Today's Herald Sun reports that, in spite of the fact that Melbourne made the finals in 2005 and 2006 it is losing supporters at an alarming rate - Demon fans drop off bandwagon.

This is distressing news for the club at a time where our first half year performance is at its worst in the past decade and it comes on top of reports that the club will not reach budget figures.

Without doubt, the Board needs to sit down and seek some answers as to why this is happening. I'd be getting some independent expert advice but my guess is that it might have something to do with the fact that many supporters have been turned off by the "let down" factor which has been such a feature of the club's on field performance over the years.

Dwindling supporter numbers may be a legitimate worry but personally I don't rate this survey as worth a pinch of [censored]

I agree. i think that this research its not up to scratch.

Also the stuff at the bottom? about Richmond players saying they are more likely to be gay?

That seals it for me that this research was done fairly half arsed and not accurate.

Also the stuff at the bottom? about Richmond players saying they are more likely to be gay?

Pretty sure that's meant to be Richmond supporters not players. Funniest thing I've read all morning though...

the report also stated that west coast supporters are 200 percent more likely to be linked to the underworld and 5000 percent more likely to be a [censored]. ..........ok not really but its prob true

Today's Herald Sun reports that, in spite of the fact that Melbourne made the finals in 2005 and 2006 it is losing supporters at an alarming rate - Demon fans drop off bandwagon.

This is distressing news for the club at a time where our first half year performance is at its worst in the past decade and it comes on top of reports that the club will not reach budget figures.

Without doubt, the Board needs to sit down and seek some answers as to why this is happening. I'd be getting some independent expert advice but my guess is that it might have something to do with the fact that many supporters have been turned off by the "let down" factor which has been such a feature of the club's on field performance over the years.

These polls aren't completely accurate imho. I'll use Sydney as an example, the polls say that Sydney have over 1.7 million fans, but let's face it, the vast majority will never even go to a game and definitely not buy a membership. It's the same as saying I follow Melbourne Storm, but I don't support them as I have no interest in going to a game, I'm just pleased when they win.

Our membership has increased this year, and that's a better indication imo.

RICHMOND supporters are 70 per cent more likely to agree that "I consider myself a homosexual".

:lol:

How often to supports stop "supporting" a side? Membership and attendances rise and falls but I would have thought most people's support for a team was constant. That is, if you're a Melbourne supporter you probably will be for the majority of your life, regardless of how many matches you attend or whether or not you're a member.

Even if supporters were "dropping off" I doubt it'd be a very significant drop.

I would take a look at our crowds of 15000 and 16000 a game, our supporters are not showing up.

eg My daughter and her friends (10 of them) came to see the DEES win and sometimes lose in previous years.

Now they have stopped coming ...its "why come and see straight losers" , I convinced many at my work

that came from overseas to work and live in Melbourne to buy a membership.

After the 5th game they stopped coming, I can imagine how many more wont buy memberships next year.

Our financials might be okay for now, I fear what will happen in about 2 years.

Today's Herald Sun reports that, in spite of the fact that Melbourne made the finals in 2005 and 2006 it is losing supporters at an alarming rate - Demon fans drop off bandwagon.

This is distressing news for the club at a time where our first half year performance is at its worst in the past decade and it comes on top of reports that the club will not reach budget figures.

Without doubt, the Board needs to sit down and seek some answers as to why this is happening. I'd be getting some independent expert advice but my guess is that it might have something to do with the fact that many supporters have been turned off by the "let down" factor which has been such a feature of the club's on field performance over the years.

Jack, I posted an article written by Garry Lyon today and I made some comments on his article from a business perspective. There is no doubt the "let down"factor for supporters has significantly permeated the club financially. It is an unsustainable position to find oneselves in for the long term. The questions that needed to be asked are obvious. Andthere are no easy answers. But we simply can't park on this issue for much longer.

A storm in a tea cup

out of interest, the stats down the bottom are crap. unless the results are modified statistically to include the standard deviations etc they mean nothing. 18% more likely? would fall well within one standard deviation, making the stat pointless...

