We Are The Reds

yes stuckey and bpowell454 you would have too many members but you would have to decrease the cost of a ticket that is where you take the hit.

obviously none of us would want a system like that but from the clubs perspective it would grow the supporter base which was the original point here. If you wanted to protect current members, lets say 5k, with full season memberships and you've still got 12k you could turn into part season memberships, that'd be more logical to not disenfranchise current members.

yes stuckey and bpowell454 you would have too many members but you would have to decrease the cost of a ticket that is where you take the hit.

obviously none of us would want a system like that but from the clubs perspective it would grow the supporter base which was the original point here. If you wanted to protect current members, lets say 5k, with full season memberships and you've still got 12k you could turn into part season memberships, that'd be more logical to not disenfranchise current members.

Why would you suggest a system no one would want?
I think until AU starts selling more memberships than seats at Hindmarsh nothing like that would need to be looked at.
As I said AU's membership tally is the highest its ever been so I really wouldn't be tinkering with something that's not broken.

as existing members we wouldn't want it but if the club wanted to grow its reach then it would. most clubs have gone for the short term maximise dollars route with the exception of newcastle under than mining guy. the whole point is bigger crowds is an option now but it's not one the clubs are pursuing by choice, griff will argue he has bills to pay and if the FFA are keeping 40% of the revenue maybe he's right.

as existing members we wouldn't want it but if the club wanted to grow its reach then it would. most clubs have gone for the short term maximise dollars route with the exception of newcastle under than mining guy. the whole point is bigger crowds is an option now but it's not one the clubs are pursuing by choice, griff will argue he has bills to pay and if the FFA are keeping 40% of the revenue maybe he's right.

I can't see how restricting the amount of games the club's fans go to is going to do anything but piss people for and turn them off going at all.

Kiss

perhaps i didn't explain it well the best example is newcastle jets they had the lowest priced memberships but had a much larger membership, that's what possible if we wanted big crowds

perhaps i didn't explain it well the best example is newcastle jets they had the lowest priced memberships but had a much larger membership, that's what possible if we wanted big crowds

Newcastle have about 700 more members but their prices are significantly lower than AUs so I'd expect AU are making more out of members than Newcastle. Those prices were dictated by the Tinkler administration who couldn't afford to run the club. So I don't think that's a great example to use.

their memberships jumped significantly from where they were and they're operating off a 500k population so it's a pretty good example of lowering memberships cost to get big crowds.

their memberships jumped significantly from where they were and they're operating off a 500k population so it's a pretty good example of lowering memberships cost to get big crowds.

Yes but it's that a viable thing to do?

probably as the FFA covers the player's wages and transport so all the rest is optional spending, puts you under more pressure to perform well tho for sure.

probably as the FFA covers the player's wages and transport so all the rest is optional spending, puts you under more pressure to perform well tho for sure.

If Newcastle are still owned by the FFA next season it will be interesting to see what next season's membership pricing will be. I'd expect an increase.

i think the FFA owned newcastle before the start of the season and kept it about the same but you're right none of the a-league clubs are going for the big crowds model and it makes the FFA more vulnerable to cover losses should crowds drop. it was an option for the league tho.

If cricket is going to reduce the Oz Day cricket down to a 3 hour T20 match I think the day is ripe for the picking.
How good would 5 games in one day in a feast of Aussie Football be?!

I think an early game is important to get people switched on early and more likely to have the game on a Oz Day parties and events. I think centring these games around tv viewer ship and not attending would be better. For that reason spreading the games around and giving the NSW/VIC club's away games mostly. It seems like the "big blue" is trying to be an Oz day thing so maybe only that game.

ESDT-Local
10-12 Wellington 12.30-14.30
12.30-2.30 QLD 11.30-13.30
3-5.00 NSW-VIC 15.00-17.00
5.30-7.30 SA 17.00-19.00
9.00-11.00 WA 18.00-20.00

*I've probably buggered these times up.

what happened to the concept of having the cup final on Australia Day?

what happened to the concept of having the cup final on Australia Day?

I think they decided that it would be fairer on NPL clubs to start and finish the Cup earlier.
Having fully fit NPL clubs taking on HAL club weeks into their pre-season provides more chance of an upset.