Reds 2016

[Braveheart81]

That's a bit similar to the big bad piracy figures that movie studios bring out on "lost sales". Would all 300 PGM's buy yearly Ruby or Platinum memberships or would only a small percentage?

It was an easy enough argument for the Administration to make a couple years ago when membership was in demand, but with the consistent years of poor rugby, I don't think they can tout out those outlandish figures any more. The supply has stayed the same, but the demand has dramatically fallen away.

That's not really what was meant.

The question is how many of those fans would pay for an annual membership if they were charged for one (i.e. to continue sitting in the best seats in the house).

it shouldn't be a financial decision.
It's a moral issue.
the Reds were desperate for cash,they offered a lifetime of best seats in the house.
Now that things are no longer desperate,they are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.
That's the issue.

I just don't think it's unreasonable or unrealistic to ask those fans who whilst were loyal supporters of the team back when they played far less games a year to either not take up the best seats available or start contributing financially again.

How many other "life memberships" to various clubs and organisations didn't originally require a yearly payment and now do. I'd guess a lot.

These perpetual members have been given an extraordinary run considering they are now watching a professional team that effectively didn't exist at a stadium that the old team didn't play at for a number of matches a year that would be significantly higher than they could previously see.

 

[Sully]

I did a little research for the podcast tonight before I suckers SuckerforRed into doing it. Crowd figures are starting to look grim.

Also of note is the for and against figures. The Reds have made an attempt at fixing the for by employing Matt O'Connor but Richard Graham is still in charge of defence and over 27 points a game leaked isn't a pretty number. This year in the two trials we let in 31 points a game.

 

[RugbyReg]

it shouldn't be a financial decision.
It's a moral issue.
the Reds were desperate for cash,they offered a lifetime of best seats in the house.
Now that things are no longer desperate,they are refusing to hold up their end of the deal.
That's the issue.

It was more they were building a grand stand at Ballymore and offered people to buy seats to watch all rugby games. At Ballymore.

Because the majority who bought seats were judges and lawyers, a stink was kicked when the Reds (and Wallabies) started to move games to Suncorp.

 

[Braveheart81]

The sense of entitlement from these people that think they need to continue to be fawned over by the Reds after so many years because they handed over a decent amount of money many years ago is amazing.

 

[I like to watch]

It was more they were building a grand stand at Ballymore and offered people to buy seats to watch all rugby games. At Ballymore.

Because the majority who bought seats were judges and lawyers, a stink was kicked when the Reds (and Wallabies) started to move games to Suncorp.

were they Reds memberships or Ballymore memberships?
The Reds admin have treated them as though they were Reds memberships for the twenty odd years they have been at Suncorp.
so by their behaviour,they have accepted these memberships were not restricted to Ballymore.
so,if they had a case once,they don't anymore.
They are wasting time,money and reputation defending this action.

 

[RugbyReg]

Perpetual GROUND Memberships.

They aren't defending anything. The PGMs are still getting seats at Suncorp. And Ballymore for that matter. Well, those that are still alive. Those that have passed, well their kids get them now.

 

[I like to watch]

Oh really?
That's totally opposite to what I understood.
Then fuck them.
Go your hardest Reds!

 

[Braveheart81]

Doing a little more reading into it, it also seems like they then get passed down to grandchildren.

The fact that no one at the QRU decided to challenge it in the past is in no way a reason they shouldn't decide to question it now.

This is a liability that could exist for a long time still and why should those people be favoured over members who are actually paying for the best seats each year?

 

[Scrubber2050]

Jeez - let the games (rugby) begin

 

[Sully]

Jeez - let the games (rugby) begin

NO! this is much more interesting than Reds rugby.

 

[suckerforred]

So, What are our chances this weekend? Loss >50, 30-50, 10-30 or <10?

 

[gel]

I did a little research for the podcast tonight before I suckers SuckerforRed into doing it. Crowd figures are starting to look grim.

Also of note is the for and against figures. The Reds have made an attempt at fixing the for by employing Matt O'Connor but Richard Graham is still in charge of defence and over 27 points a game leaked isn't a pretty number. This year in the two trials we let in 31 points a game.

RG was defence coach in 2013 and 2014 (some other guy was for 2015).

The reds defence went from pretty decent to utterly diabolical in the space of one off season under what are presumably the same patterns. It can't be just the mixing of the head coach role with defence - particularly if part of the coaching review suggested that the reds employ that very model again for this year.

 

[TOCC]

That's a bit similar to the big bad piracy figures that movie studios bring out on "lost sales". Would all 300 PGM's buy yearly Ruby or Platinum memberships or would only a small percentage?

Is it though? Movie studios aren't limited by capacity constraints whereas there is a limit to the number of Ruby seats on offer. Those 300 seats are seats which can't be sold and the QRU have to provide each season, if the QRU decide to increase the match day experience for ruby seats, which incurs and additional $10/customer per game overhead, then that's $3000 a game or $24'000 expenditure on PGM's a season that the QRU have to absorb for no increase in revenue.

One argument might be that you could just expand the number of Ruby seats, but then you have the issue of reclassifying existing Platinum seats with a 100% mark up, so customers who had had the same seat for years and pay annual fees are faced with a 100% increase to retain the same seat.

I think the issue is that the QRU of the 1960's sold a product without quite understanding where the match day experience was heading or any ideas of the increase in the cost stadium hire, and that's now a $300,000 annual liability that the current administration has to pay, and they're trying to reduce this by moving the PGM's to platinum seating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sully]

2014 was worse than 2015 which was still horrible.

 

[Braveheart81]

and they're trying to reduce this by moving the PGM's to platinum seating.

They're also giving a group of people who on average are probably fairly wealthy an incentive to start contributing financially to the club again.

 

[TOCC]

They're also giving a group of people who on average are probably fairly wealthy an incentive to start contributing financially to the club again.

Yes, In hindsight when they made the move from Ballymore, they should have stipulated that those members will continue to receive PGM at Ballymore but they will only receive it at Suncorp for the first 5 or 10 years following the move, following which they would have to pay. I don't think that would have been unreasonable, although I'm not holding a PGM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugrat]

So how many wins this season for the Reds is a pass mark for the coach and administration. Heard a lot with RG re appointment and since about re building etc. I reckon 3 wins will be achieved hope it's a lot more but keen to hear views on what is a pass mark for Dick.

 

[Sully]

So how many wins this season for the Reds is a pass mark for the coach and administration. Heard a lot with RG re appointment and since about re building etc. I reckon 3 wins will be achieved hope it's a lot more but keen to hear views on what is a pass mark for Dick.

A mate said one of the newspapers predicted 6 wins for the season.

 

[Rugrat]

A mate said one of the newspapers predicted 6 wins for the season.

Six is very optimistic, will improve RG current win ratio so if true that might be seen as pass mark for RG. ( by some not me)I predict wins v sunwolves, force and cheeters. Rebels, Brumbies and Warrataghs look strong in trials and 2 games in SA tough. Kiwi teams will be gunning for maximum competition points in games against the Reds. To get 6 wins looking at draw and trial performances I think I would bet against that.

 

[redstragic]

6 is a lot, that's a 100% improvement on 2015. A couple of injuries and we are stuffed.

A winning season is like 8 wins?. we need that, we'll get 3 or 4 I reckon.