Thanks HO, cheers mate, I comprehend your examples, but I wasn't exactly saying no two are the same, I was implying that all Associations are not the same!
Anyway, your models are of course also generalising, as they should do, kind of my point as well, that we shouldn't generalise too much.
Oh, and the comparison for your three country Vic Associaions, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong is an interesting one.
On face value it may appear to readers that they are much the same, that they have simlar models and are funded pretty much the same way as each other, or that is what it appears you are saying if I read your post correctly mate...
Those three are so different:
Ballarat runs it's own canteen, has a fair amount of control of a specific basketball venue and has potential for revenue through links with the Tabaret next to it. Not sure how much council and corporate support they get, but the complex needs upgrading so dollars would be thin.
Bendigo not only runs its own canteen but also has direct revenue through a fully licensed restaraunt, bar, pokies and TAB all encased within a large basketball specific complex supported greatly by local business and council. The place is in great shape and they of course hold WNBL games with TV coverage backed up by the fact they are in the heart land of Victorian country baskeyball.
Geelong must seek funds from their membership, find corporate sponsors and support from local council, but they do not control a venue which is in desperate need of upgrading, they do not run the canteen and have absolutely no funds generated from any form of gambling on site or nearby. Only recently the SEABL and Association arms joined together, but their model is vastly different from the other two.
Meerkat or Market mate??