One other point,how many FM members are members of syndicates,I personally wouldn't join one,feeding the 'greed' has never been a joy of mine.
Much depends on what your idea of a syndicate is and the circumstances of that syndicate. I'm a member of two syndicates, neither of which I feel remotely guilty about. One is a stretch of river. It was formerly rented by a club that ceased to exist. The landowner wasn't going to bother to allow fishing once the local club failed. Fortunately, a small group of former club members (along with a few assorted angling mates) managed to persuade him that a small syndicate would be no trouble. The landowner gets significantly less money from us than he would if he had a proper club in. No greed on anyone's part here.
My other syndicate is a gravel pit in the grounds of a listed building that's run by a trust. Not surprisingly, they want minimal footfall but maximum return. The syndicate is therefore limited in number. Naturally, each individual pays a bit more than they would if the numbers were doubled. As with the other one, this is a genuine syndicate. X number of people paying just enough to cover the rent. If it didn't have a syndicate on it there would be no fishing.
I know that there are plenty of "syndicates" out there that really don't live up to the name. An unspecified, and often unlimited, number of individuals paying lots of cash to a landowner to fish his water is not a real syndicate. One bloke renting a water and charging as many anglers as possible to fish that water is not really a syndicate.
Not all syndicates are bad and not all syndicates are expensive. Pick the right ones and greed shouldn't be a big issue, even when costs seem high. The snag with such syndicates is that they are either nigh on impossible to get into, unless you are in from the start, or they are reasonably expensive. I suspect that the biggest problem we now have with syndicates is that many that use the name are anything but true syndicates. They are just commercial ventures with annual tickets.
There are plenty of "syndicates" I won't join on principle. Any that have made hostile bids to gazump a sitting tenant will never get my cash. Any that have a syndicate "leader" that's making money out of it, won't get my cash.
---------- Post added at 11:23 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------
But there would be savings to be made on the general administrative side of things
I'm sure that an amalgamation of clubs would make some savings on administration. However, I suspect that in the overall scheme of things, the savings would be rather insignificant. I'd expect a fairly average club to have admin expenditure that was in the order of hundred(s) of pounds, no more. Most of that will be in printing costs, stationary and stamps. If they have a website, they may be paying for hosting. Compared to the rent on a piece of water, admin costs are pretty unimportant.
Insurance costs might be considered admin. These aren't as straightforward as a club might like. Many will go through the Angling Trust. Their prices are tiered based on membership numbers. It's great when you are just under one of their thresholds, You feel like the cover is a bargain. It's not so great when just over a threshold. A club with 51-200 members is having to pay £390 for insurance and fish legal. If they've got 201 members, they are paying £599. However, it is true that insurance costs come down the greater the number in the club. Just watch out for those damned inconvenient tier cut offs.