Sponsors ??

[Kornstar]

Yes, but realistically how many people are there in that boat to cater for it?

I'm with you on all of that, but I'm not sure there'd be that many people out there who couldn't afford $1.34 a week for a $70 membership if they really wanted to. Those that say they can't would spend more than that going to a couple of games.
I fully support the price of $70 for a membership.

Suity

If i was being completely honest, i would suggest that if someone can't save up $70 (or even the cheapest ST GA seat) then they are probably not really even in the situation where they should be worrying about becoming a member, they have their own financial issues that they are dealing with and whether something is $25 or $70 probably doesn't make much difference.

That is not to be detrimental either, if you can't afford it, then you can't afford it.

The average Joe though should be able to come up with the money. I don't for one minute think that people like PG are cheap for not wanting to buy her dad a $70 package that she believes isn't worth it, she is already a STH, therefore a member so therefore whether her father is or not is not that much of a concern to her in the scheme of things.

So yeah, i don't have a problem with the $70 personally.

 

[mickdo]

I'm not talking anout whether people prefer one item to another, I'm talking about capacity to pay. If I prefer a scarf to a hat, I'm not disenfranchised the same way I am if I dont have $70 to pay (especially if its more than double what I paid last year).

So how many people are in that boat, that prior to the changes were FC members and nothing else? It's all well and good to speculate, but it isn't much to go on given how few FC members there have been over the years.

 

[fish eel]

So how many people are in that boat, that prior to the changes were FC members and nothing else? It's all well and good to speculate, but it isn't much to go on given how few FC members there have been over the years.

You must have missed where I said it might be productive for the club conduct a survey. Thats why. ;-)

If the packages can be made better, more inclusive and comprehensive, its win win - and I certainly wouldnt take view, either the pros or cons expressed here as gospel as we're only one part of the membership

 

[mickdo]

You must have missed where I said it might be productive for the club conduct a survey

Even so, as I have said several times, there were sweet FA members of the FC previously, and a large number of them would have also been STHs or 'extras' members. I think this is a bit of jumping at shadows tbh.

 

[MarkInTheStands]

Even so, as I have said several times, there were sweet FA members of the FC previously, and a large number of them would have also been STHs or 'extras' members. I think this is a bit of jumping at shadows tbh.

and there are some members, who were previously STH's and members that are starting to not be able to attend because of the times of games, some purely don't want to pay double there old FC membership to keep it.

To the value of an FC membership, the cost was covered up until a few years ago for $15 so things should be better actually. Indeed with the printing of over 10,000 annual reports / year books we should get things a little cheaper per capita.

 

[mickdo]

To the value of an FC membership, the cost was covered up until a few years ago for $15 so things should be better actually. Indeed with the printing of over 10,000 annual reports / year books we should get things a little cheaper per capita.

But isn't it about the FC being self sufficient? So the memberships need to help pay a lot more for the club now, not just the LC

 

[fish eel]

But isn't it about the FC being self sufficient? So the memberships need to help pay a lot more for the club now, not just the LC

If the FC is going to be self sufficient, and the NRL license responsibility be given to the FC as per election committments (or have I missed something there?), then we're going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in memberships!

 

[Suitman]

But isn't it about the FC being self sufficient? So the memberships need to help pay a lot more for the club now, not just the LC

That was my point as well.
With a new reliance on memberships as an income earner, it was never going to be about getting $70 worth of value back. It can't be any more, and never will be. If that's what people want we may as well go back to the $25 thing and forget about them. :roll:
If, along the way we piss a few people off, so be it.


Suity

 

[Suitman]

If the FC is going to be self sufficient, and the NRL license responsibility be given to the FC as per election committments (or have I missed something there?), then we're going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in memberships!

Oh Fish. :roll:

It is but just one revenue stream. Even you know that.

Suity

 

[born an eel]

That was my point as well.
With a new reliance on memberships as an income earner, it was never going to be about getting $70 worth of value back. It can't be any more, and never will be. If that's what people want we may as well go back to the $25 thing and forget about them. :roll:
If, along the way we piss a few people off, so be it.


Suity

exactly, but why spend money on stuff people don't want, better off not spending that money. Make the token gift something that they are proud to have.

 

[Suitman]

exactly, but why spend money on stuff people don't want, better off not spending that money. Make the token gift something that they are proud to have.

Indeed, and that may be something they improve next year.

Suity

 

[Kornstar]

This can all be summed up simply......

If you really want to be part of it, you will find a way, or else you are just making excuses and are probably not that interested.......

This goes with anything in life....

 

[junior009]

All this could be solved by offering the old $25 memberships to existing fc members. I, however have a sneaky feeling that isn't offered for a reason.

Just a feeling

 

[mickdo]

If the FC is going to be self sufficient, and the NRL license responsibility be given to the FC as per election committments (or have I missed something there?), then we're going to have to pay a hell of a lot more in memberships!

'More' self sufficient then

 

[mickdo]

All this could be solved by offering the old $25 memberships to existing fc members. I, however have a sneaky feeling that isn't offered for a reason.

Just a feeling

Believe me, that wouldn't 'solve' it :lol:

 

[Gronk]

So Modern Solar are now on board as the new shorts sponsor ? Great stuff.

They seem to spread themselves around..

http://www.modernsolar.com.au/partners-sponsorships.aspx