#fcknikeOriginally Posted by the_butcher
#fcknike
I was almost going to ask for a rego form but there's no mention of a bum bag so I'll pass.
watch this space
What do Azzurri have against Android? Honestly it's this single-minded attitude that reaks from the FFA all the way down to Grassroots that is killing football in this country..
OK
How many home games in the last 5 years has your club not turned enough profit to cover those fees? Genuine question, and one that may offer some further insight into how sustainable it potentially could be.
OK
As Premy said though, at the end of the day if they're using all their money one way or the other on improvements and maintenance, programs, whatever - then subsidising rego with canteen income is only taking money away from these areas.
From memory Suburb have a pretty good setup club wise and no trouble with numbers, so it doesn't seem like there's too many issues with what they are charging to register and I suspect they aren't too worried about it either.
At CHUFC the last couple of years we've had to pay about $500 but factored into that was an amount for improvements to facilities and playing surface which we were all told about prior to rego. No one kicked up much of a stink, most people are happy to pay extra if there is transparency and the lads can see a benefit for the money.
Eradicating the compulsory insurance amount would go a long way to bringing costs down. An individual with adequate cover via medicare and private health should have no reason to stump up the extra. The policy we all go on is trash anyways.
Yeah the insurance is a joke and seriously needs to be looked at. Its honestly bordering on a rort.
My brother tried using it the season before last, and from memory its something like - you need to use all your sick and annual leave up first before they will start paying you for missed time at work. And they don't even match your wage anyway, its something like $400 or $500 a week (memory pretty sketchy on this). I believe for any medical expenses they are pretty useless and a massive hassle to deal with as well.
Get something worthwhile in place so its useful, or make it an optional thing (ie provide private health insurance details and you are exempt).
I've been through the same scenario and yes he's correct. Also cannot make claims on anything covered via your medicare and/or private health insurance. Which is basically everything..
Id happily sign a waiver if it were optional. Cannot stand paying for things twice. Unless it was a really good night..
Because the money raised from the canteen (and other areas) gets pumped straight back into facilities.
In the last 2 seasons we have undertaken;
- Relocation of the cricket pitch to allow the reorientation of the top field.
- Top dressing, fertilising and soil amendments to both pitches.
- Clearing/turfing/seating of top field hill
- New Goals both grounds
- funding for future drainage of the top field
If anyone has had look at our grounds this season, you would agree that what the club has been doing to the grounds is working.
So I guess if you have no ambitions to improve the facilities you could pump it all back into subsidising regos etc. We have a long term view as to where the club as a whole (we consider the Juniors and Seniors one club and we all work towards the same goals) is headed and what we need to do to get there.
Something NNSW have been pushing is that there is a component of the insurance fee that goes towards the Club Insurance. I don't know what the break down is with the fees as to how much goes to medical insurance and how much if public liability coverage to the clubs.
Apparently if they were to remove the medical insurance component, it wouldn't make a huge difference in rego as the Club Insurance is a large part of it.
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.
Well said Big Mac, about time someone started talking some sense around here
VERY common sense post buddy. Every club will have different goals
Fully agree man, I just offering some evidence that even when premy said it wasn't sensible/sustainable or sammydog stats it means your club isn't interested in facility improvement, it actually can be done. With all the talk of teams struggling for players and high rego being a factor this may help some clubs to change that
Surely nobody is surprised by this! Bahahahahaha
the draw now up on sportingpulse
Sunday 8 July at Furt Kearnley Field for Cooks Hill v Azzurri
Are you doing it rite? I claim my physio every year after my private rebate so it costs like $8 a visit. The Medicare gap bullshit sucks a big 1.
Posting Permissions
