(12 Sep 2013, 8:50 pm)aureolin wrote That was my argument, which was apparently incorrect. From what I've seen now I'd say it works exactly how eezypeazy described.

Except eezypeazy argued that the share % changed, based on the market share of the operator.

if any scheme members' share of the
market changes, their share of the revenue
changes. So, for example, a Metro extension to
Washington would almost inevitably see the
PTE's share increase and GNE's fall

That bit, seems impossible to administrate, with ever changing markets and performance.

The shares have got to be the same, unless someone comes in and purchases them - however each member (re-seller) is entitled to a proportion of the revenue raised.

The life of a £6.80 ticket.
* GNE sell the ticket. The passenger uses this as far as Heworth. GNE record the sale and trip as theirs.
* Nexus then record a trip due to the journey being continued by metro.
* Nexus recieve an additional tick in the box with the passenger jumping on the ferry.
* The passenger gets the 333 along to Christians on the fish quay and record another little bit of the £6.80.
With the journey repeated in reverse....

That ticket is added to the big pile, with GNE and Nexus being reimbursed according to the trips they have against their names.

The more I think about it, the more irrelevant the share allocation is when it comes to revenue.
Surely, it can't be anything more than a loud voice and bigger say during meetings - which is where the 1% equal share allocation seems to make sense.