2012 Memberships

[Dragon_Taylor6]

I thought ticketed was counted as 3 or more games?

 

[yakstorm]

Ticketed is 3 games or more. Panthers now do offer non-ticketed packages for 2012.

 

[franklin2323]

I thought ticketed was counted as 3 or more games?

That works. That way it covers the dragons 2 grounds, Tigers multi ground etc. All are good but we need to fill grounds as well as get $ in from non-ticketed memberships

 

[thommo4pm]

Dragons have gone past 8000 members today.
Currently at 8,102.
That number will spike further in the coming days, with midnight tomorrow night being the deadline for existing members to retain their seats from this year.

http://www.dragons.com.au/

 

[nko11]

Numbers round up as of 2:05PM on 14/11/11

• Knights at 5,532 Ticketed Members
  
• Dragons at 8,632 Members
  
• Bulldogs at 3,640 Members
  
• Rabbitohs at 10,095 Members
  
• Storm at 2,008 Members
  
• Broncos at 10,218 Members
  
• Manly at 3,738 Members

 

[Perth Red]

They should do a Christmas present package ie get your loved one a membership for Christmas, could include a signed Xmas card from a player etc.

 

[Raiderdave]

Not really an apple for apple comparison there, as you've taken total memberships, not ticketed memberships and compared it to the crowd.

Rabbitohs only had 12,748 ticketed memberships in 2011, so their crowd average was still above that.

Just because Souths has been able to sell a lot more non-ticketed memberships than most clubs, shouldn't count against them that way.

Dragons are another one, their Ticketed member numbers is just over 15K, so less than their total average, and remember at least a third of them would be either Kogarah only or Wollongong only.

I'm sorry
but if you've got 13K ticketed ... & 21K all up members
you should do a lot better then 14K at the gate

as I said .... the Dragons with roughly the same numb of members , seemingly did no better
.... but with 60K less seats to sell to each game then Souths , actually did a lot better
the Raiders with less then half the members .. slaughtered them at the gate
too many fair weather members amongst Souths tally .. quite fair weather indeed.

 

[matrightyeh]

wow broncos doing alright

 

[Billythekid]

Numbers round up as of 2:05PM on 14/11/11

• Knights at 5,532 Ticketed Members
• Dragons at 8,632 Members
• Bulldogs at 3,640 Members
• Rabbitohs at 10,095 Members
• Storm at 2,008 Members
• Broncos at 10,218 Members
• Manly at 3,738 Members

I've said it before but the storm will be a very interesting case. They usually don't release their memberships until well after christmas. This will be a good chance to see what sort of impact getting your memberships out early can do.

I'm sorry
but if you've got 13K ticketed ... & 21K all up members
you should do a lot better then 14K at the gate

as I said .... the Dragons with roughly the same numb of members , seemingly did no better
.... but with 60K less seats to sell to each game then Souths , actually did a lot better

This is some real spin here. Souths should not be held to a different level of accountability just because they do so well with selling memberships. If souths sell 1 million memberships next year but only average 25K per game does that mean they are performing poorly relative to other clubs?

Also once again i'll point out that the dragons comparison is ridiculous. The dragons were coming off the back of a premiership and were once again the favourites to win the comp (or thereabouts). Souths have been perpetual losers and have had no real success since getting back into the comp. If they are equalling or beating the dragons i don't see how that's a bad thing for souths.

the Raiders with less then half the members .. slaughtered them at the gate
too many fair weather members amongst Souths tally .. quite fair weather indeed.

Just because someone buys a membership and doesn't go to games doesn't make them fair weather fans (i'm a storm member and can't go to storm games). Maybe souths are just better at signing up the people who struggle to get to games but want to support their club. Hell i live in Newcastle and regularly see people with the souths membership sticker on their cars.

It's also still stupid to critisize them when they beat the raiders crowd numbers and smashed them in the membership numbers (and no doubt brought in far more money which is the whole point of this membership push).

You're just desperate to paint souths as performing poorly and the raiders as doing well by comparison.

It's amazing how souths cop more flak than any other club regarding memberships despite the fact they have been leading the way. If anything the critiscm should be pointed at the clubs who have been doing a sh*t job of selling memberships at all.

 

[dogslife]

wow broncos doing alright

The Broncos should really be getting to 20,000 members every year easily. Apart from the higher than average prices, there really is no excuse considering Brisbane is a RL dominated market and they're the only team in it. Did they go close to 20k last year?

 

[Perth Red]

Given the savings you make on a membership as opposed to paying at the gate I am amazed 80% of a clubs avg crowd isn't a ticketed member. Even if you only make 75% of games on most deals you still save money.

In SL it would be over 75% of attendees that are season pass holders.

 

[Raiderdave]

This is some real spin here. Souths should not be held to a different level of accountability just because they do so well with selling memberships. If souths sell 1 million memberships next year but only average 25K per game does that mean they are performing poorly relative to other clubs?

Souths aren't being measured any differently to any other club , they're the ones that spruke their membership tally .... its smoke n mirrors though
as their average attendance is mediocre , seeing as they are so great getting members , how bout they now try n get their fans to games :roll:

Also once again i'll point out that the dragons comparison is ridiculous. The dragons were coming off the back of a premiership and were once again the favourites to win the comp (or thereabouts). Souths have been perpetual losers and have had no real success since getting back into the comp. If they are equalling or beating the dragons i don't see how that's a bad thing for souths.

put Souths at Kogarah & WIN ... & they'd average 9K
simple as that.

It's also still stupid to critisize them when they beat the raiders crowd numbers and smashed them in the membership numbers (and no doubt brought in far more money which is the whole point of this membership push).

