My last blog made me think a wee bit.  I was looking at The Trust Community Trust and where their money went.  In the course of this, I looked at the relationship they have with a few of the licensing trusts in Auckland, and thought that deserved a bit more of a look.  And of course the Sunday Star Times looked at this in 2011.  Now, I’m not an accountant, but can fumble my way around a set of financials – although to be honest, the accounts I could find are not that flash in terms of disclosure.

I looked at the Invercargill Licensing Trust a few months ago.  http://www.delfi.co.nz/blog/dabbling-in-the-funding-ecosystem .  Their annual report states they have total assets of $87.8 million.  From that, they made a net profit after tax of $5.6million: $4m came back to the community through grants, and the balance was reinvested in the business.  So this makes a 6% return after tax, with 4.5% coming back to the community. In addition, they generated $4m from their gaming trusts, which are run through their venues. 

Now, Portage and Waitakere Licensing Trusts are based in West Auckland.  Between them they have total assets of $41.7 million.  From those assets, they generated a net after tax profit of $4.3m. In both cases, the Trusts’ cash has gone up, by a total of $4.6m.

Now, a 10% return on total assets is pretty good I would have thought.  And if this was Invercargill, that funding would have gone out into the community.  In the Auckland case, the funds sit within the current assets of the business.

“Giving back” is an important facet of the proposition of the West Auckland licensing trusts.  This year, they have done this via a tool kit into every home in the region.  Last year, according to the website, it was smoke alarms.  Now, while a free gift is a lovely idea, its possibly not quite what the residents had in mind when they set these trusts up.  What would I do with a new smoke alarm? Tool kit? Land fill I am afraid. 

They also list sponsorships, grants donations and rebates to the community as ways they give back.  There are some examples listed, such as the Mystics, but sadly the accounts give no insight as to what the dollar amount of this actually is.  Indeed, looking through one recipient, Waitakere City Stadium Trust (The Trusts Stadium) I checked out their latest accounts: it looks like there is no money from with Licensing Trust: rather there is a $200k grant from TTCF, and undisclosed naming rights from West Auckland Trust Services Ltd, who have a management contract between both Trusts (and no disclosed financials). To me at least, naming rights are not a grant, so cannot be considered as “giving back”.  As many of you know, there are (or should be) commercial benefits in naming rights.  The other thing: this information was imparted through the section on Related Party transactions. 

So to me, it looks like not much has changed since 2011 when SST did its review of the Trusts operations.  All the grant money comes from pokies, none (to speak of) comes from alcohol sales. If they distributed the same amount as ILT, then we should expect around a $2m contribution to the community through grants. Were the Licensing Trusts not in place, then of course those venues would operate pokies, which are legally obliged to return profits to the local community.

What this does is highlights to me why we need to look more closely at those funding our local community groups, and not get caught up in a halo effect around the good they purport to do.

And while on that subject: submissions to DIA for the Class 4 review closed on Friday.  I learnt something new as I did my submission: click here if you want to have a gander at this.

Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

You might have seen a big newspaper ad for The Trusts Community Trust Foundation’s distributions a few weeks ago.  They were publishing their grants from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.  And I’ve done my nerdy little thing to look at where their money has gone.  Its quite interesting… the charitable purposes they can apply funds to are very wide ranging, so this profile is quite different from some of the other pokies. 

These guys do give money to a variety of organisations across the board, including about 8% of last year’s money to the Environment!  This is surprising: you may recall that in Canterbury, Environment only receives 1% of total grant money.

Of course there is the ubiquitous sport: sport received 26% of the total funds.  Not as much as the others of course. 

This challenges an assumption I had made about the sector: that venues were keen to support sport through their pokie take, as saw giving to sport as a way to pull in customers.   This suggests that where the money goes to is perhaps a little less important to venues than I had assumed. 

So where in New Zealand did the funds come from?  Well, of course they are skewed by where the money was raised.  Just over 80% of the money has come from Auckland.  They have 54 venues, 18 of which are in Auckland, which I guess shows how much is put through those Auckland venues. 