A storm in a tea cup

It astonishes me the amount of denial and apathy that exists on this subject. Certainly, some aspects of the survey are lighhearted but it would be folly to dismiss or take lightly a survey which indicates such a drastic loss of supporters.

It astonishes me the amount of denial and apathy that exists on this subject. Certainly, some aspects of the survey are lighhearted but it would be folly to dismiss or take lightly a survey which indicates such a drastic loss of supporters.

given that 24 thousand people were interviewed how many were interview where? if the split was even between population then the survey could be accurate. remember, almost every person in sydney is going to say the swans. i don't put much credence in these stats.

given that 24 thousand people were interviewed how many were interview where? if the split was even between population then the survey could be accurate. remember, almost every person in sydney is going to say the swans. i don't put much credence in these stats.

I agree if you are going to have a proper survey in anything you have to ask everyone in australia i wasnt asked were you so how can any of it be accurate.

I agree if you are going to have a proper survey in anything you have to ask everyone in australia i wasnt asked were you so how can any of it be accurate.

you can make statistical observations- i mean thats how they do tv ratings and election polls however i think given the way footy is split (10 teams in vic and only 1 or 2 in each other city, these statistical things are a bit hard.

fwiw tho, i did like the one showing that collingwood fans shopped at dimmeys and forgers

you can make statistical observations- i mean thats how they do tv ratings and election polls however i think given the way footy is split (10 teams in vic and only 1 or 2 in each other city, these statistical things are a bit hard.

fwiw tho, i did like the one showing that collingwood fans shopped at dimmeys and forgers

I understand what your saying it just gives an indication on anything but not the whole picture if not everyone is asked.

Its like when they say 2000 people watched watever and i watched something else and they didnt ask me how can it be accurate.

I understand what your saying it just gives an indication on anything but not the whole picture if not everyone is asked.

Its like when they say 2000 people watched watever and i watched something else and they didnt ask me how can it be accurate.

In statistics, the greater the sample, the more accurate the data. The only question is whether the people who carried out the polling took a random sample. Roy Morgan Research is a reputable research agency and I therefore don't believe their data would be dodgy.

I agree if you are going to have a proper survey in anything you have to ask everyone in australia i wasnt asked were you so how can any of it be accurate.

So no surveys are of value?

So no surveys are of value?

I think they are of value but you cant read to much into them unless they ask everyone.

I look at things like they say whatever show on tv rated so hi and i didnt watch it but something else and if i ask 20 people did they watch it and they watched what i did and none of us were asked how can the stats be right maybe?

there is also a law in there somewhere that says you need to quadruple the sample size to double the accuracy. so they testing 24,000 ppl. to make it twice at accurate you need to now test 100,000, a hard task...

I think they are of value but you cant read to much into them unless they ask everyone.

I look at things like they say whatever show on tv rated so hi and i didnt watch it but something else and if i ask 20 people did they watch it and they watched what i did and none of us were asked how can the stats be right maybe?

Its not a federal election. Its a survey.

The key is to select a demographic or population base which defines the subject. Gear the questions so that they are not misleading and restrict response choices.. Avoid leading questions that suggest an answer.

This is Roy Morgan research. Not a backyard beat-up. But some of the content is amusing.

there is also a law in there somewhere that says you need to quadruple the sample size to double the accuracy. so they testing 24,000 ppl. to make it twice at accurate you need to now test 100,000, a hard task...

What law is that Deanox. Do they apply that to the field of medicine too? Just curious.

What law is that Deanox. Do they apply that to the field of medicine too? Just curious.

look my stats and math isnt my greatest strength but i just seem to recall when i was doing stats in first year...

a quick web search found this from the clinical trials centre at the university of hong kong...

"To estimate the proportion of having a certain disease in a population, Dr. Yip produced some tables to help us calculate the sample size to attain certain accuracy level. The lesson was "if you want accuracy you need to pay", roughly, to double your accuracy, you need to quadruple the sample size: so while you only need 100 patients to be 90% accurate, you would require 400 to be 95% positive and 10,000 patients to be 99% confident of your outcome."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:TUHXaF...lient=firefox-a

i think it seems to be a general law in stats...

not football related, but an interesting stats conundrum nonetheless...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem