2013 Memberships

[slm9]

From the telegraph (2012 - in brackets) - 2 teams already above last year.

Broncos 17,003 (26,216)
Bulldogs 11,498 (13,544)
Cowboys 9,012 (10,336)
Dragons 16,025 (19,223)
Eels 11,516 (11,012)
Knights 14,195 (19,399)
Panthers 3,609 (5,686)
Rabbitohs 20,454 (22,154)
Raiders 6,668 (8,264)
Roosters 7,689 (10,256)
Sea Eagles 6,031 (10,466)
Sharks 6,812 (5,126)
Storm 9,745 (14,762)
Titans 6,040 (6,674)
Warriors 7,113 (10,938)
Wests Tigers 7,628 (10,305)

Total 161,038 (204,361)

* membership as at 8/2/2013

 

[forby]

Again, it would be interesting to know how many of these are season ticketed memberships. Penrith, at this stage, are all ticketed. I know some of the others include non-ticketed memberships. It is hard to make comparisons when you are comparing apples with pineapples!

 

[East Coast Tiger]

So when Bunniesfag said that of the top four clubs only the Knights were trailing last year by a big margin, he was talking shit? Imagine my surprise.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Souths now 21,006.

 

[forby]

21000 memberships? How many ticketed? I reckon it would be about 60% max. Otherwise there are a lot of people who waste their money by buying tickets that they never use!

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Title of thread is 2013 Memberships.

Don't know if anyone ever asked for the season ticket split.

 

[Joker's Wild]

I believe Forby just did...

 

[DC_fan]

Should all members have to be ticketed members?

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I believe Forby just did...

I meant when the thread started.

Well maybe he can contact ALL clubs and find out the membership/ticketed member split for us.

Cause I thought this thread was about 2013 Memberships - ticketed or not.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Should all members have to be ticketed members?

You'd like to think so.

But clubs like Saints, Roosters, Souths, Bulldgos...whose fans / demographics have shifted over the years & live outside Sydney.

Some of these people become members but won't ever go to a game.

I'd be interested, for instance, in AFL Collingwood with their huge membership number, how many are 'members' and how many are 'ticketed members'. Souths, Broncos the same.

Ideally, if clubs are going to post their numbers - it's either members or ticketed members so we can compare oranges with oranges.

And once again, the NRL should audit this so people can't go blowing their trumpets about it and/or turn up on forums and bitch mercilessly about it.

 

[BunniesMan]

From slm9's list there are a few concerns as well as a few to be happy about.

Eels, Sharks and Titans are doing great. Panthers and Storm among the concerns.

So when Bunniesfag said that of the top four clubs only the Knights were trailing last year by a big margin, he was talking shit? Imagine my surprise.

Unlike the DT, I wasn't stupid enough to compare early February numbers from this season compared to final total numbers of last season. Obviously most clubs are behind their total numbers.

I went into the 2012 thread and looked at the numbers at this time last year and I compared those to the current numbers. Souths, Broncos and Dragons are ahead of where they were. Knights are behind.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Even if they listed ticketed and non-ticketed separately it still won't account for memberships that are for only some games per year. For example memberships that are for people who can only get to some games or, in the case of merged clubs, memberships that only include games at certain venues. Might as well just lump them all in together. Just don't include pet memberships. That's just a ploy to get more cash out of particularly stupid people.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I have already confirmed with SSFC, and posted, they do not include pet memberships.

But considering people can now get bereavement leave or sick leave for pets, gouging club fans for a pet membership isn't a particularly stoopid thing for the clubs to do.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Even if they listed ticketed and non-ticketed separately it still won't account for memberships that are for only some games per year. For example memberships that are for people who can only get to some games or, in the case of merged clubs, memberships that only include games at certain venues. Might as well just lump them all in together. Just don't include pet memberships. That's just a ploy to get more cash out of particularly stupid people.

Agree

 

[forby]

If it is to include Football Club Memberships then Penrith has over 60000 as all memebers of a Panthers licensed club are also members of Penrith Football Club. This why trying to compare these figures is not valid.
Merged entities also distort the figures. Someone who just goes to games in Wollongong is a member, whilst somebody who just goes to Kogarah is a member. Somebody who goes to every Parramatta is a member. The merged entity gets credited for 2 memberships whereas Parramatta gets one. No of tickets to games is a better comparison.

 

[BunniesMan]

If some clubs are so incompetent that they don't recognise there is a market for non ticketed memberships and that ignoring that is ignoring a revenue stream, that is their own problem.

 

[forby]

All I am saying that non-ticketed memberships should be listed seperately to ticketed memberships, and it should be on number of tickets as this is a more valid comparison.

 

[franklin2323]

Again, it would be interesting to know how many of these are season ticketed memberships. Penrith, at this stage, are all ticketed. I know some of the others include non-ticketed memberships. It is hard to make comparisons when you are comparing apples with pineapples!

Ours will like double in a week when the junior clubs regos take place. We count all of them although they aren't ticketed as such. They get the card for playing but that's any ground not just Centrebet. Though it's harder with multiple grounds being used

 

[applesauce]

All I am saying that non-ticketed memberships should be listed seperately to ticketed memberships, and it should be on number of tickets as this is a more valid comparison.

Why?

Money can't be the answer when clubs like the Roosters have GA memberships costing $99 and the Titans, Broncos GA cost $180+.

To fork out money for basically nothing other than the fact you can say you're a member of YOUR is more valid than someone paying for a membership so they get cheaper seats.

 

[BunniesMan]

Why?

Money can't be the answer when clubs like the Roosters have GA memberships costing $99 and the Titans, Broncos GA cost $180+.

To fork out money for basically nothing other than the fact you can say you're a member of YOUR is more valid than someone paying for a membership so they get cheaper seats.

I strongly agree with this.