2012 Memberships

[Danish]

Souths are the only team in the comp to have had crowd figures lower than the amount of ticketed members they claim to have. Did so 3 times last year I believe.

Personally I'd like to know what they count as a "ticketed" membership, as I have a feeling they include memberships that give the holder entry to 1-2 games throughout the season

 

[CC_Roosters]

Souths are the only team in the comp to have had crowd figures lower than the amount of ticketed members they claim to have. Did so 3 times last year I believe.

Personally I'd like to know what they count as a "ticketed" membership, as I have a feeling they include memberships that give the holder entry to 1-2 games throughout the season

Every club does it. Even the AFL clubs count 1 game memberships as ticketed.

 

[Western_Eel]

Souths are the only team in the comp to have had crowd figures lower than the amount of ticketed members they claim to have. Did so 3 times last year I believe.

Personally I'd like to know what they count as a "ticketed" membership, as I have a feeling they include memberships that give the holder entry to 1-2 games throughout the season

I have a friend who purchased a 3 game membership, but it still cost him a fair bit because it included the supporters pack,

Either way they are still doing better than anyone else

 

[simmo64]

Souths are the only team in the comp to have had crowd figures lower than the amount of ticketed members they claim to have. Did so 3 times last year I believe.

Personally I'd like to know what they count as a "ticketed" membership, as I have a feeling they include memberships that give the holder entry to 1-2 games throughout the season

Souths don't have 1-2 game memberships.The only reduced game membership for 5 games is a regional membership for people who live outside of sydney. every other ticketed membership is for all our home games plus charity sheild plus away games against the eels and bulldogs

 

[Billythekid]

Thought I'd take the time to check your facts and while the two years you've mentioned check out, the surrounding years don't. 2010 is indeed a spike year looking at the stats:

2011 - 14,381
2010 - 17,355
2009 - 14,715
2008 - 14,644
2007 - 15,702
2006 - 10,612
2005 - 12,028
2004 - 11,380

You averaged between 10 and 12k prior to the takeover, and since then the average is in the high 14k area.

Yeah, a solid increase but a team playing in a stadium like ANZ with the level of superstars really needs to be jumping a bit higher than that.

I don't buy lack of success as an excuse either. We have a smaller membership base, a lack of decent results (admittedly better than Souths but still below par) in the last five years, and only two noticeably poor years in a period where we're otherwise pulling an average 18-20k each game per year.

I'm sorry Timmah but that is plain bullsh*t spin you've got going on there. You won a premiership in the last 10 years while souths have been absolute sh*t since they have been back in the comp.

Even attempting to compare their success to the dogs is laughable.

Edit: Also lets look at those numbers. The 3 years before the takeover they averaged around 11300, since the membership drive they average around 15300 with little to no increase in success for the club. Seems like a pretty big boost to me.

This whole hating on souths schtick is never going to end. The purpose of the membership drive is to increase the clubs bottom line and i dare say that souths are performing better than most clubs in this area.

Sure we want to see an increase in crowds and souths crowds have increased but you can't expect miracles especially with the form they have shown. You give any other club the success souths have seen and they would all struggle to put up similar numbers in terms of crowds. Sure i think they could be doing a little better and i expect they will in the next few years but they are doing better than a lot of people suggest.

 

[Timmah]

You can bet your arse membership revenue for Souths would be easily comparable to other clubs - purely based on non-ticketed membership percentage being so much bigger than other clubs.

Other clubs generally are making more money off lesser sales because they're selling a greater proportion of ticketed memberships.


As for my spin? Averaging 15,700 in the only season they made the finals in 25 years... isn't good enough.

We've missed two consecutive finals series and we're still averaging between 19 and 20k in those seasons.

 

[innsaneink]

LOL.....comparing an 18 year semis drought (with 4 wooden spoons in that mix) to missing the finals 2 years running....what a f**kwit you really are

 

[Timmah]

I don't support a club claiming to have the best support in the league.

I don't support a club calling itself "pride of the league".

I don't support a club running on past glories.


I don't make any bones about it - I don't like South Sydney. But that's not what this membership discussion is about. I believe it's a load of crap to be trumpeting how many memberships you have when such a big percentage who purchase them don't bother turning up.

Don't even start me on your club's paltry total.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

I don't support a club claiming to have the best support in the league.

I don't support a club calling itself "pride of the league".

I don't support a club running on past glories.


I don't make any bones about it - I don't like South Sydney. But that's not what this membership discussion is about. I believe it's a load of crap to be trumpeting how many memberships you have when such a big percentage who purchase them don't bother turning up.

Don't even start me on your club's paltry total.

How come Souths have more memberships than Canterbury? Souths have had no success in 40yrs and made the finals once.Bulldogs have won several titles,and have great home crowds? Interesting to see how you critique a club that has more membership than your own? How does that work? But then again,you have stated your dislike for Souths.

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

I don't support a club claiming to have the best support in the league.

I don't support a club calling itself "pride of the league".

I don't support a club running on past glories.


I don't make any bones about it - I don't like South Sydney. But that's not what this membership discussion is about. I believe it's a load of crap to be trumpeting how many memberships you have when such a big percentage who purchase them don't bother turning up.

Don't even start me on your club's paltry total.

We have the most members of any club in the competition, so what other basis for comparison does one use to decide which club is the best supported? Home crowd figures? That would be fair enough I suppose and I'd concede on that.

The 'pride of the league' tag has been around for 80 years. And we didn't give that moniker to ourselves. The club uses it from time to time, but you won't find it anywhere on our website. It isn't on our crest. You'll find it is actually wankers like yourself that bang on about it, not us.