Just a wee hmmm moment: there was $1.1 million come in from Auckland venues in Onehunga and Henderson.  Of that, some $184k has gone to trotting clubs – clubs from Auckland, through to Hamilton ($56,000!), to Oamaru and Rangiora.  Harness Racing Waikato have their 2014 financials up on the internet: grants made up over $1m of revenue (28% of total revenue), up almost $1m from the prior year.  And you might ask where that was spent: well, stakes rose $1.4m.

Now, forgive me if I’m wrong, but where is the line here between charitable purposes and propping up an industry?  And just wondering if the good people of Onehunga and Henderson have no other needs for those funds?

And another: Plunket car seats.  I see that Plunket is actually phasing this service out.  Yet last year TTCF donated $350,000 to RNZPS Waitemata… in 2014 the total book value of these assets at this branch was $20k.  And other Plunkets were told not to fund raise for these assets.  It will be interesting to see what happens to these assets once the car seats are wound up.  And it seems like a grant out of kilter with previous years… they received a total of 69k in 2013 and 68k in 2014.  So how come the huge investment in an obsolete service line?

TTCF seem like one of the good pokies, in that they provide funding across the spectrum of NFP.  And its marvellous to see that they use publicly elected officials, those in the Licensing Trust roles, to support them in making decisions about where grants go.  That said, there has been some media comment about the relationships between those elected officials.  But as far as diversity goes... well, the same comment as last time… as far as the organisation goes, it does seem to be very male dominant.

Of course the Class 4 consultation is currently happening, so if you care about this stuff please exercise your democratic right and respond.  Mine is in draft: happy to share with anyone.
And while we are at it, this has come through on email....

Give charities fair funding
Update the regulations for funds from pokie machines to ensure equal funding is available to all kinds of charities instead of most of it going to sport. Charities providing social services, community projects, arts/culture and environmental protection deserve just as much funding as sports.
https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/more-funding-for-social-services-community-and-environment
 
Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

 Not sure if you have caught up on the news from the Lotteries Grants Board.  You may recall headlines all through the media with dire warnings in April of $25m drop in community funding. 

Well, good news.  It didn’t happen.  Regional budgets have increased across the board by 3%, as have, by and large, the budgets of the national distribution committees who fund things like community facilities, marae and outdoor safety.  Not so pleased will be Creative NZ, Sports NZ and the NZ Film Commission, who all saw a 5% drop in funding.  That said, they had a 1% increase in funding from the 2014 financial year, so I guess they will cope – and not nearly as dire as forecast. 

And of course, this turn around in dollars is driven by what happened last Saturday, with a $40m carrot, when most of NZ dreamed of new cars, nice holiday, being mortgage free – and hopefully a wee bit of philanthropy!  Many of us were lined up outside stores, some for the first time, for the most popular Lotto draw in the history of the game.  Various statisticians were interviewed by the media talking through the unlikely probability of actually hitting the jackpot.  But… three New Zealanders did, and we have to be in to win, right?  And I am guessing that we will all do it again.

Now, I love what DIA do: I think they have some good robust decision making processes, and they support some great organisations (and they are quite possibly the only people who read this!!).  It was of some concern that a $25m deficit was being projected just three months ago.  The $36 that I know my household spent on lotto tickets over the past few weeks has been written off as entertainment.  I hope that the $24.999m spent by other people to make up the projected funding deficit in April came out of their discretionary household income as well – and not kids lunches, rent, or electricity.   

So… good news for the charitable organisations who look for support from Lotteries Grants Board.  But really?  Doesn’t this highlight the precarious link between the supply of grant money and gambling?  Add in the Class 4 sources, and we get (in Canterbury anyway) around two thirds of our community grant money from gambling and gaming.   

Remember – public submissions are open on Class 4 societies at the moment – closing 12 August.  So if you want to have a say in how these are run, be sure to exercise your democratic rights.  It’s a fairly wide ranging consultation, covering questions such as territorial authority role, grant making process and costs.  Also covered are questions around “maximising community return” which is likely to be an interesting debate!

Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

The last blog I did on a funder got a few comments, so I thought I’d have a crack at another.  It’s also good timing, given the recent announcement of a review of the future of pokies.

This week its Mainland Foundation’s 2015 grants, from 1 August 2014 – 31 July 2015.
Now it’s interesting to look at the authorised purposes that the funder applies their gaming monies to.  There are five main elements:

1. Amateur South Island rugby north of the Waitaki River, including the West Coast
   
2. Amateur sport
3. Charitable purposes for the relief of poverty
4. Cultural grants beneficial for the community
   
5. Grants for education of training

So it’s a fairly general fund.  In 2015 they distributed over $5m into off 13 venues, eight in Canterbury, two in Nelson and three in Palmerston North (from DIA data Sept 2015).  Note the numbers include grants to Wellington organisations: this would have come from a venue which has now moved to another gaming provider. My final figure differs from Mainland’s by $200k.  I think this because I have not adjusted the reported donations back for returns.  However, it seems immaterial. 

Funding decisions in 2015 by province are set out below.  As expected, Sport receives 79% of funding.
So I have broken this down so I can see what sorts of money goes into which code.  Given authorised purpose one, it’s not surprising to see that $2.8m goes towards rugby in Canterbury and Nelson.  Interestingly, we can break this down further.
 
In 2015 Canterbury Rugby Football Union Inc. received just over $2m from the Mainland Foundation.  Tasman Rugby Union received just over $400k, Manawatu Rugby Union Inc. received just over $40k, with the balance of the monies going to clubs throughout the gaming trust’s catchment. 

Now, I had a look through the 2015 books for Canterbury Rugby Football Union on the Societies website, and am ever so slightly confused.  In their accounts they declared almost $1.8m in 2015 from donations - $200k less than Mainland said they gave them.  Of course this could be timing (balance date 31 Oct, whereas the Mainland date is 31 July). CRFU also returned $20k in donations.  The other issue where we have to rely on trust is around the purpose of those funds: remember that the purpose of Mainland Foundation is to support AMATEUR rugby.  The CRFU’s accounts make it difficult to ensure that those donations are for amateur rugby: I am sure they are, but I do think that there needs to be a bit more transparency around this.

Looking at declines was interesting too: although it’s not disclosed why applications are declined, it was heartening to see a full mix of sports clubs as well as other organisations in the decline bucket. 

Now, rugby is allowed to apply for funds, and indeed the union has set up Mainland Foundation to support themselves.  But to me it raises a couple of questions:

• Why do the good folks of Palmie want to support South Island rugby?
  
• Is this something the community sees as important?
• Why do other trusts support rugby at all?  Looking at my data CRFU specifically received funds from Air Rescue, CERT and Rata Foundation.  And if I look at my data for 2014, Mainland Foundation provided just 53% of funding for Canterbury rugby.
• Organisations always want more.  How much is too much?  What is the “right” level of grant support for sport vs self generated and subs? I could be wrong but I could not see any form of user pays from players headed to CRFU. Mainland Football, by contrast, generates around 25% of its income from players.
  
• How does the organisation ensure that the grants go to amateur sports rather than professional?  How does it ensure public accountability around this?
• How are decisions made?  Mainland Foundation seems to have three decision makers: one the CE, and two other men. The only female listed on the website is the Office Administrator.  This demographic skew exists in the other gaming trust I looked at a month ago, CERT, who has four men who are both the officers and on the net proceeds committee.Just a thought: Not for Profit organisations are skewed towards female employees, with some US research finding 75% of the NFP workforce as female.Yet the female voice has not been reflected in the two groups I have looked at, who together put $7.4m into the community last year.
  

I do this analysis as I personally believe we have a very inefficient market for funding dollars, and no one else seems to be looking at this.  I believe that sunlight will restore a bit of equity and perhaps get financial support to organisations who make life better for people.  Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

As a society we have developed many programmes to help children with their lives. When I was looking at funding applications, there were many programmes which made big claims: golf organisation which could change kids’ lives, three day camps designed to change kids’ lives, tickets to sports events which, guess what, could change kids’ lives.  There has been a huge growth in programmes to feed kids, with the likes of KidsCan, social enterprises like Eat My Lunch.  KidsCan, according to a Facebook post in May, provide food into 452 schools, feeding 21,000 kids a week.  Eat My Lunch reckon they will give away quarter of a million lunches next year – which is around 1250 lunches per day. 

These organisations provide evidence of the good they do throughout the country through the metrics on their meals, and glowing photos and references from teachers and children.  Both organisations are growing: Eat My Lunch is currently raising money via a Pledge Me campaign, and KidsCan’s recently published accounts show them growing almost 33% in revenues over the year, with reserves increasing by almost $900k last financial year.   KidsCan shows a growth in services provided (including the provision of a government contract), and measures the metrics of those initiatives they undertake.  Although to be honest, it’s hard to get a decent insight into the workings of the organisations due to the high level nature of the financials provided.

However, a voice conspicuously missing in this issue is the parents.  Now, as a parent I consider it my duty to make three lunches a day, forty weeks a year.  Not a task I savour, but a responsibility I take seriously.  Now, I’m not sure how I would feel if a bunch of well meaning middle class people did this for me, and suggested I was not capable of looking after my own kids.  Would I leave the school and take my kids elsewhere where I felt respected as a parent?  Do those actions increase my family’s dependence on others?  Does it show the kids that someone else will look after their kids when their time comes?  This stuff feels like the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, rather than the fence at the top.

If the issue is that kids are hungry at school, then perhaps a better root cause analysis is needed – does the family simply not have enough money, in which case perhaps the charity could give the cash to the parent, or is the family making poor decisions with what they do have, in which case a more intensive wrap around service provision is required – which is really hard, expensive, will possibly result in some failure – but surely far more sustainable and likely to achieve those generational changes we all need to see than a band aid solution currently vogue.  Supporting the family unit, I reckon, is the best way to make positive changes in our kids’ lives – and help those families take the step change they need to help support the next generation’s families through either more cash or wrap around services.

Now, this life changing stuff is hard.  It takes money, time and perseverance to make tangible changes – and to know that those efforts have been effective.  If we really want to make a difference in children’s lives, then we need to support those people who the children spend the most time with: the families – and there are some great charities which do this.  Sadly, this sort of wrap around support will never get the public support it warrants, as it does not have the instant gratification of a lunch provided by a charity – or even worse a gang (what a fabulous recruitment model!).

But we also need to effectively measure what’s achieved.  So rather than growing the number of lunches given away, does success, somewhat perversely, look like a REDUCTION in the number of lunches provided?  This, to me anyway, comes back to really thinking through the mission of the organisation, and ensuring that there is strong evidence of success related to the cause of the symptoms, rather than simply easy to measure justifications of the existence of the organisation.

Solving these poverty issues and helping families make a sustainable generational change is not easy.    And I don’t claim to know the answers: as an expert in nothing really perhaps I am way out of line: although as a bit of a geek I can’t help but feel these are simplistic half measures to complex issues.  And I can’t help but feel that when my kids are parents, they’ll be wondering what was actually achieved with all those dollars thrown at these sorts of solutions.

Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

Now, from where I sit it seems that funding decisions are made without anyone actually looking at where the money goes.  I thought I’d do an occasional blog looking at recent decisions made by specific funders.

You can check it out yourself at http://www.cert.net.nz/ .

From their front page: “The Trust aims to distribute net proceeds to recognised appeal funds for the purpose of assisting with this recovery process.
“This includes making grants to appeal funds such as the Christchurch Earthquake Mayoral Relief Fund, The Red Cross 2011 Earthquake Appeal and the Christchurch Earthquake Appeal.
“In addition to the Trust's primary purpose of supporting Christchurch Earthquake Recovery, the Trust may also provide other grants towards general public education, educational scholarships, the promotion of public parks or museums and support for non-commercial emergency rescue services.”

So it’s a fairly general fund.  In 2015 they distributed just over $2m into mostly Canterbury off 6 venues, four in Christchurch, one each in Kaiapoi and Kaikoura.  Note their website points to one in Dunedin, but that looks to have moved to Southern Trust.

Funding decisions in the past 2 ¼ years are set out here.  As expected, Sport certainly receives over half of the funding, and while there is no information, its likely much of the education spend goes towards sports within schools.

 This is probably driven by who is actually applying to this trust. I looked at 2016 declines: they turned down 19 applications in Q1 of this year: 11 of those were for sporting organisations, and four of these were schools, so, on that basis, that suggests its not a bias toward sports: simply demand from sporting bodies for those funds. 

Where it gets interesting is looking at a breakdown by code.  In Q1 of this year, Bowls received some $94k: 2015 Bowls got more than any other code, receiving just over $200k from this funder.  Burnside Bowling Club in fact got some $41k in 2015, and $44k so far this year.  When I try to see where the funding went, its bit tricky, as their 2015 published accounts (shown on the societies office website) only show just over $11k as grants revenue. However, there is a line in their balance sheet showing just over $100k as “Grants received to Action” which I would assume are grants received for capital development. 

Rowing’s grants were driven by some big money going to Red Bladez.com ($80k in 2014, and $22k in 2015), the St Bedes team.  I see this year the money is headed across town to St Thomas’ rowing team, with a grant of just over $10k earlier this year.  Boxing is interesting too: Woolston Boxing Club received $26k in 2015, and has, so far, received $11k this year. 

But I also found some interesting stuff in the Education grants.  There are grants going to a whole range of schools, from Decile one to Decile 10.  Now, for my sins I have got myself involved in my own school’s PTA.  While its very easy to fill in a funding application and flick it off, I really do believe its better for the community to raise from within: it fosters a sense of ownership, one of belonging, and a stronger community.  And the money that the school probably would have got is available to go to other, hopefully more deserving, organisations.

Now, all these organisations are perfectly entitled to apply for funding, and CERT is perfectly entitled to give their community funding to organisations who meet their criteria.  However, the bigger question is whether these community groups should be asking for funding.  Shouldn’t clubs be mostly sustainable on subs and member fundraising?  If its an expensive sport, then should the community subside participants?  How much is actually needed? 

Would love to talk with you if you think this is just a little bit interesting.

There are many reasons Not for Profits do not receive the funding they ask for.  The funder might simply not have enough to hand out.  The organisation might have too much in the bank already.  Or the programmes they are wanting to do are deemed high risk, not proven, or just plain weird. 
Assessing a funding application can be a tricky thing, and many hours can be put into making the right decision.  Its relatively easy to say yes when it’s a proven group with proven programmes, but saying no can be difficult: indeed it’s often easier to say Yes But… 

But there is a need to say NO.  New Zealand now has over 50,000 Not for Profit organisations, many of which will be asking for funding, increasing demand. And, on the other hand, supply of funding reduces (see my previous blog there).  So funders have two options: fund everyone but less, or go all out on the better organisations. 

An assessment that an organisation is not so great may come from a whole range of concerns:
·         Concerns about governance (too many family members involved in a group)
·         Efficacy research inconclusive – or worse, ineffectual
·         Organisation too small to be effective
·         Organisation working beyond its capacity, or mandate
·         Outreach organisation with no social media presence
·         Start up not working with incumbents
·         Tip offs from others that organisation has issues
·         Organisation utilising illegal employment criteria
·         Organisation pursuing model which hasn’t worked for others
·         Groups looking to gold plate their facilities

​A perfect funding decision requires perfect information.  Of course this is well-nigh impossible, so decisions have to be made on the best available information.  But there is where there is often an information void. This can result in poor allocation of resources. 

Example?  A friend on a national board decided to close certain clubs due to lack of use: so the club goes off and supports themselves through community funders.  End result: national body undermined, and more resources into a couple of ineffective organisations not even supported from their national body. 

Relying on the group to say how effective they are is like making a recruitment decision purely off a CV: often the best looking CVs are not the best people for the job.  Nor are the sexiest organisations with the glitziest brands best positioned to help address some of the complex issues within our society.   What can also be interesting is to understand who else has contributed to the organisation.  In some cases this provides a “stamp of approval”.

Turning down a request for funds takes time.  Time to read the application, google research, staff and board, and to have conversations with people whose opinions you respect.  A full day to recommend a decline of an application costs around $360 (variable cost only).   And that does not include the angst of making the wrong recommendation!  This will be replicated across many different funders – although the costs will vary based on a funder’s process around application assessment.

In 2014 Canterbury funders funded 4,800 applications: now how many were declined?  25%?  10%?  That’s a cost of anywhere between $173k and $432k in Canterbury alone.

Would it be quite useful to have a central database where funders could look to see who had declined a group for funding – and why?  That information could really assist funders to make more decisive decisions more quickly.  And at lower cost.  Many of the gaming trusts do publish that information, and some even code as to why the application was refused.  But that data is buried in pdfs in the corners of the internet.  I am sure this could be done, if there was a will and desire to improve the decision making information.    I reckon a simple open source database could be done quite simply if there was a will to do so.  Result of this: funder resources could be better directed, resulting in more funding for good groups.

Would love to talk to you if you think this is quite interesting – and you have a will to make a difference.

I’ve just done a wee presentation to the Combined Community Trust conference last week.  As a part of this work, I looked at what quantum of dollars was contributed by gaming trusts to the total grant pool.  In 2014 in Canterbury, the total contribution from gaming trusts was 52% of the $65m given.  In Otago, the figure was a bit lower, at 29% out of the total pool of $22.3m.

I thought this was quite interesting, and wondered if this was due to the number of machines, or a lower spend.  DIA has a huge amount of data on its website, so I had a gander at the December 2015 data on gaming trusts.

Otago has one machine for every 217 people, and Canterbury has one per every 274.  So – Otago has more machines per capita. 

So that leads us to spend.  The spend figures are of course nett of winnings, and of course these run at between 90 and 95% of all that goes into the machine.  So, according to my data, every person in Canterbury contributed $73 to the nett gaming proceeds, and in Otago it was $35.
All very interesting – but so what.  Aside from some commentary about society, and the joy the management accountants must feel for the Canterbury assets, the data (to me) highlights some of the biggest concerns around the funding ecosystem.  Can we imagine a Canterbury where the population’s pokie spend is more like that of our Southern neighbours?  That will reduce the pokie grants by $15m.  Will that make a difference to local not for profits?  Silly question.  And what say the good residents of Otago get gripped by the pokie bug and up their spend to that of Canterbury’s?  That would increase the funding pool by $7m.  Would that be hoovered up? 

Lotteries have announced lower distributions due to lower lotto spend.  In Canterbury 2/3 of funding comes from gambling: either lotteries or pokies. This funding ecosystem has issues in both supply of grant funding, and in demand for that funding. 

It would be interesting to have a detailed look at Southland at a macro level: I have spent an hour or so poking around various funders in the region.  The Invercargill Licensing Trust as a funder in 2015 put $8m into the region: $4m from liquor, and the balance from gaming machines.  Other pokies (from my back of the envelope calculation) put $3m in 2015, and the local community trust just under $7m.  Divide that by population, leaving around $200 per person – Otago’s and Canterbury’s is 60% of this.  Now, trying to find a bottle of wine at the supermarket is impossible down south, and the funding source is effectively another vice, but I would suggest that what is effectively a community tax is funded by a far broader demographic base.  I would also hazard a guess that the ratepayers of Invercargill possibly do not need to fund local government grants, and indeed, looking through the ICC’s annual reports local government grants seem to be minimal.

I guess it’s too late to get the licensing trust genie back in the bottle for the wider nation, but perhaps if I was queen and looking to legalise (or tax) something else, perhaps there would be an opportunity to siphon some off for community purposes.  Although – 10 cent sugar tax on the 518 m litres drunk in 2014, less administration of say 50%, probably won’t make much difference to community funding. 

