The GWS membership & crowds myth.

[NlolRL]

True to That>> it proves another thing>>

they rely on Away Victorian Supporters to boost the crowd & Tv Figures

Their game started prior to 2pm and was shown directly against another closer game.

Again, 2nd club in an expansion city vs local heartland clubs. They should be miles ahead not a few hundred.

[Terry]

Well, well, well.........someone has finally belled the cat on the Giants membership myth. Vince Rugari is the new AFL & soccer writer for the SMH. He recently moved to Sydney & has been attending GWS games. He's obviously sniffed the truth since moving out of the bubble.

He has previously stated GWS announced home crowds are no where near what is stated. He also wrote an article titled "Can a club win a flag without a real supporter base". In it he stated GWS 'have no meaningful suport'. Yep. He knows what's happening on the ground.

He's now written an article about the record low crowd expected for the game against the Swans this weekend. In it he presciently questioned GWS' claim of 30k members.

He showed membership revenue for 2018 was $1.9M V membership related expenses of $2.1M. Yep. They actually run at a membership loss. How can this happen?? They obviously give away almost all their memberships or just bald face lie about the real numbers. Not only that they spend more money trying to attract members than they make from actual members.

Is anyone surprised????? Well done!!!!! Let's hope Vince still has a job once Gilty and the boys get a hold of his truth telling articles. There's a chance he'll be placed under house arrest like that other truth teller Dr David Lawson. He's never been heard of again after exposing the AFL's 'participation' numbers in Sydney in his report aptly titled 'Reality versus perception gap.'

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/syd ... 52d10.html

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/can ... 522jz.html

[Terry]

Well folks in light of Vince Rugari pointing out the massive disparity in the Giants 'membership' claims and their actual membership finances I thought we should do this again.........lets play the GUESS THE CROWD AT UN-NAMED STADIUM for the 'massive' clash bewteen the Giants and Swans this weekend.

Once again we will have 3 categories. Announced crowd. Actual crowd. Paying crowd.

The Giants are are already saying they expect the lowest crowd in the 8 year history of the mess lolololol!!!!! Now that's progress!!! Actually it's regress lolololololl!!!!!

They are 'predicting' 16/17k. That being the case I'll nominte 16.5k as the announced crowd as we all know how good the AFL is at crowd numbers. Remember Shanghai folks lolololol!!!!!

I'm predicting an actual crowd of 8/9k and a paying crowd of 4k.

What do the fans think??????

[The_Wookie]

Well folks in light of Vince Rugari pointing out the massive disparity in the Giants 'membership' claims and their actual membership finances ...

Rugari doesnt actually do this. He simply points out they are making a loss, and are the only club that might do so in the AFL.

Considering that most of their members will be of the 3 game variety - the Canberra/Sydney games split fairly makes that certain - paying $80 or so for their membership, with a fair smattering of juniors and associate members who pay somewhat less, the 1.9 million figure is probably accurate for the total members they have.

That they are making a loss is something else entirely.

[notaleaguefan]

Terry and the other looney nrlol fans get more nervous buy the day out of jealousy of gws

[Terry]

Well folks in light of Vince Rugari pointing out the massive disparity in the Giants 'membership' claims and their actual membership finances ...

Rugari doesnt actually do this. He simply points out they are making a loss, and are the only club that might do so in the AFL.

Considering that most of their members will be of the 3 game variety - the Canberra/Sydney games split fairly makes that certain - paying $80 or so for their membership, with a fair smattering of juniors and associate members who pay somewhat less, the 1.9 million figure is probably accurate for the total members they have.

That they are making a loss is something else entirely.

GWS reported $1.8M for membership and merchandising in 2017. For some reason they were combined. The Suns reported $6.610M for the same. The Suns had 11.5k members and GWS 21k. So the Suns had 1/2 the members but $4.2M more to show for it.

Something is clearly wrong here. I suspect, as has been reported, GWS give away membership to any kids they come across at auskick, schools, meet & greet etc etc. The freebies must be well over half their membership on the finances they report.

There is no problem doing that but it makes their membership tally worthless as a pointer to health or popularity of the club. And as stated by the sports marketing expert quoted in the article, memberships 'have lost a bit of currency to the average person'. Meaning they don't trust the numbers.

[The_Wookie]

GWS reported $1.8M for membership and merchandising in 2017. For some reason they were combined. The Suns reported $6.610M for the same. The Suns had 11.5k members and GWS 21k. So the Suns had 1/2 the members but $4.2M more to show for it.

Something is clearly wrong here.

Something is. For a start the 2017 figures arent apples and orangses. The Suns is for ticketing and membership (not merch), while the giants is for membership and merch (not ticketing).

The Suns play all but one home game at Metricon, the Giants play 3 a year in Canberra and 7 in Sydney. The Suns would sell more full season memberships than the Giants by a fair margin - Giants would largely be split between Canberra and Sydney - more members, cheaper memberships.

I suspect, as has been reported, GWS give away membership to any kids they come across at auskick, schools, meet & greet etc etc. The freebies must be well over half their membership on the finances they report.

Given the large number of 3 game members the club would have, and a lot of those would be juniors, and given the league doesnt count free members in official tallies, I suspect your wrong.

There is no problem doing that but it makes their membership tally worthless as a pointer to health or popularity of the club. And as stated by the sports marketing expert quoted in the article, memberships 'have lost a bit of currency to the average person'. Meaning they don't trust the numbers.

Memberships are a marketing tool for the club, as well as a means to generate income. always have been, but particularly so in the last 10-15 years. Most clubs do it - even NRL ones.

[notaleaguefan]

If only they carried out an audit of the nrlol club memberships
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/pet-pe ... 2fohp.html

As the afl carried out an audit of their clubs every season and revenue is listed in the annual reports

The nrlol and it’s clubs do no such thing

[Terry]

GWS reported $1.8M for membership and merchandising in 2017. For some reason they were combined. The Suns reported $6.610M for the same. The Suns had 11.5k members and GWS 21k. So the Suns had 1/2 the members but $4.2M more to show for it.

Something is clearly wrong here.

Something is. For a start the 2017 figures arent apples and orangses. The Suns is for ticketing and membership (not merch), while the giants is for membership and merch (not ticketing).

The Suns play all but one home game at Metricon, the Giants play 3 a year in Canberra and 7 in Sydney. The Suns would sell more full season memberships than the Giants by a fair margin - Giants would largely be split between Canberra and Sydney - more members, cheaper memberships.

I suspect, as has been reported, GWS give away membership to any kids they come across at auskick, schools, meet & greet etc etc. The freebies must be well over half their membership on the finances they report.

Given the large number of 3 game members the club would have, and a lot of those would be juniors, and given the league doesnt count free members in official tallies, I suspect your wrong.

There is no problem doing that but it makes their membership tally worthless as a pointer to health or popularity of the club. And as stated by the sports marketing expert quoted in the article, memberships 'have lost a bit of currency to the average person'. Meaning they don't trust the numbers.

Memberships are a marketing tool for the club, as well as a means to generate income. always have been, but particularly so in the last 10-15 years. Most clubs do it - even NRL ones.

Well pal, you're never going to make it as an investigative journalist!!! I think I'll go with Rugari. He has been attending GWS home games all season. He's called out their BS crowd announcements. He's obviously then done a thing called 'investigate' their member announcement and discovered it don't stack up.

I understand the bubble is a difficult place to live. Maybe you should move to Sydney like Vince did and get a feel of the real world.

Hope that helps pal.

[The_Wookie]

I understand you need to have your bias confirmed. I also understand that Vince isnt saying most of the stuff you claim he is. You're inferring much that isnt there in the article you've linked.

And Ive been looking and AFL memberships and revenues for longer than Rugari has been a journalist. And yet again, its fascinating how its the media is gospel when you want it to be.

As for bubbles, maybe you should get out of your own, and actually do the maths on this one. Rugari has only said they made a loss on membership, he made no conclusions about membership numbers. Or crowds.

[Terry]

I understand you need to have your bias confirmed. I also understand that Vince isnt saying most of the stuff you claim he is. You're inferring much that isnt there in the article you've linked.

And Ive been looking and AFL memberships and revenues for longer than Rugari has been a journalist. And yet again, its fascinating how its the media is gospel when you want it to be.

As for bubbles, maybe you should get out of your own, and actually do the maths on this one. Rugari has only said they made a loss on membership, he made no conclusions about membership numbers. Or crowds.

He has specifically stated previously the announced crowds are no where near the actual crowds. He has also posted pics of a deserted stadium.

He has clearly called out their BS membership numbers. He quoted a marketing expert as saying "membership counts are over stated....... but were ingrained in Melbourne AFL culture". If you can't discern the actual meaning of this I can't help ya pal!!!!

