Hoops

NBL responds to 36ers' comments

Hi Chris,
Thanks for being willing to share some of your thoughts with this forum. There is still a question I have which no-one seems to have answered. The possible bid with Mal that you are talking about, does that include purchasing the Dome from Eddy Groves, or are you just talking about buying the Sixers?

^^

Does Erik know he will be getting shared around?
If so, is he okay with this?

Chris, good to hear from you on this forum.

#232967, I would like to agree with you however there has been every indication over the last 3 years that Mal has had financial problems meeting the cost of running the 36ers. I would not say that financially the club has proven to be a safe bet without the guarantee. Sure some credit has to be given to him for resurrecting the 36ers 3 years ago but he cannot sustain it for much longer without the risk of him packing everything in mid season. The sort of risk that the NBL is trying to avoid with the guarantee is the sort of risk that the 36ers are likely to present with its current owner.

Are you the real Chris Fuss?

Chris Fuss thanks for your views. It is good to hear that someone who may be in a position to buy the team understands that a sustainable league requires a profitable business model.

I am not sure of the exact model BA and the clubs agreed to, but the complete lack of competition for new franchises in the league certainly suggests that most business people don't think a profit can be made under the new league structure.

This problem is no doubt exacerbated by the current financial crisis.

So once again, I think the best thing that could happen for the league is to take a year off. BA and the owners should sit down and agree on a sustainable business model that will attract serious owners. This means lowering the salary cap and paying players at a level that can be supported.

A new league should NOT go ahead until the right model is in place.

p.s. - if someone knows the details of the new NBL structure and can show me how it will lead to sustainable team business models league wide I will quite happily admit I am wrong. But from what I have seen in the past few months, I doubt it.

Mal needs to realise from his own experience as owner that the team was losing money for him. He is the first private owner of the club and therefore accept that he has lost money out of it by selling it at a reasonable price that will attract buyers. If he can't make money out of it, he can't expect to get a price that is beyond reasonable for the asset. If he thinks that the sort of price that has been offered is too low and the new buyer will actually make money out of it, why can't he sign off on the contract with a clause that he gets a small cut from the profits in the next few years? I am sure that any prospective buyer would agree to that considering they bought the team for a low price and any profit is going to be a bonus anyway. If there is no profits, then he knows he has sold the team for a reasonable price. I think what Mal is expecting is that someone else is going to take over the losses he has had in the last 3 years. No one wants that.

Yeah, I'm hoping for a bit of grey for the 36ers right now!!! LOL

I understand where you are coming from Isaac. I'm just not as worried about the NBL getting a league happening this year, when there still seems to be a lot of people trying to bend the rules, and the global financial crisis is probably discouraging a lot of potential bidders from getting involved.

Whenever the new league starts, lets just hope we both can enjoy some good basketball that includes a competitive Sixers team!

Oh yeah, I meant to comment about Mal's asking price too.

I don't know if he is asking too much. But if the league takes a year off, the pressure builds on Mal, who clearly wants out of the basketball business.

I think another year will give the Adelaide basketball community enough time to find a consortium to take over the 36ers at the right price.

We can't afford another half-@ssed owner who doesn't really have the financial wherewithal to run the team, so I'd much rather wait, because I think the right deal will shake itself out in time.

"I don't think it undermines credibility"

Sorry Isaac, I disagree. With Perth and South getting BA to change the goal posts after everyone has put their bids in, it just shows who really has the power in the new league. That only encourages other teams to try things on and before you know it you are conceding all kinds of stuff.

Its not ideal, having to call their bluff, but I thought BA was trying to enforce higher standards in the new league? If they want things to change they have to be bold and show existing owners its not going to be how it used to be.

How about testing Perth and South to see how committed their owners really are to having a team in the league? If they aren't committed enough to put in $1mill and follow the rules they agreed to, maybe they aren't the guys the league needs?

It would actually be good for the league if we cleaned out a bunch of people and got some fresh leadership, given how poorly the league has been going for most of the last decade.

The other thing is, it could also be that now is just a really bad time to try to attract investment for a new league. Conditions might be much more favourable a year from now and we might then get what the NBL needs: competition for licences.

The one good thing I can see about all this nonsense is that Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne all have the supporter base to sustain a team in the long run. If the current owners don't get entry to the league, they will be in danger of losing out to a rival bid down the track.

I think taking a year off might work well. It might light a fire under some people so that they don't take their place in a national basketball competition for granted!

Isaac, I agree that the NBL would be pretty well unviable if Perth and South weren't in. The problem is that having to make all these concessions to get enough teams in the league seriously undermines the credibility of BA and the standards it has set for the new league.

