I think it's a bit premature to do a retrospective on a currant player - actually I don't think it's possible until ALL the dominoes set in motion by a trade have toppled, which sometimes is well after the player in question has retired.Originally Posted by Big Red
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
It has been a long while since a Membership only involved purchasing a seat for every home game for a season however. I've been a member since 2003 and even at that point there were several options that didn't involve 11 matches a season. So for the purposes of considering Buddy's time at the club, that probably isn't a significant factor that needs to be strongly considered - while there has been a bit more flexibility put into membership packs the last few years, the offering has not really substantially changed in broad terms (I.e. still a mix of full access memberships + ones with 3/5 games and some other random combos). The mixture of Memberships across categories would be interesting to see however, but needs a lot more data that simply isn't available (as far as I am aware) - i.e. what is the true 'value' to a club from having a member. An interesting question for another day!
The issue that needs further consideration is what is actually counted within membership tallies, and whether this has significantly changed in recent years. I have no idea what changes to definitions have been made post 2013 - the only mention I've seen (without doing a lot of looking!) is on here, where definitions were actually tightened a little http://www.footyindustry.com/?p=3997
I'd suggest the increase in numbers are too substantial based on historical trends to solely be explained by those types of factors, although they would of course play a part. And the question of 'value' to a club from a membership is an interesting one worthy of consideration if there was true access to the data needed. Its quite clear some teams absolutely smash it in terms of maximising value from memberships (look at West Coast's returns), and others don't - I suspect we are probably an underperformer compared to average in that space.
In broad terms, I think Memberships are a more reliable indicator by quite some distance compared to crowd numbers, but that doesn't in itself make them a wholly reliable measure. But its probably the best indicator we have in some regard too, and should have a reasonable correlation with the 'returns' the club have recieved in relation to off field impacts from recruiting Buddy.
Last edited by mcs; 27th September 2021 at 11:31 AM.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
+1 This is spot on......especially the last bit. We've had our papers stamped 'verboten'.
Thanks for your clarification mcs
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
It is a tricky business, figuring out membership data. I think you're right that information about how many of each type isn't publicly available or at least, very hard to come by.
The Swans Wikipedia page has a table with memberships and average home crowds. I do not know precisely how either are calculated or where the data comes from but hey, we can make a chart anyway. Crowds left, members right.
So home crowds essentially peak following the 1996 GF and since then have oscillated around, depending largely on finals performance. What's interesting to me is that members mirrors crowds, somewhat anyway, up to around 2011 and then absolutely take off. How much of that is due to differences in how they were counted, I do not know.
We can dig into crowds a bit deeper, looking at just SCG crowds and just home & away games.
Well, correlation is not causation. But I think we see rises associated with improved performance and finals success in 1987, the rise to 1996 and again from 2003-2006. Interesting though that 2012 was quite low. Certainly consistently high from 2014 onwards. How much is the star players (Capper, Plugger, Buddy), how much the performance improvements, how much are those things linked? Difficult questions.
It would be interesting to compare with other clubs of course, but I can't think of too many in recent times with so much focus on the signing of one star player as with Buddy. In my mind the only contemporary of similar stature / media interest is Dustin Martin but of course, he has never switched clubs.
Excellent as always Neilfws, knew you would find a few moments to take a look at it
I think there could be some really fascinating stories to be told about the Sydney sporting market if one had access to the right information about crowds/memberships etc. Certainly would be nice to do a bit of empirical testing to consider that question of causality and correlation.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
When were the SCG developments - the Hill/Trumper Stand conversion and then the rebuilding of the MA Noble? They impacted SCG capacity quite significantly and thus - probably - crowd sizes.
Trumper opened about 2008 didn't it, and Noble around 2014- so that would explain a fair chunk of the dips in those periods, especially I guess 2012 (can't remember when exactly they started construction of the new Noble stand.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
There's two sudden rises in membership and they coincide directly with two players arrival......Plugger and Buddy and the third smaller rise coincides with Barry Hall's recruitment. Crowd attendance fluctuations seem to, as you allude, coincide with improved season and finals performances but the membership rises seem directly related to the recruitment of a big name power forward. It's a good business model that doesn't always lead to the ultimate success. Of these three power forwards, only BBH has 'delivered' us a flag. It can also lead to cap squeeze, which makes retaining all the ingredients needed for success harder.It is a tricky business, figuring out membership data. I think you're right that information about how many of each type isn't publicly available or at least, very hard to come by.
The Swans Wikipedia page has a table with memberships and average home crowds. I do not know precisely how either are calculated or where the data comes from but hey, we can make a chart anyway. Crowds left, members right.
So home crowds essentially peak following the 1996 GF and since then have oscillated around, depending largely on finals performance. What's interesting to me is that members mirrors crowds, somewhat anyway, up to around 2011 and then absolutely take off. How much of that is due to differences in how they were counted, I do not know.
We can dig into crowds a bit deeper, looking at just SCG crowds and just home & away games.
Well, correlation is not causation. But I think we see rises associated with improved performance and finals success in 1987, the rise to 1996 and again from 2003-2006. Interesting though that 2012 was quite low. Certainly consistently high from 2014 onwards. How much is the star players (Capper, Plugger, Buddy), how much the performance improvements, how much are those things linked? Difficult questions.
It would be interesting to compare with other clubs of course, but I can't think of too many in recent times with so much focus on the signing of one star player as with Buddy. In my mind the only contemporary of similar stature / media interest is Dustin Martin but of course, he has never switched clubs.
We are well and truly established in Sydney now, so should maybe drop the need for a big name forward top prop up membership and concentrate on recruiting and retaining exactly what we need for the ultimate on field success.....flags. Let's face it, flags also bring in new members....everyone loves a winner! Having said that, I'm sure Buddy would have helped add to our flag tally if Mike Fitzpatrick and his Vic cronies hadn't been such a bunch of cheating manipulating ****s.
Last edited by stevoswan; 28th September 2021 at 02:12 PM.
In view of the financial benefits that accrue from his presence (thanks neilfws & mcs) perhaps we should stop Buddy from retiring even after his on field contributions aren't up to it? He didn't make a huge contribution on field in 2020, but we didn't lose much in the way of memberships.
A sort of emeritus place on the list.
Loose translation from the Latin is - I am tall, so I hit out.
Professors Lockett and Franklin
There was this relatively enjoyable advertising campaign back in the day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtnVWhMY6G4
The broader question of what happens when Buddy leaves will be really interesting - will there be a downturn, or will we have converted most of those additional members that we postulate he may have created into 'diehards'. Probably a combo of both
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks