With little apparent opportunity to attend games, I cancelled membership for this year and took the 75% refund. Didn't see the need to donate given that the Swans owners have plenty of money to fund it themselves.
With little apparent opportunity to attend games, I cancelled membership for this year and took the 75% refund. Didn't see the need to donate given that the Swans owners have plenty of money to fund it themselves.
Tom Harley said last week that the club has been really delighted at the level of loyalty among members. Of the people who were paid up members they expected 55% to retain their memberships and not seek refunds. In fact, 93% of members have not sought refunds. I have no idea what differences in breakdown there are for 11 game v 3 game memberships. Anyway that's pretty impressive.
I bear no hard feelings to anyone who sought a refund, for whatever reason. I didn't seek a refund and was glad to offer some support, but I do see the Swans as a corporate enterprise, indeed - as Harley put it (depressingly) - we are a "subsidiary of the AFL".
I also think it makes perfect sense that members who have paid to attend all home games be given first dibs on the ballot, despite the imbalance for wealth. Once the numbers permitted are big enough, then I think it's a nice idea to preference 3 game members who are essential health workers etc over other 3 game members. I don't really see a case for preferencing people on JobSeeker/Keeper.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Anyone know when the winners of the ballot are notified?
Unless things have changed in recent years, I wonder how one would know what was said at the time if one wasn't a member of the club? Hopefully things have changed from arguments in this space previously and that comment is now spurious - but I have my suspicions it probably is not.
It was made pretty clear there would be additional benefits to that group of members that chose to pledge their 100%. There was no understanding at that stage that there was any likelihood of a very limited crowd scenario at all however - so its a bit harsh to criticise on that basis when at that point in time, no one had any idea what the next few months would look like. Indeed, if footy would even be back at all, let alone some form of limited crowd attendance requiring ballots.
I know of at least 4 different people that I know who are members of AFL clubs that have lost their jobs as such and had to rely on job keeper/seeker in some form, yet every single one of them has kept their memberships for their respective clubs (only 1 of those 4 are swans members). It may appear on paper to be a luxury item, but for many they'll be 6 foot under before they give their membership to their footy club - even if it means giving up other things in the process.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
What was the clear message from the club?
Covid lockdown has had a disproportionate impact on some people compared to others. Some have thrived, some have suffered.
Some people may think they deserve it more, but when you've lost everything else, some people need it more.
Odd comment about the guy on jobkeeper keeping 100%. Basically, the government is paying for his membership. Lol.
I went the 60% option (ie, got 40% refunded) on the basis that I assumed there would be little football and that a fair swag of the club's costs must be variable per match day. I have no issue with those who contributed 100% getting first dibs; entirely appropriate from my perspective.
Well one thing is clear then - as I suspected, you aren't a member of the club. So I find it astounding your willing to make such detailed comments on the approach of the club on this matter when it doesn't impact you one iota.
There was nothing odd about mentioning that several people I know chose to not seek a refund on their membership. Funnily enough:
1) not everyone pays by the month (i.e. many still pay in advance) - perhaps they don't do upfront payments for ANZ Stadium memberships anymore?
2) its their money to spend as they please. Where it comes from is neither your mine business.
And all of those examples the people involved have been substantially impacted by the covid-19 fallout. It doesn't mean they aren't allowed to prioritise what funds they have and spend them as they see fit. Or do you think holding a footy membership should be banned for someone that has to rely on Government in any form?
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Here we go again. I'm genuinely interested in "What was the clear message from the club"?
I do not have the message in my inbox anymore - but as I said earlier, it was made very clear that there would be additional benefits provided to those who did choose to pledge their membership amount irrespective of whether football came back or not this season. As I said, that fact was made very clear upfront - beyond saying that, I do nott know how they were meant to predict what footy would look like when it came back, and hence what said benefits may be should they come to fruition beyond those basic things they were doing during lockdown (extra videos, messages and other random stuff).
But as always, you seem to have a crystal ball on how everything should be....
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
As usual, you've got nothing. That's why I don't engage with you.
Bookmarks