It creates a situation where other teams will start demanding special dispensation. Obviously Mal is trying (badly it appears) to lobby BA for an exemption and I'm sure there are likely to be some protests from Wollongong and Cairns who just busted their @sses to get a guarantee which is now being undermined.

Number one, BA should have made it clear that $50 mill in assets was an acceptable alternative at the start of the process, not after the process when some clubs start whinging that they can't afford $1m. You can't keep moving the goal posts if you want to be taken seriously.

Number two, if Bendat has $400m in assets, what is the problem with him providing a $1m guarantee?

The whole reorganisation is looking like a failure to me. Surely the criteria should have been set up to ensure that a team who can get 4-5000 fans out per game will be able to operate as a profitable business?

Given that Mal has been shopping the team all over and hasn't been able to sell it, the numbers for profitability clearly aren't adding up for prospective owners.

To me, the numbers need to add up first, then we can work out how much teams can afford to pay players and remain profitable. Once that is known, a realistic salary cap and other minimum financial requirements can be set up.

I'd actually like to see teams turn enough of a profit that they can afford to make a mandatory payment to a central marketing fund for the league as well.

Then we might get a stable league for a few years that we can gradually grow again once the financial crisis is over.

Loco, couple of great posts in this thread. Waiter, an orange ball for the steam train in the corner!

I'll second what was said earlier as well - excellent response from BA in that press release. I'll be very interested to hear how Mal defends himself on radio.

If the Sixers had so many concerns with how things were working, WTF would they not be represented at the recent summit? Lunacy!

Also, its pretty hard to complain about criteria that you previously agreed to months ago.

BA should not be giving Perth and South special treatment either. Seamus was absolutely right to resign over that issue.

It's like it's been a permanent "work experience day" for the Sixer's Admin since the Powerhouse opened it's doors.

Needs to be the same rules for all teams. Full stop.

Maybe the new NBL has gone abhout it the wrong way. the NSL transformed into the A-League with virtually all-new franchises. The same with the netball - all-new franchises.

That means the old wood gets cleared out, everyone is on the same page, and you can start fresh. I don't want to get rid of history for the sake of it, but when not everyone is pulling together in the same direction for the sake of the sport, then something more drastic needs to be done. Hard decisions need to be made and it must come from the game's governing body.

The Dragons and Wildcats need to be rbought to account and made to fall in line. Finally I actually agree with Seamus and support his reaction to their defiance.

The one good thing about this issue - and it is albeit small - is that the NBL had finally acted quickly and come out with a statement - clear cut and to the point.

"Tag, you're it"
"Nah ah. That doesn't count"
"What? Perth and South tagged you like 5 minutes ago..."
"We were barleys then"
"Barleys?"
"Yeah, we mentioned that, right?"

Good point re: wagon. I hadn't subscribed to that theory previously, despite it making a lot of sense.

I'm siding with the NBL on this one.

If you can't prove you are financially stable you're not in.
No point in creating a new league only to have teams continue to fall over.

Bye Bye Sixers.

1000 people with $1000 each = $1,000,000
2000 people with $500 each = $1,000,000

Community based team?
Too late I fear.

Yeah, from what I've read I completely agree Isaac. I've done my best not to jump on the Mal Hate Wagon, but it's getting pretty difficult when the franchise is literally at stake.

* I was agreeing with thedoctor's post

^^^ agreed.

I was going to count the number of times Sixers Admin has done it's best to piss off BA, but I don't have Mahervelous handy. Suffice to say, we can add another instance - one that won't exactly help the club survive.

Stating the obvious - someone with cash needs to gamble on the new league being slightly less atrociously run than the old one and buy the franchise.

I just can't believe this ball club may go under.

Can I ask, what does the NBL actually own in regards to assets?

I know they control the licenses, but as for monetary assets.
Does anyone know?

I don't know how viable the Sixers actually are, so I can't really comment...I guess BA are just lucky that even if we can't get the Sixers in the league this year, we'll still rock up and support them when they get back in. With bigger crowds than anywhere else, of course.

I'm going against you boys here....I think the NBL should be in control, not allow rogues such as Mal and others control what they want thru the wrong mediums...

once the nbl et some feet and some balls, the rest will follow...hence why Sengstock might be OK with this...

Time to go Mal, but what may also go is the 6ers..

"If any ownership group is unable to meet the new financial criteria, then there are clearly serious questions around the long-term viability of that team."

Erm...

Have a look at the 5000+ crowd at every Sixers game.

There's the answer to your viability questions right there.