Duck and Dodge, evade the question. So if you were the bass, how would distribute the money. Use simple and small words for an idiot like me
Im only too happy to. I think you're smarter than you seem. I would also alter over-protective 'Independence' laws to allow people like Gorman or whoever, to at some point get on the commission, and I am interested in a club-council which at the behest of the ARLC works closely with the NRL (more official than they do at the moment) to form policy. Not in the executive, no way, that would be bad, but more like a House of Representatives sub-commitee, that can advise on matters. Its under full control of the ARLC, so they can dissolve it at any point, or even convene it, and of course the NRL would have its own functions towards it.
I would like to see closer ties. They already said they were meeting 4 times a year to get more communication happening, they should take it one step further.
I think with this funding deal most of the hard stuff will be out the way anyway.
please re read it, I didn't dodge it. I have written about this like 10 pages ago. I dont expect you to go back but its similar to what Smith suggested.
But that construct is useless without figures.
We can only do this is we know numbers. IF the players get a certain % of revenue, then the clubs should get a certain %.
is it 30% each? (500M *.25 = 25% is 7.8m cap over 16 teams + we will need 16M more for 2 teams expansion at this stage.....but also will need to increase cap perhaps to 500m *.3 is 30% = 9.3 over 16 clubs, and 18M at least for expansion at some point)
BUT how much? If the money was there I would be giving each club 10% more than the cap, easy. No problem. Then the next 20% (just say) I would be looking to specifically target areas of improvement. In fact, some clubs may never access this money (they may never need to in future) or they may be saving it up for a bigger payout (in consultation with the NRL of course).
But here is where I may differ. I have earmarked a 30% (just say) distribution fund. It grows yearly, so the less clubs use the better off they become... I would be giving some clubs more and some less year-to-year. Theres no way the broncos needs as much as St george or Wests, its 50m v 18m, just say, but being in the league they should be helped too, no doubt.
Over time I would make sure it evened out as much as possible, given the disparities to begin with. I would set up a median line and place clubs on it, and say ok, you guys are below the median so we can't have that. Its a constantly churning sea...
You may say, ok, you're below the median and look, you don't have a center of excellence, and its year 4 of the distribution fund so we have a large chunk for you. Or you're below the median and you have told us you want to improve your memberships as you see it as a driver for you, so here... ect.
In my mind, and I may be wrong, but IF a club is getting 5M now, but it saves 3M down the road (because they would always spend it on X) and gives some football improvement, I think thats a 2M saving overall even if it used 5M of the fund. It may be 500k spent saves 750k next year for some kind of operational thing, thats money the fund has saved.
Some of it is a gift, some of its a favor and some of it is credit. You can buy or loan or take credit out the fund. Its a very flexible fund.
Its the sports money.... but you should not have more than your fair share, given you are in a league. Its a central fund, after all. It should be making clubs more effective.
I want to be saving money for expansion. We need to find another 20M a year at least. Hopefully with such a system above they can maximise value for less money.
In the above there is no rainy day fund anymore, pretty much. At least its not adding to the existing fund if any is left. There will be losses the next two years as well. I dont know how large.
But to me the system above is prudent, maybe even effective.
