3 clubs, perhaps even the Crows would sell enough memberships to pack out the stadium 11 times a year. If that is the case how do you sustain growth and not flatline? Do you increase the premium on memberships each year? Just a thought is all.
I know the Pies, Tigers and Hawks can sell as much memberships as they want untl level 2, level 1 and level 3 are packed out at the G considering it holds 100k but Etihad fits in 53 and Subi fits 42 so looking at membership numbers if I was a member of one of these clubs or if I was the admin- you have no choice but to keep charging more each year to increase revenue which is kind of crap if you are trying to reward loyalty IMO.
 
The_Wookie said:
All Melbourne Clubs in 2012, from their Annual Reports (except Richmonds)
  • Collingwood - $16,229,531
  • Essendon - $9,367,066
  • Hawthorn - $9,028,307
  • Carlton - $8,953,054
  • Richmond - $7,600,000 * (officials via email)
  • St Kilda - $7,353,883
  • Melbourne - $5,619,605
  • North Melbourne - $5,108,901
  • Western Bulldogs - $5,027,548
Geelongs total of 11 million + includes gate reciepts.
Click to expand...

Where is Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coke and Freo??
 
CrashTestDummy said:
Where is Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coke and Freo??
Click to expand...

1. Its West Coast, this isnt the bay
2. Port Adelaide dont show membership revenue as a seperate heading, I havent been able to source Adelaides annual report for 2012.
3. West Coast and Fremantle dont show membership revenue, nor is a combined membership revenue listed under the WAFC annual report. (see Sydney)
4. the heading specifically address Melbourne clubs.
 
tazaa said:
Carlton and Essendon are locked in at Etihad until 2025. I know the Blues have the split for home games with the G, but unless the games are made up somehow they wont be able to until Etihad is bought out.
This is my next question to Essendon and particularly WC/Freo members. You 3 clubs, perhaps even the Crows would sell enough memberships to pack out the stadium 11 times a year. If that is the case how do you sustain growth and not flatline? Do you increase the premium on memberships each year? Just a thought is all.
I know the Pies, Tigers and Hawks can sell as much memberships as they want untl level 2, level 1 and level 3 are packed out at the G considering it holds 100k but Etihad fits in 53 and Subi fits 42 so looking at membership numbers if I was a member of one of these clubs or if I was the admin- you have no choice but to keep charging more each year to increase revenue which is kind of crap if you are trying to reward loyalty IMO.
Click to expand...

Carltons deal at Etihad ends in 2014. Only Essendon are locked in until 2025.
 
rfctiger74 said:
FFS can we cut the shit?

Pies have won two flags in an era we have won squat, have 50% more members, 100% more revenue, and pretending otherwise is bullshit.

Hawks have more members, better revenues, and a better gate that RFC because they have been successful for the better part of 25 years, and pretending otherwise is bullshit.

Richmond has potential, but until it's realized it's just that, potential. Non-RFC fans have been hearing about our potential for 20+ years, and all they have seen is false dawns and broken promises. Big friggen surprise no one is getting excited about another RFC potential revival.

It may be different this time, but our history means people want proof before they buy in.

No one is scared of Richmond, no one is fearful of the sleeping giant. They are sick and tired of hearing bullshit that is never delivered upon.

Let's brag about how big our membership will be when we make finals, after we make finals.

Let's brag about how big our membership will be when be win round 1, when we actually win for the first time in too bloody long.

Let's brag about something when we actually deliver, not when it's still some lame masterbatory fantasy in some fanboi's imagination.
Click to expand...
Amen. :thumbsu:
 
Frank Grimes said:
You are kidding yourself if you think Carlton and Essendon are even close to being as big as Collingwood. The simple fact is that these days there is only a Big 1.
Click to expand...


I think AFL is the only major sport I know where people find it impossible to distinguish the impact of form on apparent size of a club and how good form "magnifies" the size of a club and bad form "obscures" it.

Put Essendon in the G, give them a string of top 4s and the apparently huge gap with Collingwood would vanish quickly enough. All that is happening is that success is magnifying one club against the other.