[The_Wookie]

He has specifically stated previously the announced crowds are no where near the actual crowds. He has also posted pics of a deserted stadium.

Unless hes personally counting the crowds as they enter. I dont give a fuck.

He has clearly called out their BS membership numbers.

No he didnt. The article merely says that the numbers for AFL clubs - not limited to or even naming the Giants - are not representative of the same thing they were when clubs were limited to reporting season ticket numbers. 3 and 5 game memberships werent really a thing until 10 or so years ago.

He quoted a marketing expert as saying "membership counts are over stated....... but were ingrained in Melbourne AFL culture". If you can't discern the actual meaning of this I can't help ya pal!!!!

Nice of you you to leave parts of the quote out.

Sports marketing expert Con Stavros, an associate professor at RMIT University, said membership counts were "overstated" as a barometer of club health but were ingrained as part of Melbourne AFL culture.

He doesnt say the numbers are false, its just that the meaning of membership counts has changed since they were no longer restricted to 11 and 16 game memberships. Maybe you should discern the actual meaning of this.

"It’s fascinating that the interstate clubs are now really trying to push the membership thing," Stavros told the Herald. "It’s lost a bit of its currency to the average person. We see the numbers now with clubs boasting 80,000 - when they were tied to 11 or 16-game memberships they were lower, 25,000 to 30,000. They held more weight then.

“Now, like all things in data, it becomes a number that is a bit unclear. Any sponsor who knows what they are doing, when they are presented with those numbers, will ask for the background behind it. They would ask for detail about how many fit into each category, how many actually go to games."

Nowhere does he say the numbers are false or made up, just they hold less weight.

This is due to the inclusion of 3 and 5 game members, or any member who pays at least $50 and is registered to the club data base.

[Terry]

He has specifically stated previously the announced crowds are no where near the actual crowds. He has also posted pics of a deserted stadium.

Unless hes personally counting the crowds as they enter. I dont give a fuck.

He has clearly called out their BS membership numbers.

No he didnt. The article merely says that the numbers for AFL clubs - not limited to or even naming the Giants - are not representative of the same thing they were when clubs were limited to reporting season ticket numbers. 3 and 5 game memberships werent really a thing until 10 or so years ago.

He quoted a marketing expert as saying "membership counts are over stated....... but were ingrained in Melbourne AFL culture". If you can't discern the actual meaning of this I can't help ya pal!!!!

Nice of you you to leave parts of the quote out.

Sports marketing expert Con Stavros, an associate professor at RMIT University, said membership counts were "overstated" as a barometer of club health but were ingrained as part of Melbourne AFL culture.

He doesnt say the numbers are false, its just that the meaning of membership counts has changed since they were no longer restricted to 11 and 16 game memberships. Maybe you should discern the actual meaning of this.

"It’s fascinating that the interstate clubs are now really trying to push the membership thing," Stavros told the Herald. "It’s lost a bit of its currency to the average person. We see the numbers now with clubs boasting 80,000 - when they were tied to 11 or 16-game memberships they were lower, 25,000 to 30,000. They held more weight then.

“Now, like all things in data, it becomes a number that is a bit unclear. Any sponsor who knows what they are doing, when they are presented with those numbers, will ask for the background behind it. They would ask for detail about how many fit into each category, how many actually go to games."

Nowhere does he say the numbers are false or made up, just they hold less weight.

This is due to the inclusion of 3 and 5 game members, or any member who pays at least $50 and is registered to the club data base.

Na. Na. Na. and Nyet. Wrong on every count pal. But it's pointless talking sense to bubble dwellers.

Good luck and gods speed.

[Terry]

OK...so today's 'Sydney derby'. The announced crowd was 16,116. Laughable I know. Strangely there are pics of deserted grand stands. Like no one in 'em .........anywhere lolololol.

But the faithful few stick to the mantra. Poor buggers. I'm looking at you Wookie!!!

I'll have more to follow on this epic ' battle of the bridge' lololololololol!!! It's lucky I care because clearly no one else does.

[SportCapital]

OK...so today's 'Sydney derby'. The announced crowd was 16,116. Laughable I know. Strangely there are pics of deserted grand stands. Like no one in 'em .........anywhere lolololol.

Terry, Terry, Terry..........
The exact same thing occurs to me with NRL games, every week, without fail.....
Not only deserted Grand stands but advertising banners covering thousands of seats so punters are excluded from some of the better seats in the stadium.