Team Wellington... no longer an association with Ole. Chur

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.

If you, tomorrow, cut the amount that ACFC and Waitakere spent by 25% how would that improve the league?  

It's not going to make the players that Otago have any better.  It's not going to make the players that ACFC have any worse.  I don't see frankly how you close the gap unless you focus on improving from the bottom up.  

You say you're not trying to penalise the top 2 - but really you are.  Cutting their "expenditure" doesn't change anything unless you find a way to improve the teams in Otago etc.  Considering that in the majority of players throughout the ASBP are drawn from the local pool of talent (give or take a few top players who switch from time to time) - and there just happens to be a shit load more good football players in Auckland than in Otago, unless you want them to start buying in players from Auckland or overseas (which I'm guessing you don't considering that seems to be your problem with Auckland), this changes nothing.  

Personally I think adding 2 new teams in Auckland would do a lot more to spread the talent than cutting the amount the top 2 are allowed to spend.  

I do question how you can say that there is no difference in the way different franchises are run unless you've been involved.  I think it is fair to ask, have you?

If you, tomorrow, cut the amount that ACFC and Waitakere spent by 25% how would that improve the league?  

It's not going to make the players that Otago have any better.  It's not going to make the players that ACFC have any worse.  I don't see frankly how you close the gap unless you focus on improving from the bottom up.  

You say you're not trying to penalise the top 2 - but really you are.  Cutting their "expenditure" doesn't change anything unless you find a way to improve the teams in Otago etc.  Considering that in the majority of players throughout the ASBP are drawn from the local pool of talent (give or take a few top players who switch from time to time) - and there just happens to be a shit load more good football players in Auckland than in Otago, unless you want them to start buying in players from Auckland or overseas (which I'm guessing you don't considering that seems to be your problem with Auckland), this changes nothing.  

Personally I think adding 2 new teams in Auckland would do a lot more to spread the talent than cutting the amount the top 2 are allowed to spend.  

I do question how you can say that there is no difference in the way different franchises are run unless you've been involved.  I think it is fair to ask, have you?

If you, tomorrow, cut the amount that ACFC and Waitakere spent by 25% how would that improve the league?  

I don't see frankly how you close the gap unless you focus on improving from the bottom up.  

I do question how you can say that there is no difference in the way different franchises are run unless you've been involved.  I think it is fair to ask, have you?

But it would never be implemented in the simplistic way you’ve described. For starters, you would give every team the same expenditure budget, not arbitrarily cut a % from the top two. I also think it would work best married up with a mechanism to centralise the acquisition of grant funding for the entire league. And you’re dead right - another franchise or two in Auckland would do a lot to rebalance the talent in a way that doesn’t place unreasonable expectations on players to move. That’s a great example of where an expenditure cap would be valuable - by stopping an inflationary bidding war in Auckland using pokie money.

Sure, the implementation requires some thought but the principle remains very simple. Like every other salary-capped league in the world by giving everyone roughly the same amount to spend you level the playing field and create a more competitive, interesting and engaging competition. But yes, it would not work in isolation (although I don’t think I’ve ever argued for that).

If ACFC and Waitakere were actually generating any significant revenues of their own (gate receipts, commercial sponsorships etc) I might even have a different view. But the fact is they aren’t. Our national league is largely funded by pokie money, which creates all sorts of issues. One of the biggest ones is that it is grossly distorting the competitiveness of the league. The ability to attract pokie money simply should not be a factor in whether a team is successful or not in our national football league, and yet it is probably the single biggest factor. It’s ludicrous! If we have to have pokie money in the sport then we should at least make sure it is used equitably.

But it would never be implemented in the simplistic way you’ve described. For starters, you would give every team the same expenditure budget, not arbitrarily cut a % from the top two. I also think it would work best married up with a mechanism to centralise the acquisition of grant funding for the entire league. And you’re dead right - another franchise or two in Auckland would do a lot to rebalance the talent in a way that doesn’t place unreasonable expectations on players to move. That’s a great example of where an expenditure cap would be valuable - by stopping an inflationary bidding war in Auckland using pokie money.

Sure, the implementation requires some thought but the principle remains very simple. Like every other salary-capped league in the world by giving everyone roughly the same amount to spend you level the playing field and create a more competitive, interesting and engaging competition. But yes, it would not work in isolation (although I don’t think I’ve ever argued for that).

If ACFC and Waitakere were actually generating any significant revenues of their own (gate receipts, commercial sponsorships etc) I might even have a different view. But the fact is they aren’t. Our national league is largely funded by pokie money, which creates all sorts of issues. One of the biggest ones is that it is grossly distorting the competitiveness of the league. The ability to attract pokie money simply should not be a factor in whether a team is successful or not in our national football league, and yet it is probably the single biggest factor. It’s ludicrous! If we have to have pokie money in the sport then we should at least make sure it is used equitably.

Strong retort, alireggae. I am 100% completely on your side of the ledger now, terminator should stop coming in here with his crude attempts at making common sense and logical arguments, he should just resort to sitting back and gazing at the majestic Auckland City and their trophy cabinet.

In this communist state league that you are proposing, how do you account for the expenses incurred by the teams that compete in the OFC Champions League such as flights, accommodation etc? And for that matter the winner of the OFC Champions League expenses incurred in the CWC?

Ali - your last few responses have been brilliant. Well done.

As I've pointed out a couple of times already relying on annual handouts of $500k from a gaming trust is about as socialist as it gets my friend.

If ACFC work out a way to receive the Domestic Purposes Benefit am I meant to applaud that as a great piece of business too?

If you are too stupid to figure out that its a serious discussion that we are having and you have a chance to have your say (or in fact answer the question which you never do) then they have labels for people like you.

Troll.

General ASB

Great, so I'll miss them too. 

Well then Tegal - you are just as much a bandwagon-ing, plastic Aussie supporting c*nt as I am.

Actually no. On second thoughts I am more of a c*nt than you.  I'm sure of it.

TV @ Bencher?

TeeDubs good in parts today.  Kayara looks useful.  Positive signs.

3-1 win I'm told. Could have been 10.

Well then Tegal - you are just as much a bandwagon-ing, plastic Aussie supporting c*nt as I am.

Actually no. On second thoughts I am more of a c*nt than you.  I'm sure of it.