Ummm, yes, what relevance does that have? My point is, it's absolutely ludicrous to expect a supporter to ask to have crucial bid document information revealed. He seems to me to be pretty switched on and not the type of person who would simply make the statistic up.
If they were a playing team selling ticketed and non-ticketed memberships, I'd agree with you. The memberships, irrespective of the dollar paid for them, are a sign of active interest. The club, two years out from being in the league should they gain admission, has directly dealt with almost 6,000 people who have all agreed to part with some amount of their hard-earned money (in a time where the cost of living isn't exactly that low, mind you). If that's $1 or $100 per person, they're doing something right. I'd go so far as to say the Bears are more active in their local community than some current NRL teams.
I don't think that's true at all. On their current limited budget and resources, they're keeping this drive at the grassroots level. Once they're a fully-fledged NRL club with the $$$ behind them from Ken Sayer, etc etc, it's a safe bet to assume they have a comprehensive marketing plan to kick into gear and gain widespread support and membership, both ticketed and non-ticketed, that would likely far surpass the current level of membership.
I could be wrong, but the "feeling on the ground" on the Coast is what I'm basing my analysis on, and I reckon I'm not too far off being right.
And if she gets 6,000 people to sponsor her at just $20 each, she's raised $120,000.
As you can see, not a very good comparison.
