The 2017 Membership Thread

[Gator 16,891]

11 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Essendon supporters include people that don't follow the code but like planes. Not many people that aren't into footy say I like Demons so will barrack for Melbourne.

Maybe we should go back to the Fuschias.  Brilliant !  Do you know how many people like gardening ?

[Wiseblood 24,636]

Did you guys know that the Hawks have 80k members?  Or that GWS have over 15k members?  No idea how they've been able to do that, but there must be a negative in there about what we've been able to do.  If GWS can have those numbers, and considering our time in the league, we should have at least 100k.... right?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

5 hours ago, ProDee said:

I'm an MCC member, so my membership is nothing more than a donation.  

I'm not rushing out to get one by Christmas.

Yeah fair enough. Was just a tongue in cheek comment but you have people jumping on more than a third of the way through the season, doesn't make sense at first glance. Though of course there's always mitigating circumstances 

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

3 hours ago, Pates said:

Good initiative by the club to do this footy 101 idea. I hope the club gives them a scarf or something to wear, once you give someone your teams colour it's hard for them to look at anyone else. 

Especially when you have the best colours in the league

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Bottom line. 

The Cheats have 65,000 Members

The MFC has hust over 40,000

All that matters is what is required for us to be sustainable and successful. 40k is the base, 50k would be a fantastic outcome. I doubt we'd need more than 50k to really be successful, Carlton Geelong etc are those midrange clubs with ~45k there's only a handful of Vic clubs over 60k.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

46 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

You're right chookrat. We need to be targetting atheists and people that support satanism.  

That's how I got hooked 

[beelzebub 22,225]

2 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

Who ever has a beer? FMD!!

A beer...slab... semantics

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

All that matters is what is required for us to be sustainable and successful. 40k is the base, 50k would be a fantastic outcome. I doubt we'd need more than 50k to really be successful, Carlton Geelong etc are those midrange clubs with ~45k there's only a handful of Vic clubs over 60k.

We need sustained success which we have never had in the "Modern" era

Aussie Rules before TV was a totally different world. 

The Melbourne name could be huge for a sponsor if we made finals regularly, we just don't know the answers yet. 

[Demon Disciple 10,921]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

That's how I got hooked 

It's as good as any Doc!

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

We need sustained success which we have never had in the "Modern" era

Aussie Rules before TV was a totally different world. 

The Melbourne name could be huge for a sponsor if we made finals regularly, we just don't know the answers yet. 

Well yeah I agree but not really sure what that has to do with my post

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Well yeah I agree but not really sure what that has to do with my post

I am not capping it at 50,000

With our name, we should be aiming for a template closer to 100,000

by 2040 the population of this city will be around 9 million if current trends continue

Melbourne by then should be The Powerhouse....

[daisycutter 28,484]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yeah fair enough. Was just a tongue in cheek comment but you have people jumping on more than a third of the way through the season, doesn't make sense at first glance. Though of course there's always mitigating circumstances 

they do sell 4 game memberships so buying one a third of the way through the season is not that odd. some people because of other commitments can only get to a handful of games and wait till then to buy a membership. there are other reasons too like being interstate or overseas on work during the early part of the season etc.  

[Skuit 9,165]

3 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

You're right chookrat. We need to be targetting atheists and people that support satanism.  

I think most of the MFC supporters who once believed in a benevolent god would have renounced the concept long ago. 

[daisycutter 28,484]

just creeping along. might be a spike signing up at the game on sunday

40,549

[Chook 14,458]

On 17/05/2017 at 10:11 PM, daisycutter said:

they do sell 4 game memberships so buying one a third of the way through the season is not that odd. some people because of other commitments can only get to a handful of games and wait till then to buy a membership. there are other reasons too like being interstate or overseas on work during the early part of the season etc.  

Some people don’t even go to games (preferring to watch them on TV or not having time to see them at all), but still want to support the club when asked to. The MFC did a big membership drive to get to 40,000 and I know a few people who signed up then, even though they don’t go to games.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,578]

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Some people don’t even go to games (preferring to watch them on TV or not having time to see them at all), but still want to support the club when asked to. The MFC did a big membership drive to get to 40,000 and I know a few people who signed up then, even though they don’t go to games.

Absolutely, personally I'm an interstate member based in Brisbane, so some years like this year I don't get the opertunity to watch a game using my membership  (unless I was to travel to Melbourne to watch us at the mighty G).

I actually rejoined the MFC membership after one of our atrocious losses to West Coast in 2010?/11? on the basis that I thought it was when the club needed my support most.  All serious supporters of the MFC should have some kind of club membership (personal finances permitting).

Of course, one of the highlights being a Northern member was watching the mighty Demons smash the Suns up here last year on the Gold Coast - was one of the biggest wins I witnessed over the last half decade or so.  Most times I have traveled to Melbourne and watched us there, we loose, so I think it's in the best interests of all that I just stay up here when we play!!

[daisycutter 28,484]

slowing to a trickle

40,567

[whatwhat say what 18,882]

saints have just cracked 40k, and gw$ will soon announce they've surpassed 20k

[DubDee 20,527]

34 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

saints have just cracked 40k, and gw$ will soon announce they've surpassed 20k

11K of those were bought by Gill though

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,418]

2 minutes ago, DubDee said:

11K of those were bought by Gill though

I had Brad Sewell speak at my company and he mentioned that a portion of all AFL players match payments are donated to charity..... I now know where that goes.

[DubDee 20,527]

BOOM!   another 24 members, just like that!!

40591

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,394]

On 2017-5-17 at 8:20 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

They have 3.5 times more supporters says it all. 

Anything else is a Band aid

we were successful before TV did replays

This is a really interesting point worthy of a PhD study. As we all know Melbourne's last Premiership was in 1964. TV only started in Australia in 1956 and it was not until the early to mid-1960s that it became commonplace. Football was only available via replay and generally limited to one or two hours per week. As such, the coverage was very limited with most of it showing the on-field successful clubs which in the mid-60s to the 70s were Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond. I rarely saw even a glimpse of a Melbourne game.  Is it a reasonable assumption that the saturation coverage of those three teams through that era generated the base of support that those clubs receive today? Conversely, if TV had started a decade earlier while Melbourne was at its peak, would we have been one of the blockbuster clubs of today?

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

This is a really interesting point worthy of a PhD study. As we all know Melbourne's last Premiership was in 1964. TV only started in Australia in 1956 and it was not until the early to mid-1960s that it became commonplace. Football was only available via replay and generally limited to one or two hours per week. As such, the coverage was very limited with most of it showing the on-field successful clubs which in the mid-60s to the 70s were Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond. I rarely saw even a glimpse of a Melbourne game.  Is it a reasonable assumption that the saturation coverage of those three teams through that era generated the base of support that those clubs receive today? Conversely, if TV had started a decade earlier while Melbourne was at its peak, would we have been one of the blockbuster clubs of today?

Correct. 

1965 was the first GF to be recorded on Videotape...

the very beginning of the modern era

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Correct. 

1965 was the first GF to be recorded on Videotape...

the very beginning of the modern era

1961 GF is available on DVD as is 1962. '63 & '64 were "lost" for some reason.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

1961 GF is available on DVD as is 1962. '63 & '64 were "lost" for some reason.

Yes i have heard that. No idea what happened. I have only ever seen "Newsreel" footage of '64. Which was shown in Cinemas. 

'58 i saw on 16mm Colour when at school