let's assume waita and auckland are run really really well. therefore, they get better players and more money. let's also assume that the other franchises are run ok, or just plain terribly. why are deserving of equality?
This is at the very heart of the issue reg22. I think you've got the logic wrong there. Waitak and Auckland don't have better players and get more money from pokies because they are run really well, they get better players and are run really well because they have more money.
There's this assumption that ACFC (and Waitak) have somehow hit on this brilliant business model and therefore their dominance is simple market economics. They are just reaping the rewards for doing things really well. But that's bullshit. All ACFC and Waitak are doing is writing lots of applications for pokie grants (the same as every other franchise is doing) but getting a much higher proportion of them approved - in ACFC's case almost without fail from a single trust over a long period of time. That is not about having a better business model or being run really well, it is just... well, let's be polite and call it lucky. It's also the complete antithesis of the kind of "work hard and be rewarded" ethic that you seem to think is in evidence here, it's actually a model based on receiving nanny-state style handouts. It certainly points to a major failing in the whole pokie grants system, one that the DIA seem to be aware of and are making moves to fix.
Now it wouldn't particularly matter how much money ACFC and Waitak have if it didn't then cause a major distortion in the competitiveness of the league, effectively making it a two-horse race that no-one south of the Bombay Hills is really interested in.
So the proposal to introduce an expenditure cap isn't about trying to punish ACFC and Waitak, or give other teams an unfair leg up, it's just a possible mechanism for creating a more competitive and interesting league.
ok termi, you've made a damn good case here, i can definitely see the validity of your point
but i will stand by my statement that the balance of the franchises, who have all contributed damaging periods of ineptitude, are as much to blame for their own dollar shortage as they are 'victims' of the 'luck' being experienced in auckland
i'll share with you a story of one franchise, who had approved funds for a specified two year project that they cancelled after one year with money owing to a vendor that they had to pay out. NZCT were not happy. this same franchise then
forgot to apply for what had become a fairly staple annual NZCT funding ration. one month from the start of the season and they had no cash and had to be bailed out by a charitable workings of a local business.
a very similar story was relayed to me by a board member of another franchise at about the same time