we're only talking about the grant
so theres a limit to the numb of invoices that it will pay
the NRL could build in incentives into this system
if you only spend half your grant ... the balance is held over ... & this balance increased by 50 cents in the dollar
this will gives clubs the incentive to improve their business practises & increase their revenue ... so they spend less of their grant , & this sits there growing as a future fund for them so they can invest in any number of things .... or an emergency fund for them if a few lean years see their revenue drop for a while
True and fair points.
However, if the clubs want to exist as individual businesses, (not just effectively as "departments" within the NRL parent company), then they should all be allowed to prosper (or otherwise) on their own.
If a club has the ability to manage their finances well enough that they have money left over at the end of the year, then it should be sitting in THEIR bank accounts, not the NRL's trust. And the issue would still remain, that some clubs would simply over-spend. Would the NRL then extend their generosity to cover the shortfall, or would they just let the club die? If they did the latter, it would be claimed that the NRL - not the individual club - was responsible for the fiscal mismanagement, and the subsequent loss of that club. I can't see the NRL wanting to stick their neck on that particular chopping block, for fear of the potential bad press they would receive.
I'm also assuming here, but if the operational costs of the football team are currently being met by private backers and sponsors, ticketing and memberships etc, then all this cash would have to be taken AWAY from the club (in order for the NRL to manage those funds on behalf of the club).
If this all just goes effectively into a communal pool, with which the NRL intends to settle each clubs' operating costs, then surely there would be great animosity between clubs regarding the division of those funds. Some clubs who don't attract the same level of income as others, will inevitably argue for more of the available funds in order to gain some financial ground against the better performing clubs. Likewise, those "richer" clubs will never want THEIR sponsorship dollars going to anyone else.
And if it were just a case of the NRL holding on to what each respective club can earn, then all we've done is turn the NRL into a bank - only there to "hold the money". Any interest on these deposits should be going back to the club, not being swallowed by the NRL. The clubs would be better off (and I dare say, would PREFER) not being micro-managed by the NRL.
Like I said, if we want a competition where the clubs have no autonomy, then I'm sure this would work. But if clubs are to run their own affairs, make their own appointments, and find their own sponsors, (ie: run their own BUSINESSES) then having the NRL in charge of every cent can never work. There is simply no incentive for a club (as a business).
Your point, however, about incentives for NOT spending money IS a valid one. Much like if you or I make voluntary contributions to our super fund, we get a bonus from the federal government. Likewise, if clubs can show that they are investing WISELY, spending below a preset threshold, or generating additional income from internal initiatives (such as memberships) without the direct assistance of the NRL, then I see no harm in the NRL giving them a "bonus" in the same way - like you suggested, something like 50 cents in the dollar. This avenue (or something like it) should definitely be explored as a possible inclusion by the clubs in their licensing agreements. No argument from me on that front - this really WOULD be a proper, tangible incentive for a club to tighten their purse strings and control their cash reserves effectively.
