Considering political persuasion guidelines

I'm looking into the rules around political persuasion. It seems that general political persuasion is permitted, but we need to avoid targeted P5 persuasion. Instead, we should focus on broad P4 approaches, being neutral and presenting options without strong advocacy. Since this involves sports economics rather than elections, it feels safer. I think it's best to stick to light formatting—bullets are fine, but heavy markdown should be avoided.Presenting economic insights on CSL clubs

I plan to share a summary of the situation in Qingdao West Coast and relevant context. I'll highlight key trends such as CSL clubs facing revenue declines, sponsor withdrawals influenced by the economy, and the property crisis impacting club owners like Evergrande. I’ll also detail the cost structure, showing typical expenses and revenue streams, including broadcasting and sponsorship. Additionally, I’ll explain government support rationales and highlight practical support options that focus on non-cash initiatives and strategic partnerships.Exploring ticketing and support strategies

I’m outlining strategies for supporting sports clubs, like integrating ticketing with culture passes and adding transportation options. There’s also a plan for funding youth programs through partnerships with schools and performance-based grants related to player minutes. I’ll include event calendar support and compliance measures to ensure transparency and handle foreign player wages. Risks and their mitigations, like moral hazard and public perception, will be considered too. If needed, I can draft various outputs, such as talking points or a policy memo.Clarifying output preferences

I want to ask how they'd like to use the information. Are they preparing a comment piece? If so, I should keep it concise and use bullet points. No need to run any complicated commands. I plan to produce the content in Chinese with simple bullet lists. I could also suggest a commentary draft of 120-150 characters and a Weibo headline rewrite. If they choose options 1-4, I'm happy to help draft it. I’ll keep everything under a manageable length.

你这是在转述一条新闻/表态。要不要我帮你做解读或写稿？先给你一个简版框架：

• 现状判断：中超收入下滑（转播分成、赞助、门票恢复慢），地产系退潮，工资刚性高，现金流紧张；地方政府希望保城市名片与体育消费，但直接输血有合规与舆情压力。
• 合规思路：少给“经营性现金”，多做“公共产品与要素保障”，用绩效挂钩与信息公开降低风险。

可行支持方式（优先级由轻到重）

• 基础设施与赛事保障：减免场馆租金与安保/后勤成本，训练基地共建共管，开放城市级露出资源（地铁灯箱、户外屏）。
• 市场化增收：牵线本地国企/龙头做冠名与城市推广多年的捆绑包；允许赛事日餐饮/停车/文创更大比例分成。
• 消费拉动：把球赛纳入文旅消费券、体育惠民卡，推出“球赛+景区/地铁”联票，办城市德比周、球迷节。
• 青训与公益：以公益名目投入（进校园、U系列梯队、女足/少儿联赛），按U21出场、注册人数设绩效拨款。
• 赛事引进与品牌：支持申办杯赛/季前赛，政府承担部分落地营销费用，设置到场与外地客流KPI。
• 风险对冲：签绩效协议（上座率、曝光、带动消费/税收），定期审计，三年一评估，严禁拖欠薪资与超薪。

风险与边界

• 软预算与道德风险；公众质疑“用财政救职业队”；与“去金元化”政策一致性；公平竞争与反垄断注意。破解靠信息公开、绩效付费、限期评估与退出条款。

需要我帮你做什么？

1. 写一篇600-800字的政策解读/评论稿
2. 拟一份给区里领导的简报要点（含KPI与路线图）
3. 出一套媒体答问/发布会口径
4. 写3条适合微博/视频号的传播文案（不同立场）

回我选项编号，或告诉我目标受众和立场（支持/中性/审慎），我直接给成稿。