Discussion in 'Central Coast Mariners FC' started by Shaun Mielekamp, Oct 2, 2015.
@pjennings , I'm interested to know what part you disagree with and hear your point of view.
Sorry - I don't disagree - I just suffer from fat finger syndrome.
Nah mate can't back down now!
"higher membership" A successful team will improve this. ie; spend money to make money.
"higher matchday crowds" A successful team will improve this. ie; spend money to make money.
"transfer fees" A successful team will improve this. ie; spend money to make money.
Mediocrity get's us, the team/club and MC nowhere.
Agreed. Run us properly or sell us.
To who Celtic? Become another colonial marketing exercise.
Without Charlesworth I highly doubt the Mariners exist and if we did we become a foreign club's pale imitation.
We are a pale imitation of the Mariners pre-Pikey.
Maybe I’m just missing something, but I really do fail to see a downside of Celtic ownership.
What's that? A team on the way to financial oblivion with a side order of toilet seat? We'd be the most successful team that no longer exists.
I think it's just loss of identity and ethos
If Celtic aren't willing to compromise, like CFG weren't with Heart fans, then the Mariners are gone. It's not the Mariners anymore just Central Coast Celtic.
Hmmm, is this actually the truth though?
- Our membership is higher now than at any point previously - success doesn't seem to be exclusively why people join as a CCM member.
- While winning certainly can help crowds I think a player of (current) prominence is probably more important to attract interest.
- with no sure return on investment and millions already lost on the club, why would he keep putting good money after bad?
Would be good to see some actual numbers - maybe it works out that you won't get your money back - on big name players/marquees etc - even if you pack out the stadium every week?
Depends how a marquee is financed - didn't we get sponsors to help out with Garcia?
Members numbers. Let's not forget that every kid who plays football on the Central Coast qualifies for a membership. Cost $15 or $20 (I can't remember). Then there are 3 and 6 game passes.
To get an accurate view of how we're going we'd really need to see a breakdown of the figures.
The day after Garcia made his debut for us I was doing a BBQ at Bunnings. I would have spoken to a dozen or more people with Mariners shirts on.
Only one had been to the game. The general consensus was that he'd be playing at most of the other home games and they could see him then.
As much as I hate to say it, it's better for the Mariners if other teams have marquees playing. That way they only show up at Gosford once (usually) a season. Unless they're injured of course.
I’d say spending is still on hold until the new deal is worked out with FFA. Haven’t heard anything about that for a while. There is fighting on so many fronts.
yeah I get that, I can see how if Celtic does purchase and then decides to change name and colours, thats a bit shit (who can say if they will or not, they are a club originally founded to for charity, not just wankers in sky blue ((re: all wankers wear sky blue)).
They seem to be keen on player development though, and loan out a lot of youth players (11 last season) in order to bridge the gap between their acadamy and first team. The potential for some of those players to be blooded in the a-league, playing exciting and tough scottish football. That seems like more potential for success than what is currently on the table.
That player development goes both ways for the mariners, allowing talented australian youth who are keen to play overseas a chance to break through. Every talented youth player would be frothing to come to the coast. What other option is there? try and get signed by man city, think you have, get all excited, then end up being loaned out to f**ken melbourne?
Celtic is also financially stable (re: f**king loaded), ranked consistently in the top 60 wealthiest football clubs in the world. IF they purchase a club, they would see it as an investment and spend accordingly. Worst case scenario they don't spend? well that's a shit investment for them and, we are left in the same situation as we are now.
it seems like there hasn't been any news on this, and it would be great if there was an update from anyone in the know.
Alot of the 7000 members are 3 game season posers.
My son hasnt been once this season (full membership) but his thankfully his membership has been in constant use with friends and staff!
The young kids simply havent engaged because we are shit and not worth the effort. The Mariners used to be a cool start to the evening but losers are too be avoided in the eyes of the young.
. I'll echo what others have said (and some of us have been saying for years) - the break-up of members is important ... seemingly more so to us than the Club
. to me it just shows that people are being smarter about how they spend their money, many of which may increase member numbers but show no change in attendance numbers or revenue (perhaps even decreases), for example:
the kids memberships mentioned above - i can see parents grabbing these as a value option but only actually attending the odd game
people downgrading from a full membership to 3 or 6 game
casuals or former members grabbing a 3 or 6 game in lieu of buying at the gate
people moving away and perhaps grabbing a non-ticketed membership or home & away membership
people buying a membership but still not attending games (also mentioned above ... and I can verify the same)
. I have to believe that success would see attendances increase in all of these - the general dis-interest towards support articulated on this forum recently is another indicator of how important success is in driving numbers ... at the game, watching the game and membership decisions
. I also recall Shaun mentioning on the podcast that members were opting for a lesser membership. At the time he was using it to rally against the draw (I think) but that is a convenient excuse that suited the argument at the time
. so my view is that while the membership pool may have grown (as it needs to) it may not have brought the 'rewards' the majority would typically associate with such growth in the membership numbers
. I don't necessarily think that a marquee is what is needed/useful or necessarily what people are asking for
. the real question is ... and I have been asking this for years now ... at what point does 'saving money' become a false economy ... whereby you actually lose more than you think you are saving
. I thought the intention was to spend the cap this year regardless of the TV deal so to hear otherwise is disappointing but also illustrative. imagine where we would be now if the front third had delivered another 10 goals? could we have achieved this by spending the cap (investing more in the front third)?
Separate names with a comma.