The Strategic Plan (2013-2017)

[Big Sam]

14% growth to 400,000 =/= 200,000 in 3 seasons... It's closer to just under 50,000 in three years.

400k by 2015 was what was reported in the morning but the Strategic plan states by 2017. If we are right on 200k now for 2013, annual growth of 14% means 385k by 2017. But I think we're slightly above 200k now.

 

[Raiders_Premiers]

Silly that they're saying what they want but not how they're going to get it. Amateurish. Maybe the fancy pants press conference could have waited until they figured that bit out.

For you and all the other dumb merkins who have made/will make similar statements, it isn't wise for a cashed up sporting organisation in a very competitive market to divulge in the implementation of their strategy.

 

[Quidgybo]

14% growth to 400,000 =/= 200,000 in 3 seasons... It's closer to just under 50,000 in three years.

14% per annum to reach 400,000 by 2017, not 14% total by 2017. That's over 29,000 in year one, over 96,000 by year three, and over 191,000 by year five.

Leigh.

 

[El Diablo]

Silly that they're saying what they want but not how they're going to get it. Amateurish. Maybe the fancy pants press conference could have waited until they figured that bit out.

John Grant is beginning to come across as the typical politician type who just wants his head on camera and in the papers without saying anything of consequence.

All we have here are crappy logos and numbers. How about the things that matter. Decisions on expansion, insight on HOW memberships and crowds will be grown. What will they do about the game in the bush. What the f**k do they mean by this unequal and unfair grant system.

I certainly don't like the sound of giving some clubs more and some clubs less without a clearly defined way of doing it unbiasedly.

yeah

they should release a 200 page detailed plan just to make halfwits like you happy

they know how they'll go about it and do not need to tell all and sundry how they're doing it

dickhead

 

[age.s]

Silly that they're saying what they want but not how they're going to get it. Amateurish. Maybe the fancy pants press conference could have waited until they figured that bit out.

:lol: @ the bold in particular.

Dribbler.

 

[hrundi99]

You can tell those on here without corporate experience...

 

[unforgiven]

14% per annum to reach 400,000 by 2017, not 14% total by 2017. That's over 29,000 in year one, over 96,000 by year three, and over 191,000 by year five.

Leigh.

I actaully think that the target concerning membership is a unattainble target and should have been lowered.

 

[dimitri]

I actaully think that the target concerning membership is a unattainble target and should have been lowered.

why?

all clubs membership numbers are ridiculously low at the moment

 

[gronkathon]

A important part of the puzzle fell into place today with the announcements.

Things liek the logos may seem a triviality but it is about forming a solid base including proper branding and launching forward as a code on the back of the latest TV deal.

This is the first time in my adult life I have a feeling of confidence about the code and competitions future

 

[Dogs Of War]

It hasn't got anything to do with the Bears, more so how they intend to accomplish these goals. I think the reason they didn't put more information is because they themselves don't know. So now we have figures but no real direction as to how to reach them. They don't have to tell everything little bit but I nice outline of how they will get 400,000 members etc would be nice. Are they going to be spending big on marketing etc to reach that goal? Etc

Lets have a take one of the goals. How they get to 400K members.

Different clubs will have different goals for achieving this. Some may request a grant to ensure they can subsidise family/GA membership for a few years to allow a larger membership base to grow, and hope that when the subsidy stops, that many many remain. While others like the Bronco's would really need more advertising to build on the large number of fans they already have, and some of the contra advertising that channel 9 and Foxtel will provide, could be used to assist this endevour. Others may look at 3-4 game packages with the idea that they can make some family day events, promote those, and get the NRL to assist with underwriting the extra costs of getting those facilities in place. ARLC will assist clubs in the direction they want to take, and may suggest ways they can go about it, but it's up to each club to put the plans in place, using one or many of the options available, with targets in place to ensure the money is spent wisely for the return they may get.

 

[Raiders_Premiers]

Come the f**k at us.

 

[roarr]

At the very least its a solid PR exercise that gives the media some POSITIVE news about the game in the off-season.