In fact the basic underlying size of clubs is more or less settled and has been for many decades. The best performing member of the Big 4 will always appear to be huge especially as it has been recently, if its Collingwood which is the biggest but is by no means in a different league to the other 3 especially Essendon. A successful Essendon looked huge in the Sheedy era. A successful Richmond looked huge in the 70s. Success magnifies the size of a club.....the end of that success takes the magnifying glass away. This is understood in every pro sport league.....except AFL
 
gaelictiogar said:
I think AFL is the only major sport I know where people find it impossible to distinguish the impact of form on apparent size of a club and how good form "magnifies" the size of a club and bad form "obscures" it.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary, the AFL is one of a number of leagues where on field success, or to be more precise, the populations exposure to its success, has a direct impact on the value, the size, of football clubs relative to its competition. Take the position of EPL clubs on the most recent Deloitte Football Money League…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/24/football-money-league-how-much-top-teams-make

3. Manchester United
5. Chelsea
6. Arsenal
7. Manchester City
9. Liverpool
13. Tottenham Hotspur
20. Newcastle United

Now compare that list to 2000-2001 (top 10)…

1. Manchester United
6. Liverpool
9. Chelsea

So what’s the difference between the two lists? Aside from the fact that the two Spanish Clubs have jumped from 5th and < 10th respectively to overtake Manchester United (television money has a significant impact on revenues) what is clearly evident is the increasing shift in power away from the Italian Clubs, towards the English Clubs. Clearly, the driver of this change is EXPOSURE…with English being a far more spoken language around than Italian, the EPL gets far more exposure than the Italian Leagues and subsequently has been able to cultivate a worldwide fan base. Couple increased exposure with success and a club that not 30 years ago would have sat comfortably behind Arsenal and Tottenham as the 3rd biggest club in its City is now one of the 5 biggest football brands in the world! You know what, it probably still is the 3rd largest football club in City, but globally it probably now leaves both Arsenal and Tottenham for dead. Heck, if you’re really into your English Football history, Chelsea and Leeds United played a famous bloodbath Cup Final in the 1970’s…back then, Chelsea were the small club and Leeds the giant! How times change!

There are a lot of parallels between the VFL/AFL and the Football League/EPL…like the EPL, the VFL’s appeal expanded rapidly in the 1980’s and than the 1990’s (under the AFL banner albeit using newly developed ‘franchise’ clubs as the custodians). Now, I’m not saying the VFL/AFL attracted anywhere near the interest and success as the EPL rebrand, but its not surprising that the clubs that were successful at the time now dominate the ‘rich lists’ and by extension the membership lists…these clubs dominanted at a time when the population outside the Melbourne bubble where getting their VFL/AFL fix. By contrast, Melbourne (who had a mortgage on the flag from 1940-1960) have not been capable to cultivate a national membership to the same degree as the clubs that dominated in the 1980s and 1990s. The point is, the size and value of football clubs today are determined based on their national profile, their brand value in a national setting and not by historical positioning within their ‘home market’…for this reason membership provides a reasonable indication of club size as it identifies a portion of the population around the country (and increasingly around the world) willing to commit scarce resources to a cause. In this instance, membership probably provides a more accurate indication than attendances, which in many cases are skewed towards performance, weather, drawing power of the competing clubs, ticket availability and pricing.

Oh, this is a membership thread so…

Hawthorn – 51,138
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cmarsh said:
Yeah but I don't think the NRL has it's big wigs buying up memberships for a longstanding club like Penrith like the AFL does for us ;)
Click to expand...
Still....4k is embarrassing for Penrith.
 
Cmarsh said:
Yeah but I don't think the NRL has it's big wigs buying up memberships for a longstanding club like Penrith like the AFL does for us ;)
Click to expand...

I dont know, to hear Gus Gould and his Penny boys, they are getting as many people to buy memberships as possible. Hell you have Dawn Fraser for the tigers (they only have 4k as well and they are a merged club with a combined 200 years history.)
 
General Giant said:
I dont know, to hear Gus Gould and his Penny boys, they are getting as many people to buy memberships as possible. Hell you have Dawn Fraser for the tigers (they only have 4k as well and they are a merged club with a combined 200 years history.)
Click to expand...
Meh both of those clubs are irrelevant ;)
 
Jamie Hamilton said:
Penrith Panthers 4k lol
Click to expand...
Sydney, or Rugby League in general, doesn't have a culture of football club membership. An actual football club might only have 5,000 members with football club voting rights, while the licensed Leagues Club could have 50,000 members. The two are seperate entities but the Leagues Club gives the football club an annual grant.

