Memberships/Season Tickets

[haz]

1 hour ago, Forever City said:

Not bad IMO considering the off field issues plaguing our game and a lack of a real " marquee" player. But Sydney FC shows us that winning isn't everything in regards to Membership and attendance.

I would say that its also winning 'too much' which is the problem for them. If I was a Sydney supporter and the team was almost Unbeaten for two season and were 10+ points at the top, I would have to have a good think if I needed to make a choice between attending the game or another function

[jw1739]

3 hours ago, Embee said:

No, people say that the numbers won't be sustained without on-field success, which the immediate dip when those players leave/the sheen wears off would suggest.

I don't think that there's any doubt that when Villa and Del Piero were playing at AAMI the attendances reflected that.
13,752 when we played Sydney on 24/02/2013;
15,717 when we played Newcastle on 19/10/2014; and
13,083 when we played Adelaide on 31/10/2014 (when fans already knew that Villa would be leaving after 4 matches).

IMO this is what marquee players are supposed to do - boost interest in the code, the league, and the clubs and therefore boost attendances. I would suggest that what has happened is that the meanings of the words "marquee", "guest" etc. wrt players have been diminished. They are now more somebody who is paid outside the salary cap rather than a genuine "big-name player."

And when I say "big-name" I really mean "big-name." Somebody who has been/still is a player at the top of one of the biggest leagues in the world, such as England, Germany, Spain, Italy and maybe a couple more only.

[Missing_Moy]

17 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I don't think that there's any doubt that when Villa and Del Piero were playing at AAMI the attendances reflected that.
13,752 when we played Sydney on 24/02/2013;
15,717 when we played Newcastle on 19/10/2014; and
13,083 when we played Adelaide on 31/10/2014 (when fans already knew that Villa would be leaving after 4 matches).

IMO this is what marquee players are supposed to do - boost interest in the code, the league, and the clubs and therefore boost attendances. I would suggest that what has happened is that the meanings of the words "marquee", "guest" etc. wrt players have been diminished. They are now more somebody who is paid outside the salary cap rather than a genuine "big-name player."

And when I say "big-name" I really mean "big-name." Somebody who has been/still is a player at the top of one of the biggest leagues in the world, such as England, Germany, Spain, Italy and maybe a couple more only.

If it wasn’t for Villa I wouldn’t even follow the sport! 

Went along to watch him and enjoyed the atmosphere haven’t looked back since!! 

[haz]

5 hours ago, Missing_Moy said:

If it wasn’t for Villa I wouldn’t even follow the sport! 

Went along to watch him and enjoyed the atmosphere haven’t looked back since!! 

Came for the Villa, stayed for the Mooy, trapped by the fear, uncertainty, and doubt

[jw1739]

I don't think "memberships" tell us an awful lot when each season there are various offers of "short-term memberships" at various times. IMO what is more to the point is attendances. Again, the actual fixture (day/opponent/KO time) can affect results.

Below I've listed the average non-derby attendances at AAMI Park, plus home derby attendances, since we started in 2010-11.

2010-11: 5,828. Derby attendances were 25,897 and 23,059.
2011-12: 6,472. Derby attendances were 26,539 and 26,395.
2012-13: 7,075. Derby attendance was 26,457.
2013-14: 7,255. Derby attendances were 26,491 and 25,546.
2014-15: 9,074. Derby attendance was 26,372.
2015-16: 8,779. Derby attendances were 23,572 and 25,738.
2016-17: 9,417. Derby attendance was 24,706.
2017-18 to date: 7,946. Derby attendances 22,515 and 20,083.

IMO this season has shown a significant drop in average attendances, and a marked reduction of interest in the home derbies.

[Embee]

43 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I don't think "memberships" tell us an awful lot when each season there are various offers of "short-term memberships" at various times. IMO what is more to the point is attendances. Again, the actual fixture (day/opponent/KO time) can affect results.

Below I've listed the average non-derby attendances at AAMI Park, plus home derby attendances, since we started in 2010-11.

2010-11: 5,828. Derby attendances were 25,897 and 23,059.
2011-12: 6,472. Derby attendances were 26,539 and 26,395.
2012-13: 7,075. Derby attendance was 26,457.
2013-14: 7,255. Derby attendances were 26,491 and 25,546.
2014-15: 9,074. Derby attendance was 26,372.
2015-16: 8,779. Derby attendances were 23,572 and 25,738.
2016-17: 9,417. Derby attendance was 24,706.
2017-18 to date: 7,946. Derby attendances 22,515 and 20,083.

IMO this season has shown a significant drop in average attendances, and a marked reduction of interest in the home derbies.

Fair bit of that is probably down to the sooks across town tbf.

Sitting in 4th with a chance for 3rd and not turning up in droves, crying the blues like they're last. Weak as piss.

