Clubs and relevance ladder
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
Clubs and relevance ladder
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
Last year our TV ratings were quiet good, yet our membership poor. That's a huge problem for us - we have a disproportionate amount of TV followers vs game attendees compared to many other Vic clubs.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
That ladder looks about right but I cant understand why anyone would be interested in North.
I know they were great in the 70s and 90s but for some reason I find it almost impossible to watch a North game. Any other sides I can watch but I just find North so boring.
Not sure if its the jumpers or some childhood grudge. Just dunno.
I know they were great in the 70s and 90s but for some reason I find it almost impossible to watch a North game. Any other sides I can watch but I just find North so boring.
Not sure if its the jumpers or some childhood grudge. Just dunno.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Sun 09 Oct 2011 6:52pm
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
I don't care what the table says well always be more relevant than north.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9142
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 437 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
It shows that we have to get competitive very quickly, or we'll drop away even further. The clubs above us on the table have all won premierships later than our one and only in '66, and from my experience, have done better in getting out and flogging memberships and gaining sponsors.
- dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.Beno88 wrote:That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.
There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.
- On the Bench
- Club Player
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Sun 20 Nov 2005 10:41pm
- Location: Perth. Where Foxtel has now allowed me to watch my beloved Saints each week.
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
This is the main point that this table shows, fixturing is skewing the number of viewers, it's not so much which clubs but when they play. The 2009/10 viewer numbers for the Saints would have been a lot higher, not just because they were winning but the times they played (Friday and Saturday nights).dragit wrote:Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.Beno88 wrote:That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.
There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.
I am still hurting from 71;
my gut churns thinking of 97;
2009 was agony,
2010a was a pleasure to watch only to be devastated by 2010 b.
It hurts barracking for the Saints
my gut churns thinking of 97;
2009 was agony,
2010a was a pleasure to watch only to be devastated by 2010 b.
It hurts barracking for the Saints
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: Clubs and relevance ladder
On the Bench wrote:This is the main point that this table shows, fixturing is skewing the number of viewers, it's not so much which clubs but when they play. The 2009/10 viewer numbers for the Saints would have been a lot higher, not just because they were winning but the times they played (Friday and Saturday nights).dragit wrote:Yes, also remember the membership revenue table, which clearly showed that having a higher figure in your membership tally does not mean a lot. Our 30,000 members could be worth the same revenue as North's 37,000… depending on how many full memberships each club has.Beno88 wrote:That table tells us what everyone has always thought, Hawthorn's membership numbers are complete rubbish.
There is however a clear, huge gap between the top 6 and the 4 poor cousins… stretched further each year by fixturing.
Good point. They really need to break it down on time slots, and over several seasons.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.