You're just desperate to paint souths as performing poorly and the raiders as doing well by comparison.

How do you know they bought in a lot more money , it seems they sold a cr@p load of cheap packages .. how else could you explain the lack of bums on seats not corrolating to their membership numbers & people you claim just buy a membership but " can't " go to games .... they don't cost much do they ?

the Raiders for the first time in their History despite their worst season since 1982 , failed to attract a crowd under 10K ... this just so happened to coincide with their biggest ever membership tally
here in lies a stark example of what increased member numbers should mean to your average gate.
Souths average crowd , give their membership numbers ... given the ground they play at .... given they went Okayish in 2011... should have been considerably bigger then it was.

 

[Billythekid]

Souths aren't being measured any differently to any other club , they're the ones that spruke their membership tally ....

They are being measured differently to other clubs. You're implying that the dragons and raiders crowds are somehow better than souths just because souths have done so well in memberships is an obvious example

as their average attendance is mediocre , seeing as they are so great getting members , how bout they now try n get their fans to games :roll:

I'm sure they're working on it. Also you can insult them all you want but they still got more fans through the gate than the raiders did.

put Souths at Kogarah & WIN ... & they'd average 9K simple as that.

Yeah because that's not their home ground (yes i know that's not what you meant). That is such a bullsh*t argument, i'm not even sure why i dignified it with a response.

How do you know they bought in a lot more money , it seems they sold a cr@p load of cheap packages .. how else could you explain the lack of bums on seats not corrolating to their membership numbers & people you claim just buy a membership but " can't " go to games .... they don't cost much do they ?

Because i'm not a f*cking moron? Even if they sold 10K memberships at their cheapest price of $60 they would still making a lot more money than the raiders would from memberships. We know they sold like 13K ticketed memberships and it's not like theirs are all that cheap.

Also didn't souths make a pretty nice profit last year (i honestly can't remember).

the Raiders for the first time in their History despite their worst season since 1982 , failed to attract a crowd under 10K ... this just so happened to coincide with their biggest ever membership tally
here in lies a stark example of what increased member numbers should mean to your average gate.

Ok great. Well guess what? Souths flogged you in memberships and had a higher average crowd. There is no possible way to spin the fact that the raiders are doing worse than souths.

Souths average crowd , give their membership numbers ... given the ground they play at .... given they went Okayish in 2011... should have been considerably bigger then it was.

So you start your post off saying that souths aren't held to a different standard. Then you finish your post off by holding their crowds to a different standard because of their memberships. At least try and be consistent.

Also i can only lol at you suggesting that souths form should be causing an increase in crowds. Let me put it this way, they missed the 8 this year and you are using that as an example of them going 'okayish'. If that doesn't tell you just how bad souths have been i don't know what to tell you.

Do i think souths should have a higher average crowd? Yeah i do. However it's BS the way they are held to a different standard to everyone else.

They also cop way too much critiscm about their membership numbers.

 

[Raiderdave]

They also cop way too much critiscm about their membership numbers.

they don't receive any about their membership numbers :sarcasm:


its their average crowd they get grief about & how it doesn't corrolate with the size of their membership numbers

please try n keep up :roll:

 

[Billythekid]

they don't receive any about their membership numbers :sarcasm:

its their average crowd they get grief about & how it doesn't corrolate with the size of their membership numbers

please try n keep up :roll:

You've got no argument so you resort to this bullsh*t. They recieve lots of critiscm about their membership numbers which usually involves people talking them down because their cheap or non ticketed memberships. You have even done this in this little exhange.

Your argument is still sh*t and you're still a complete moron.

 

[Timmah]

Why should Souths be protected from criticism about their membership numbers?

There is a huge disparity in ticketed and non-ticketed for them compared to other clubs.

 

[yobbo84]

Why should Souths be protected from criticism about their membership numbers?

There is a huge disparity in ticketed and non-ticketed for them compared to other clubs.

So Souths are criticised because we are able to sell more non-ticketed memberships (which are only $9 less than a Bulldogs GA ticketed membership) than other clubs?

There is plenty of reasons to criticise Souths - memberships are not one of them. We have lead the way for the past few years and will continue to do so.

 

[Raiderdave]

You've got no argument so you resort to this bullsh*t. They recieve lots of critiscm about their membership numbers which usually involves people talking them down because their cheap or non ticketed memberships. You have even done this in this little exhange.

Your argument is still sh*t and you're still a complete moron.

they don't from me , or at least this isn't my main issue with souffs

my beef with them is the poor numbers they get through the gate
" considering "
the number of members they " apparently " :roll: have

this isn't BS
the only BS round here is your lame insipid attempts at " rationalising " their pathetic fickle support

all anyone see's when you post is :blahb::blahb::blahb:
:crazy:

 

[Timmah]

So Souths are criticised because we are able to sell more non-ticketed memberships (which are only $9 less than a Bulldogs GA ticketed membership) than other clubs?

There is plenty of reasons to criticise Souths - memberships are not one of them. We have lead the way for the past few years and will continue to do so.

You lead the way due to inflated sales of non-ticketed memberships. Some of which, in the past, have been uncovered as questionable (i.e. the Souths Cares things).

Bottom line is, if other clubs employed similar tactics, you'd probably be a distant 3rd or 4th.

The other thing that your club comes under the spotlight for is the disparity between membership figures and crowd averages. One of the few clubs with more members than average home crowd per game.

 

[roofromoz]

Renewed mine today. Back in the Black Hole. Now just got to wait until March to watch the quasi-grand final replay in round 1 (i.e. Hasler v Cleary).