Tristan,
Just to be clear, you mentioned you're ok with paying the bubble.
My example, shows the players agreeing to pay beyond the bubble.
I find that for a small field, when the normal payout structure would pay maybe 5 to 8 players, that when the players agree to pay a nominal value to the rest of the final table (taking the extra payouts from the existing pool) that that is a very "feel good " thing to do. Furthermore, there is some opinion that it does tend to speed the play of the game as the shorter stacks are more willing to gamble, knowing they are already getting paid!
I mentioned the final table, but this "beyond the bubble" payout still proves to be of value for multi-tables when the prescribed payout is more than ten players.
This concept proves to be quite popular when the field consists of a regular crowd who appreciate the satisfaction of having cashed and can then maybe apply that payout to the next tournament or some other immediate expense!
My feeling is that when a particular venue does not support paying beyond the bubble that they are losing the benefits mentioned above, and in fact are denying the players from distributing the prize pool, which is owned by the players, according to a unanimous vote!
Of course, if the Tournament staff feels that there is a disruptive influence to such a vote, staff could then act accordingly! But a smooth and quick vote leading to payout of all participating players, IMHO can be "nice"!
Note that "where" the money is taken from (e.g., off the top, or from first and second) can sometimes be a bit controversial. Sometimes it proves better to spread it across the entire payout structure. In fact, there is some opinion that the money maybe could come from the lower end of the payout since they may be the ones fighting to get paid! Over the long run though I think it's probably better to pull from the top end, noting however, that this restructure must be unanimously approved!
Thanks!