What exactly is 'running on past glories'? What does that mean? Are we supposed to ignore our glorious past? I think the members made a fairly quantum decision in 2006 to move away from 'running on our past glories' by privatizing the club. We know we need to create new history - everyone in the club does. Again, simpletons like yourself tend to bring this 'running on past glories' bullshit up.

We have the membership numbers on the board. What is the club supposed to do? Place a caveat on the end stating that sometimes not every member comes to the game, so that perhaps we should only officially declare maybe half our total?

I'm not huge on insulting people over the internet. I think it's fairly gutless. But you are a total imbecile.

 

[bileduct]

The 'pride of the league' tag has been around for 80 years. And we didn't give that moniker to ourselves. The club uses it from time to time, but you won't find it anywhere on our website. It isn't on our crest. You'll find it is actually wankers like yourself that bang on about it, not us.

http://www.rabbitohs.com.au/News/Club-News/Pride-of-the-League-Honoured-by-the-National-Trust.html

 

[S.S.T.I.D]

http://www.rabbitohs.com.au/News/Club-News/Pride-of-the-League-Honoured-by-the-National-Trust.html

You are drawing a fairly long bow if we are going back 3 and a half years to a news story to find a reference to it. I think that says more about you than it does about the fact that I was technically incorrect. I should of searched back more than 3 years.

 

[Billythekid]

You can bet your arse membership revenue for Souths would be easily comparable to other clubs - purely based on non-ticketed membership percentage being so much bigger than other clubs.

Other clubs generally are making more money off lesser sales because they're selling a greater proportion of ticketed memberships.

How do you actually know this? Personally considering the price of their memberships i find this unlikely. I think it's unfair to compare them to the dogs whose memberships cost far less and than insult them for selling cheap memberships. I feel extremely confident they bring in more money than the dogs from memberships.

As for my spin? Averaging 15,700 in the only season they made the finals in 25 years... isn't good enough.

So for the first time in 25 years they went from a laughing stock to just fluking a finals spot where they had no chance of winning. Yeah the fans should have been flocking in. Also yes you're spinning again. You said we should expect to see crowds grow from memberships and souths crowds have grown despite continuing to play terrible football.

We've missed two consecutive finals series and we're still averaging between 19 and 20k in those seasons.

You honestly think missing the finals twice is the same as what souths have been through? You're delusional.

I don't support a club claiming to have the best support in the league.

I don't support a club calling itself "pride of the league".

I don't support a club running on past glories.


I don't make any bones about it - I don't like South Sydney. But that's not what this membership discussion is about. I believe it's a load of crap to be trumpeting how many memberships you have when such a big percentage who purchase them don't bother turning up.

Don't even start me on your club's paltry total.

It's pretty damn obvious what your agenda is. You just can't stand that souths have more memberships than the dogs so you are looking for ways to discredit their numbers. It's pathetic and pretty damn transparent for anyone reading it. Get over it.

 

[Timmah]

You honestly think missing the finals twice is the same as what souths have been through? You're delusional.

Two seasons? That's just the last two.

If you want to dissect the last ten years for my club (and yes, we made the finals a number of times and won a premiership, however...), we were wooden spooners in 2008, missed the finals in 2005 and only just avoided the spoon from memory. Salary cap rort 02, rape allegations 04, and countless off-field incidents by fans (fights, train vandalism etc etc)...

You make it sound like it's been easy for the club to attract a large, strong supporter base. Fact - it hasn't, regardless of results season to season. Similarly, Souths haven't had these sorts of issues off the park to affect those crowds.

It's pretty damn obvious what your agenda is. You just can't stand that souths have more memberships than the dogs so you are looking for ways to discredit their numbers. It's pathetic and pretty damn transparent for anyone reading it. Get over it.

You'd be wrong there. They have more than us by a stretch and that's testament to their marketing. They've got a lot of people behind them, and good on them. As I said, I just question when it comes to counting memberships that Souths are really going that strongly when it comes to ticketed memberships. Either way they're still ahead of us from memory, so your point is entirely moot.

As for the crowds issue I keep referring too - their membership sales and marketing team (which is clearly top quality) needs to be involved in marketing the home games. They're clearly doing something right...

 

[haha]

This is like reading the 2011 membership thread, timmah posting the same shit as last year.

 

[haha]

I don't support a club claiming to have the best support in the league.

I don't support a club calling itself "pride of the league".

I don't support a club running on past glories.


I don't make any bones about it - I don't like South Sydney. But that's not what this membership discussion is about. I believe it's a load of crap to be trumpeting how many memberships you have when such a big percentage who purchase them don't bother turning up.

Don't even start me on your club's paltry total.

Are the bulldogs still selling themselves as the "family club"?

 

[Timmah]

Not that I've seen recently.

Let me save you the trouble of replying though:

"bred not bought lolol roflmao!!!!11!!!ONEONE!!!!!ONE111!"

 

[adamkungl]

This is like reading the 2011 membership thread, timmah posting the same shit as last year.

Dogs and Dragons fans seem very preoccupied with bitching about technicalities around memberships... and since Tim is both... ;-)

Really it's about getting more money into the clubs, something souffs seem to be somehow doing quite well. Pity they're still awful.

 

[yobbo84]

There are two clear facts from this thread:

1. South Sydney have more members than any other club in the NRL.
2. Timmah is an imbecile.

 

[cleary89]

Less ticketed members then saints, and only like 200 more total.