I understand the old administration didn't have much money to play around with, but surely they still could have produced strategies and plans like this (albeit with more realistic targets). If gives the serious fans a sense of direction and all the administrators at lower levels will have a better idea of where the entire organisation is going. Whereas it used to seem like the NRL was worried about the 16 clubs and anything below that was a free-for-all.

 

[Kirky]

Maybe 'fence sitting' supporters would become members if there were other sides on FTA besides Brisbane. Melbourne, Canberra and NZ have so much potential to grow in their respective areas but are never on FTA. There are tonnes of expat Kiwis in Australia who should be NZ members in some capacity but again they don't get any exposure. Canberra is at just as much a risk of being lost to AFL as Western Sydney is and it is a real possibility if Nine and the NRL continue to ignore the area. But instead all we hear is Gould whinging about the West. FFS the ACT government gives the AFL 26 million to play 3 games in Canberra over the next ten years. I don't know the actual figures but I imagine the GWS side was on FTA more times last season than the Raiders were. The ratings in Melbourne for the GF last season were about 1 million from memory, yet they are never on FTA.

Why would membership grow in these areas if their potential members cannot watch their teams on TV?

Canberra is zero risk of becomming AFL territory. There's always been a strong AFL presence in Canberra, owed to the fact that over the decades many people from Vic/SA/Tas and WA have moved here for work and ended up staying. We produced James Hird, one of the greats of all time, but it'll always be third fiddle to League and Union. That's not taking things for granted, or resting on laurels, it's just the way it is. Not being on FTA is certainly an issue for us, and yes GWS were on FTA in Canberra every single round this year, but we're the dominant code here. Look at what happened when we made the finals. The city was awash with green, everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Half the city travelled down to watch the Souffs final. We're a League town, and unfortunateley the fact is that the majority of League fans aren't 'rain hail or shine' types. It's an issue for us, but it's an issue for all NRL teams. Hopefully the specifics underlying this strategic plan go a long way towards remedying this.

 

[Eddie Lab]

I actaully think that the target concerning membership is a unattainble target and should have been lowered.

I think if the ARLC is serious about this goal and reduces ticket prices or cash incentives to clubs they could hit this target. they are hoping for 25k members on average per team and if they can get this the target of crowd average should be easy.

 

[unforgiven]

why?

all clubs membership numbers are ridiculously low at the moment

I agree 100%, but to double the amount in 5 years is a big ask. I would of been happy with a target of around an increase of 50-75% in that timeframe. I hope im wrong but I think we will miss this target.

 

[unforgiven]

I think if the ARLC is serious about this goal and reduces ticket prices or cash incentives to clubs they could hit this target. they are hoping for 25k members on average per team and if they can get this the target of crowd average should be easy.

If the prices of memberships is reduced they may be able to reach this target. Not many establish organisation would have a target in their strategic plan of doubling one of their consumer groups.

 

[skeepe]

I like it in general. Not sure how they expect teams with a television blackout to grow their supporter bases though.

 

[unforgiven]

The video from today's press conference.


http://www.nrl.com/Video/tabid/10959/contentid/500291/Default.aspx

 

[t-ba]

Solid Strategic plan.

The proof will be in the pudding however, but I do think they are making the right noises.

A bit disappointed about expansion but I do guess many clubs are still on a razors edge and they want to consolidate them before moving forward. I'm afraid that it's time for Norths to get into bed with another bid and forget about Gosford. And possibly get the Leagues club to sell something else besides that god awful 1980's retro strip in the shop. (I used to have the hoops when I was younger but they seemed to have discountinued it. geniuss)

 

[Marshall_magic]

I bet the people complaining that this is all are the same idiots who complained over the Gallop years that we never had a plan laid out.

And for the even bigger morons who are complaining about the lack of strategies, why don't we just get John Grant to e-mail them to Andrew Demetriou personally and they can work out a plan to counteract them. Do people even think about what they are saying or do they just whinge for the sake of whinging.

I for one am glad we finally have some benchmarks and targets to reach in areas such as membership growth, rather than just be given the figures and being left to work out how good it is.