Some government jobs also have no direct equivalent in the private sector too - diplomats for instance. Another industry you would say is similar to the A League situation is the military - you could go work for a PMC in Iraq or Afghanistan but if you want to be a soldier in NZ there is only one employer.
http://www.navsec.co.nz/our-services/maritime-security/
Some government jobs also have no direct equivalent in the private sector too - diplomats for instance. Another industry you would say is similar to the A League situation is the military - you could go work for a PMC in Iraq or Afghanistan but if you want to be a soldier in NZ there is only one employer.
http://www.navsec.co.nz/our-services/maritime-security/
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
http://www.fourfourtwo.com/au/news/league-clubs-slam-door-player-pay-talks
How is that 30 percent calculated? (A)Each club puts 30% of their revenue into a pot, or (B) all revenue is put into a pot and 30% goes towards player payments (I assume this would be more difficult to manage than A)? And which would we prefer.
Not sure what our revenue is but would need to be AU$8.5million or more for us to be worse off in instance A (would cover the current cap at AU$2.55m, if our revenue is less we are likely paying more than 30% of revenue to players already)
Would have to guess the revenues of other HAL clubs for instance B, but we could be better off with clubs with higher revenues (MV) subsidising us.
I'd presume like in US Sports it would be Total Revenue. This means the Salary Cap is recalculated every year based on the projected revenue, and I believe in the case of the NFL (at least), that sometimes additional is added based on the previous year being higher than previously thought (Not sure on whether it is done the same if less :P), there is also a salary floor, meaning all clubs have to spend above a certain amount as well (I think this is over a four year cycle), it is set at 89% of the cap.
Now obviously the other clubs don't put the money into a pool to help those with less money, so having a couple of big clubs (MV, Sydney) having substantially more 'revenue' would actually make it worse for the smaller clubs as they would have to pay a salary cap equivalent to the average revenue while not getting any additional revenue. (Unless of course FFA just guaranteed each club the salary cap as they currently do out of the TV deal)