[bt50]

3 minutes ago, Embee said:

Fair bit of that is probably down to the sooks across town tbf.

Sitting in 4th with a chance for 3rd and not turning up in droves, crying the blues like they're last. Weak as piss.

Yeh plus the milking both clubs tend to do at derbies re ticket prices. Jacking the prices up so steeply is a bit of a joke imo, only hurting the game and atmosphere.

[fensaddler]

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I don't think "memberships" tell us an awful lot when each season there are various offers of "short-term memberships" at various times. IMO what is more to the point is attendances. Again, the actual fixture (day/opponent/KO time) can affect results.

Below I've listed the average non-derby attendances at AAMI Park, plus home derby attendances, since we started in 2010-11.

2010-11: 5,828. Derby attendances were 25,897 and 23,059.
2011-12: 6,472. Derby attendances were 26,539 and 26,395.
2012-13: 7,075. Derby attendance was 26,457.
2013-14: 7,255. Derby attendances were 26,491 and 25,546.
2014-15: 9,074. Derby attendance was 26,372.
2015-16: 8,779. Derby attendances were 23,572 and 25,738.
2016-17: 9,417. Derby attendance was 24,706.
2017-18 to date: 7,946. Derby attendances 22,515 and 20,083.

IMO this season has shown a significant drop in average attendances, and a marked reduction of interest in the home derbies.

But that could be disenchanted Tards? You know how fickle those buggers are. 

[haz]

22 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

But that could be disenchanted Tards? You know how fickle those buggers are. 

Well technically a 20% drop in their numbers would reflect much more in the crowd then the same % drop with our members

[Thrillhouse]

"foundation members" invited to training earlier this week, some video on the clubs facebook and they ask kids that don't even look fucking 8, they don't know what pain is 

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, Thrillhouse said:

"foundation members" invited to training earlier this week, some video on the clubs facebook and they ask kids that don't even look fucking 8, they don't know what pain is 

I'd say quite a few of them are the children of the actual foundation members - one or other (or both) of their parents. It's reasonable for the kids to go along if Mum and Dad are invited to go to Bundoora during school holidays. And anything that brings in a few more fans is worth it. I received an invitation but didn't go - Bundoora is such a shit of journey from where I live.

If I wanted to have a beef about the recognition of foundation members it would be that I'd rather see it as a reduction in membership fees. Going to training, signed jerseys etc. just don't appeal to me. An age thing I suppose.

[belaguttman]

I wasn't invited, I guess that MCFC knows better!

[Embee]

4 hours ago, belaguttman said:

I wasn't invited, I guess that MCFC knows better!

They're definitely missing out, I reckon you'd be heaps of fun...

[Thrillhouse]

at least the guy that won the uk trip was a member 

[Shahanga]

12 hours ago, Thrillhouse said:

at least the guy that won the uk trip was a member 

Would have been better if he’d been a Liverpool supporter though.

(thinking of him really)

[HeartOfCity]

21 hours ago, jw1739 said:

I'd say quite a few of them are the children of the actual foundation members - one or other (or both) of their parents. It's reasonable for the kids to go along if Mum and Dad are invited to go to Bundoora during school holidays. And anything that brings in a few more fans is worth it. I received an invitation but didn't go - Bundoora is such a shit of journey from where I live.

If I wanted to have a beef about the recognition of foundation members it would be that I'd rather see it as a reduction in membership fees. Going to training, signed jerseys etc. just don't appeal to me. An age thing I suppose.

I am not a foundation member but i would like to see recognition for years of membership on the scarf etc. I also thought it was a great thing for foundation members to be recognized, also all members would have walked away feeling appreciated last night i would have thought, the club did well.

[johnno cpfc]

On 4/7/2018 at 3:38 PM, jw1739 said:

 

If I wanted to have a beef about the recognition of foundation members it would be that I'd rather see it as a reduction in membership fees. Going to training, signed jerseys etc. just don't appeal to me. An age thing I suppose.

My point entirely and it's one of the reasons we will not be renewing our memberships because as foundation members we have got nothing more that first year members. Along with the cost of watching dour football for an exorbitant price. 

[haz]

1 minute ago, johnno cpfc said:

My point entirely and it's one of the reasons we will not be renewing our memberships because as foundation members we have got nothing more that first year members. Along with the cost of watching dour football for an exorbitant price. 

But the pins Johno, the pins!

[johnno cpfc]

Not even interested in the pins, i have a draw full of pins from various sports but they do not help with our living costs .

 

[Jovan]

5 hours ago, Shahanga said:

Would have been better if he’d been a Liverpool supporter though.

(thinking of him really)

That's coming from a deluded Liverpool supporter 

Manchester City will win 5:1.

[Tony999]

Anyone know why our Active area has less and less people in it? From what l saw last night l can probably see why.

