TOPIC:

I guess like most things in life, folk can spin it anyway they want.....Bromage obviously see's those figures in a different light, to a few folk on here.....people see what they want to see.....each to their own....much like TFAF would see that Perth penalty decision....and all his Perth cohorts.

royallucky wrote:

Custodian wrote:

Generally a positive and optimistic evening.
Certainly a bigger crowd than recent AGM’s.

Financially EFFC had an operational loss of $17000. This result was offset by the $160000 first instalment of the government’s $340000 assistance package. Otherwise the loss would have been $177000. 

The state government contribution would be used for a new electronic video scoreboard and for works associated with moving into the new premises.

Adrian Bromage dispelled some of the angst surrounding the ‘no fence’ issue by explaining that gate takings since the decline of the WAFL in recent decades average about 2.4% of the club’s annual income. This loss of income would be offset by not having to pay for any maintenance, utilities etc under the new lease agreement. 

The 2.4% figure of the clubs annual income for gate takings doesn’t add up.If you have a very conservative figure of an average of 1000 spectators for your 9 home games at $20 a throw,that’s 180K,so for that 2.4% figure to be correct,the club would have to have an annual income of around 8 million???

Depends on how they’ve calculated it.

From those figures I’d suggest they’ve only included the match day walk up gate payments and have excluded members with included home game access along with sponsors and guests attending match day functions that entry is also included. 

For an attendance of 1500 you’d be lucky to have 200-300 pay at the gate. 


 

 

Tiger Tales wrote:

royallucky wrote:

Custodian wrote:

Generally a positive and optimistic evening.
Certainly a bigger crowd than recent AGM’s.

Financially EFFC had an operational loss of $17000. This result was offset by the $160000 first instalment of the government’s $340000 assistance package. Otherwise the loss would have been $177000. 

The state government contribution would be used for a new electronic video scoreboard and for works associated with moving into the new premises.

Adrian Bromage dispelled some of the angst surrounding the ‘no fence’ issue by explaining that gate takings since the decline of the WAFL in recent decades average about 2.4% of the club’s annual income. This loss of income would be offset by not having to pay for any maintenance, utilities etc under the new lease agreement. 

The 2.4% figure of the clubs annual income for gate takings doesn’t add up.If you have a very conservative figure of an average of 1000 spectators for your 9 home games at $20 a throw,that’s 180K,so for that 2.4% figure to be correct,the club would have to have an annual income of around 8 million???

Depends on how they’ve calculated it.

From those figures I’d suggest they’ve only included the match day walk up gate payments and have excluded members with included home game access along with sponsors and guests attending match day functions that entry is also included. 

For an attendance of 1500 you’d be lucky to have 200-300 pay at the gate. 


 

I can't believe that only 2 to 3 hundred are paying at the gate on match day,even by Claremont standards.I still see volunteers manning the turnstiles at Leederville even during the 3rd quarter.

TT I’ve just looked into the 2022 East Perth financial report,which does indeed say that we only took 53500 in gate receipts,so those paying spectator estimates you’ve given must be on the money.

royallucky wrote:

TT I’ve just looked into the 2022 East Perth financial report,which does indeed say that we only took 53500 in gate receipts,so those paying spectator estimates you’ve given must be on the money.

Yeah its not many -  most would be opposition supporters, family and friends. 

Derbies being the only outlier as they still pull reasonable numbers of casual spectators. Highlights the sad state of WAFL footy and how poorly it is promoted by the WAFC. 

It makes the fenceless Shark Park an interesting case study for the WAFL. Will more spectators turn up, but on the flip side will EF membership numbers decline if you don't have to pay to get in? If it makes it a cheaper day out for families and that generates more long term supporters then hopefully EF are onto a winner.

Clearly the EF Board and Admin feel like they are already in front with the agreement by reducing their operational costs. 

Tiger Tales wrote:

royallucky wrote:

TT I’ve just looked into the 2022 East Perth financial report,which does indeed say that we only took 53500 in gate receipts,so those paying spectator estimates you’ve given must be on the money.

Yeah its not many -  most would be opposition supporters, family and friends. 

Derbies being the only outlier as they still pull reasonable numbers of casual spectators. Highlights the sad state of WAFL footy and how poorly it is promoted by the WAFC. 

It makes the fenceless Shark Park an interesting case study for the WAFL. Will more spectators turn up, but on the flip side will EF membership numbers decline if you don't have to pay to get in? If it makes it a cheaper day out for families and that generates more long term supporters then hopefully EF are onto a winner.

Clearly the EF Board and Admin feel like they are already in front with the agreement by reducing their operational costs. 

I hope it's a failure because it will be a sad day when attendances are not recorded in the WAFL. I know we often question the accuracy but I think it's important to know how attendances are trending.