Quote Originally Posted by Bulldogs 1962 View Post
Your comments would suggest that if a club subsidises rego, it can't improve facilities.

Over the past few seasons Barnsley have had drainage installed, purchased new goals, undertaken turf replacement, top soil and fertilising of the fields, had seating repaired/ replaced/ added, coaching causes paid for and many other incidental improvements.

And all this whilst using canteen takings to pay the refs to assist with keeping rego as low as possible.
While I commend you and your club on their hard work, what is the point of this discussion?

Its pretty easy to see that its a zero sum game - whatever income you generate (canteen, rego fees, sponsorships) goes to whatever costs you have plus whatever's left over (or vice versa). You have choices as to how much you want to levy players signing up, and have choices as to how much optional spending you do (infrastructure, facilities, courses etc). You still have to balance the books out at the end of the day.

At the end of the day, clubs heavily subsidising rego costs should view it as it is - an expenditure. Either you have extra income to cover it, or you have less available funds for other expenditures. I'm not saying its a good or bad choice either, and each club will be different. As seen from some of the others posts here, some clubs openly state they are levying for investment in facilities and players have no issue, while others are running low regos for whatever reasons, presumably to be more attractive to players / show of faith in returning players.