So in short, Leagues Club memberships aren't counted in football club memberships.
thanks finbarr
 
Stormageddon said:
Sydney, or Rugby League in general, doesn't have a culture of football club membership. An actual football club might only have 5,000 members with football club voting rights, while the licensed Leagues Club could have 50,000 members. The two are seperate entities but the Leagues Club gives the football club an annual grant.

So in short, Leagues Club memberships aren't counted in football club memberships.
thanks finbarr
Click to expand...

And yet somehow the A-League (aroundfor 7 years) and he Giants (for 1) and Swans are getting more memberships than the Leagues clubs in the same region....
 
Hawkk said:
Quite the contrary, the AFL is one of a number of leagues where on field success, or to be more precise, the populations exposure to its success, has a direct impact on the value, the size, of football clubs relative to its competition. Take the position of EPL clubs on the most recent Deloitte Football Money League…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jan/24/football-money-league-how-much-top-teams-make

3. Manchester United
5. Chelsea
6. Arsenal
7. Manchester City
9. Liverpool
13. Tottenham Hotspur
20. Newcastle United

Now compare that list to 2000-2001 (top 10)…

1. Manchester United
6. Liverpool
9. Chelsea

So what’s the difference between the two lists? Aside from the fact that the two Spanish Clubs have jumped from 5th and < 10th respectively to overtake Manchester United (television money has a significant impact on revenues) what is clearly evident is the increasing shift in power away from the Italian Clubs, towards the English Clubs. Clearly, the driver of this change is EXPOSURE…with English being a far more spoken language around than Italian, the EPL gets far more exposure than the Italian Leagues and subsequently has been able to cultivate a worldwide fan base. Couple increased exposure with success and a club that not 30 years ago would have sat comfortably behind Arsenal and Tottenham as the 3rd biggest club in its City is now one of the 5 biggest football brands in the world! You know what, it probably still is the 3rd largest football club in City, but globally it probably now leaves both Arsenal and Tottenham for dead. Heck, if you’re really into your English Football history, Chelsea and Leeds United played a famous bloodbath Cup Final in the 1970’s…back then, Chelsea were the small club and Leeds the giant! How times change!

There are a lot of parallels between the VFL/AFL and the Football League/EPL…like the EPL, the VFL’s appeal expanded rapidly in the 1980’s and than the 1990’s (under the AFL banner albeit using newly developed ‘franchise’ clubs as the custodians). Now, I’m not saying the VFL/AFL attracted anywhere near the interest and success as the EPL rebrand, but its not surprising that the clubs that were successful at the time now dominate the ‘rich lists’ and by extension the membership lists…these clubs dominanted at a time when the population outside the Melbourne bubble where getting their VFL/AFL fix. By contrast, Melbourne (who had a mortgage on the flag from 1940-1960) have not been capable to cultivate a national membership to the same degree as the clubs that dominated in the 1980s and 1990s. The point is, the size and value of football clubs today are determined based on their national profile, their brand value in a national setting and not by historical positioning within their ‘home market’…for this reason membership provides a reasonable indication of club size as it identifies a portion of the population around the country (and increasingly around the world) willing to commit scarce resources to a cause. In this instance, membership probably provides a more accurate indication than attendances, which in many cases are skewed towards performance, weather, drawing power of the competing clubs, ticket availability and pricing.

Oh, this is a membership thread so…

Hawthorn – 51,138
Click to expand...

Great post. I would also suggest that the EPL generally offers a more exciting visual prospect to neutral and casual fans than Serie A (Italy's premier league) as the games tend to have more contact and are normally played at a higher tempo than the traditionally slower build up play you see in Serie A. Not saying Serie A is boring, far from it - just that for those fans that don't have the patience to sit and watch 90 minutes of football where they can watch the slow build up of play and passes, the EPL's more direct style might be preferable.

It's a bit similar to why the AFL is a great spectacle to watch, there's lots of action always happening - fans love the end to end, free flowing footy but then if you get 2 defensive teams that prefer to chip it sideways, it loses some interest for viewers.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Final Membership Totals 2013

Similar threads

D
Official Club Stuff 2024 Club Membership Updates
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
324
Views
31K
The_Wookie
The_Wookie

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top