[mjake1234]

8 hours ago, Tony999 said:

Anyone know why our Active area has less and less people in it? From what l saw last night l can probably see why.

I am not part of them but Active are a very important factor in the match day experience. They provide noise, colour, movement and fun.

Does the club recognise this and do they support you guys?

[jeffplz]

It's so fucked that the majority of the terrace took chants like "we're sitting down" and "we're standing up" seriously

[fensaddler]

Just now, jeffplz said:

It's so fucked that the majority of the terrace took chants like "we're sitting down" and "we're standing up" seriously

I'm not in active so I look on from outside, but I thought that was brilliant. It was a sly comment on the quality of the match, and active were laughing at themselves. I'm 51, and I thought it was the best thing active did all night. Made me laugh and proved they don't take themselves too seriously. 

[jeffplz]

3 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

I'm not in active so I look on from outside, but I thought that was brilliant. It was a sly comment on the quality of the match, and active were laughing at themselves. I'm 51, and I thought it was the best thing active did all night. Made me laugh and proved they don't take themselves too seriously. 

I also laughed my ass off-- but of all the great chants we've tried the stupidest sticks. It's a trend of end of season games where we usually take the piss out of the game and active but it felt silly as.

[bt50]

27 minutes ago, jeffplz said:

It's so fucked that the majority of the terrace took chants like "we're sitting down" and "we're standing up" seriously

It was pretty funny the first time. After that it was annoying and lame.

[n i k o]

4 minutes ago, bt50 said:

It was pretty funny the first time. After that it was annoying and lame.

I thought it was lame the first 3 times, then amusing, then funny, then back to lame and annoying. 

[Embee]

15 minutes ago, n i k o said:

I thought it was lame the first 3 times, then amusing, then funny, then back to lame and annoying. 

Wasn't even the worst thing that was done all night to be honest.

Compared to some of the other stuff it was amusing enough

[n i k o]

12 minutes ago, Embee said:

Wasn't even the worst thing that was done all night to be honest.

Compared to some of the other stuff it was amusing enough

So I hear 

[jw1739]

1 hour ago, fensaddler said:

I'm not in active so I look on from outside, but I thought that was brilliant. It was a sly comment on the quality of the match, and active were laughing at themselves. I'm 51, and I thought it was the best thing active did all night. Made me laugh and proved they don't take themselves too seriously. 

Totally agree. Brilliant commentary on the match - conveyed more in a few words than a thousand articles could have done. Also loved "We've got your ball" - funniest thing I've heard in a long while. Southern End is the best place to be in the stadium.

[belaguttman]

Personally, I was stuck down at the GA end and didn't hear any chants all night. I'd rather have Active be spontaneous and take some risks that evoke feelings from other supporters than to work from a sterile 'chant list'. I'm sure that's the option that FFA would prefer though

[bt50]

2 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

Personally, I was stuck down at the GA end and didn't hear any chants all night. I'd rather have Active be spontaneous and take some risks that evoke feelings from other supporters than to work from a sterile 'chant list'. I'm sure that's the option that FFA would prefer though

Sure i think thats what most people would prefer. It gets cringey and annoying for a lot of people when they keep repeating an ironic chant ad nauseum after a little bit of success the first time though i think.

[jw1739]

Time for the club to think about "naming" (for our home matches) one or more of the four areas of the ground (southern and northern ends, east and west wings)?

[bt50]

1 minute ago, jw1739 said:

Time for the club to think about "naming" (for our home matches) one or more of the four areas of the ground (southern and northern ends, east and west wings)?

Don't think you can really do that until you have your own stadium tbh. Also don't think we really have anyone yet that fits the bill.

[belaguttman]

4 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Sure i think thats what most people would prefer. It gets cringey and annoying for a lot of people when they keep repeating an ironic chant ad nauseum after a little bit of success the first time though i think.

'Taking a risk' means that sometimes you'll get it wrong

[Embee]

30 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

'Taking a risk' means that sometimes you'll get it wrong

I wouldn't classify 'taking a risk' as singing Liverpool, WSW and West Ham songs.

Cringe worthy.

[belaguttman]

2 minutes ago, Embee said:

I wouldn't classify 'taking a risk' as singing Liverpool, WSW and West Ham songs.

Cringe worthy.

That is a risk!

[Embee]

2 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

That is a risk!

Surely a risk carries some possibility of success haha

[Dylan]

[jw1739]

28 minutes ago, Embee said:

I wouldn't classify 'taking a risk' as singing Liverpool, WSW and West Ham songs.

Cringe worthy.

Do you think a lot of the people going to AAMI know what those are - I'm not sure about that? Apart from "You'll Never Walk Alone" and "I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles" I wouldn't know what the supporters of any of those three clubs sing or chant. The only others that I'd really recognise would be the "Pompey Chimes" and "Blue Moon", and maybe "On The Ball City."