Would love to talk to you if you think this is quite interesting too.

With winter sports season upon us, I thought it might be interesting to dive into some sports funding by code.  Over the past few years I have seen a few requests for funding from sports clubs, and I have seen the other side through some sterling work from my significant other in sports admin.  I have come to the view that sports funding has “trickle up” from juniors to seniors, and thought I would see if the data backed up this view. 

If we look at where Canterbury’s 2014 funding went to, sport received almost $20m from grant making bodies.  Let’s take football as an example, which received just under $2m of this $20m.  I have looked at those clubs getting grants, sourced the latest available participation numbers by club from Mainland Football’s website (and made some assumptions here), and extracted the club financials from the Societies office website.

There are a couple of things which are apparent when we drill down.
Firstly, elite football in Canterbury relies heavily on grants.  Looking at the 2014 accounts, the Canterbury United football team received $431k in revenue.  Of this, around $15k (that’s 3.5% of revenues) came from gate takings, sponsorship accounted for almost $75K, and internal fundraising were around $73k.  That’s $156,894, or 36% of their income, from their own efforts.  Almost 50% ($212,769) came from donations and grants, $34,200 came from a grassroots levy paid by all registered footballers in region from 4yr olds up to support the team. Finally, some top-down revenue with FIFA kicking in almost $30k. 

Secondly, Mainland Football had an operating revenue of $2.3m, with the largest expense being administration costs of $840k.   They have bundled sponsorship and grants income together at $821k, so it’s hard to see exactly what the grants total, but my database tells me that they got almost half of this from grants.   Their website tells us that 40% - $930k - of this income goes towards Football Development.  Yet some clubs also have football development officers.  How much football development is actually necessary?

Lastly, different clubs have different wants when it comes to grants.  I have not looked at every club, but in 2014 one club received almost $500k while others got some smaller amounts of a couple of thousand.  Sadly, the club with the largest grants requirement of $500,000 have not updated their financials since 2013, so it’s hard to see where the money has gone, although I imagine some of it is facilities.   Some clubs have grants of over $400 per registered player, others as low as $25 per head – and some will have none.  Why the difference? 

Players pay an average of $122 to play the game for the season.  Some clubs look to grants for over two thirds of their total revenues.  Some clubs pay coaches to coach both junior and senior level players.  Some clubs kit their players out in personalised gear, and send them off on tournaments.  Others don’t.  What is acceptable for the community to pay for?  What’s acceptable for those who play to pay for themselves?  I guess different clubs have different views on this.
Those with teams in the top grades have the highest grants per player.  The data does support the trickle up theory.  Does having local elite level players pull youngsters into footie?  No data, but not in our case.  The reason my kids play is because they can play with their buddies, and they love watching their dad getting respect from others as coach.

Can a club be sustainable simply on user pays subs?  Based on our own experience of a little junior club, I reckon the answer is yes.  During our family’s time at the helm, reserves more than tripled, as did player numbers.  It can draw on its members to do things for the club, use duct tape to fix equipment, recycle uniforms, and most importantly, provide programmes that work for families and focus on participation.  Families who could not afford the subs were covered by the club.  Next question: should a club be sustainable simply on user pays?  It comes down to how we view sport in NZ, and is probably too big a topic to attempt to tackle here. 

Why is this important?  A dollar given through a grant is just that – a dollar.  It’s a dollar spent on sport, rather than say, public art, health research, dysfunctional families, or dyslexia support.  As more pressure comes on funders, what with reducing Lotteries contributions, sinking lid policies on gaming machines and the like, we as a society need to have some more visibility over where the money comes from, and where it goes. 

Should funders look at benchmarking?  Absolutely.  Funding is a market.  As clubs and codes have to fight for new players, the flash facilities and offer will swing many towards those higher cost clubs.  This has the knock on effect of pushing lower cost clubs to a higher cost model.

Would love to talk to you if you think this is quite interesting too.