Just one more question on GF seats vs standing

[Mr Magic]

Yes I know I am guessing I have already said that, but it does seem to be the case.

This may well be the case and may well be out of the clubs hands all 4 of prelim teams and 5 other teams I looked at only had a 2 tier system with their membership and grandfinal tickets allocations. Is it a unreasonable jump in conclusion to consider it is limited to this by the organisation that controls the cost and distribution of grandfinal tickets (the AFL)?

As for the cost well I know I wont be able to afford it, but you may need something to seperate the tiers and people who go on this other club (like the other clubs) will get a greater chance for a granny seat. Not ideal but just an idea to try and sort this problem out, and yes I think it is a problem that does need to be sorted out.

Ideal if the club could do a three tier system they should I just don't think they can.

The Club can ask Ticketmaster/Ticketek whatever they want - they just need to ask.

Ticketmaster and Ticketek are professional ticketing agencies with sophisticated computer systems.
What you are suggesting (inability to ahve more than 2 tiers) has no basis in reality.
Thye will do whatever you want them to do - you might have to pay a little more, but they can do it.

It's not difficult to do. All the Club needs to do is send in 3 lists of barcodes.
They could have given access to Foundation Barcodes on teh Saturday, other Social Club barcodes on the Sunday nad if there were any tickets left over for September Saints they could have been handled on the Monday. Just a siilar system to teh way tehy handled ticket sales to all sorts of members/GA to teh other finals matches.
Simple solution to the problem.
But apparently nobody thought to ask them to do it like that?

[ausfatcat]

I never said it couldn't be done.

I said it may be the case the saints couldn't do it.

The AFL deals with tickettek and ticketmaster not the SAINTS. FFS Ben Hall said this a week before the prelim.

[Enrico_Misso]

They should have 3 Tiers

1) Foundation SC members
They are guaranteed a seat and given the chance to choose their preference between Premium, Prime, Standard (or standing room if they so choose).
ie treat them with the respect that your "core" members deserve.

2) Post-foundation SC members
They would make up the numbers up to the 11,500 cap.
Guaranteed a ticket, but run the risk of getting standing room depending on the % take-up and the mix the AFL gives us.

3) September Saints.
The "waiting" list for SC membership.
They would share the dregs of the tickets left over after SC members take up their entitlements.
If % take-up is 100% they get nothing.
But a more realistic take-up of 90% would see them sharing 1,150 tickets which would virtually all be standing.
Would need to be capped at a reasonable figure like 3,000 or else their odds of getting a standing room ticket are too low.

In addition.
Obviously over time some of the Foundation members will drop off for one reason or another (death, illness, relocation, despair ).
There should then be a mechanism to promote the longest serving ordinary SC members to "Foundation" status.
All about rewarding long standing members.

[saintspremiers]

I never said it couldn't be done.

I said it may be the case the saints couldn't do it.

The AFL deals with tickettek and ticketmaster not the SAINTS. FFS Ben Hall said this a week before the prelim.

hmm....sounds like this is all way too complicated for the AFL.

Let's face it - if it wasn't for the public/supporter passion, they would've shafted off ALL the public seating to the clubs to sell, and there would be zilch seats for club members!

[ausfatcat]

yep totally agree saintspremier, the whole thing should be done better, but money speaks hey........



Lets just all see what comes out in the wash before jumping down anyone's throat. No use going on a tirade over something that may not be the clubs fault.

[matrix]

They should have 3 Tiers

1) Foundation SC members
They are guaranteed a seat and given the chance to choose their preference between Premium, Prime, Standard (or standing room if they so choose).
ie treat them with the respect that your "core" members deserve.

2) Post-foundation SC members
They would make up the numbers up to the 11,500 cap.
Guaranteed a ticket, but run the risk of getting standing room depending on the % take-up and the mix the AFL gives us.

3) September Saints.
The "waiting" list for SC membership.
They would share the dregs of the tickets left over after SC members take up their entitlements.
If % take-up is 100% they get nothing.
But a more realistic take-up of 90% would see them sharing 1,150 tickets which would virtually all be standing.
Would need to be capped at a reasonable figure like 3,000 or else their odds of getting a standing room ticket are too low.

In addition.
Obviously over time some of the Foundation members will drop off for one reason or another (death, illness, relocation, despair ).
There should then be a mechanism to promote the longest serving ordinary SC members to "Foundation" status.
All about rewarding long standing members.

sounds logical
ffs cut it out

[ausfatcat]

Also agree Enrico

but


going into the future is it sustainable when do we lose the foundation club? when's there 5000 left or 3000 or 10? Really the more I think of it the founding the foundation club was a bad idea as no-one else can join it can only shrink. In fact I am sure there wouldn't be the 8,500 members even now let alone in 5 years from now or 10 or twenty. How long does it continue for?

Plus the club nor the AFL will never guareentee a seat. But it would make it very hard not to get one with that system

[Enrico_Misso]

Ausfatcat,
I covered that

In addition.
Obviously over time some of the Foundation members will drop off for one reason or another (death, illness, relocation, despair ).
There should then be a mechanism to promote the longest serving ordinary SC members to "Foundation" status.
All about rewarding long standing members.

ie promote a new batch of longest serving SC members from time to time to cover the drop-offs.
Same concept as MCC intakes.

Reward for Loyalty
Strength through Loyalty
(I'll try and look up the Latin for that)

[ausfatcat]

Ausfatcat,
I covered that

Reward for Loyalty
Strength through Loyalty
(I'll try and look up the Latin for that)

Tired and it didn't register

Remuneror pro Fidelitas

[bobmurray]

Register and take pot luck for a seat is the system,everyone is now familiar with the system.realistically,how many times in the near future do you think it will be an issue.....it's a once in a blue moon problem....


I hope the club doesn't get too bogged down in it......

[Enrico_Misso]

Register and take pot luck for a seat is the system,everyone is now familiar with the system.realistically,how many times in the near future do you think it will be an issue.....it's a once in a blue moon problem....


I hope the club doesn't get too bogged down in it......

Disagree.
It is a big issue.
The club needs to address it.

Footy is cyclical.
I hope not, but it is likely that at some stage we will be back down near the bottom of the ladder.
Who do you rely on then?
It is not your Johnny come lately - "Hey we are 14-0 let's take out SC membership for this year" types.
They won't be turning up when we are 0-6.

The ones who will turn up are our core supporters.
But if you don't reward your core supporters in the good times then you risk losing them.

As Ausfatcat says
Remuneror pro Fidelitas

[ausfatcat]

Agree membership will always be up and down due to performance. The social club I presume is the same.

And we need to acknowledge and adddress this issue to look after the people that stay on board in some way that doesn't disuade others to step up it's not a easy task but still needs to be looked at.


I remeber people asking me in 2001 and 2002 why I pay membership when
A. You never have any money.
B. The saints always lose.

Because I want to and I can and I should.