Hoops

The $7million solution the NBL rejected

His response is hardly surprising though...

Everyone seems to have an agenda here, some are perhaps better concealed than others.

Breakers CEO Richard Clark has said that everyone needs to take Gaze's comments regarding the NBL & his suggestion to shut it down until it's fixed with a grain of salt being as he is on the BA board that gets control of the league handed back to them if that happens under the fine print of the de-merger.

Apparently Nick Mills (Team Owner) of the Saints is coming over to discuss their inclusion but all the rumours I'm hearing are that another NZ team won't be ready to go until the following season.

I'm starting to think Issac would be a solid choice for CEO.

Thanks Peter John,

Certainly makes it more understandable as to how it didn't get up. Unfortunately that board makeup seems to represent the 'haves' more than the 'havenots' I guess.

Isaac, I'm not putting anyone in that category. I was speaking purely in general terms.
I wouldn't have the first clue of the real and complete situations of each team, though Marvin seemed to be pointing pretty directly at the Crocs being in that category in his radio interview.
Their venue situation was obviously a huge factor. What role the club could have played in things going a different way with that, I have no idea.

Whatever system is put in place needs to not take into account which particular team is in which category right now anyway. To me it makes total sense for a league to leverage a strong central structure for things like securing sponsorships, and helping with easily centralised tasks like website structure. You can't expect to get the best tv deal or the real blue chip type major sponsors if you're just a fragmented collection of individual teams. You need a professional and cohesive leadership. And to get that, you can't measure your salaries of those people in peanuts either.

I'm just saying that in addition to structure and safety nets, there also still needs to be some level of responsibility on the clubs to prosper individually. A club shouldn't be able to cut corners and get lazy and expect to be bailed out indefinitely if it bites them in the arse.

Individual clubs being successful has benefits that flow on to the rest of the league. When Perth gets a James Ennis, it's good for everyone. When people tune in to Cats games and there are 13k in the stands, that's good too. If Perth can afford LeBron + Durant next season, then the benefit to the other clubs gets overridden by disparity. So of course there needs to be a balance.

Ultimately, whatever structure is in place, it must ensure that the health of the league comes above the health of any individual, even if that does mean that it's necessary for a thriving club to get stifled a little bit. Surely everyone understands that there's no point in their club having amazing success and profit if there's no league left for them to compete in.

Thanks anon^, if true that clears up a few thoughts as to what may have taken place at the time.

Somehow my mind turns to the board room scene in the movie 'Semi-Pro', but surely it was more civil than that...

Why do you claim Perth fans don't see this?
It's certainly obvious to me.
Even 8 teams is on the low side for my taste. 10 sounds better.

But somewhere there has to be a line between everyone for themselves, and propping up a franchise that is incapable of helping itself.
Sharing is an important part of having a cohesive and viable league, but there also needs to be incentive for individual clubs to perform well and profit from it. You can just give handouts indefinitely or as Nick points out, where's the motivation to get off your arse and perform?

Uwe Blab, tell me where I said the rich clubs are to blame for other club's financial woes. Where do you jump to the conclusion that it is someone else's fault? Comprehension 101?

What we are talking about is cost sharing, providing financial support models and equalisation so that all teams are the better.

Perth - purely for the sake of an example and because it is Perth fans that go into attack mode every time some suggestion of change is made - will not have anyone to play against if the league fails. 12,000 people will not pay to go see Perth play an intra-club scrimmage. Why do you not see this?

From the outside this looks like a well thought out and solid proposal, the devil however is always in the detail.

It just surprises me that if it was put to a vote how did it not get up? Sure Marvin/Perth hold a board position and have a vote but surely they don't have enough sway to kill such a proposal if everyone else was for it? Wonder what Dean and the 6ers position on this was?

I fail to see how a club such as the Sixers could be disadvantaged? They still own their own club and make a profit(or loss obviously) from its operations. They pick their own roster and set their own budgets, how does playing in a league 51% owned by someone else and controlled by an independent board effect them in a negative way? Sure you can say their could be a conflict of interest but a properly appointed board should alleviate those concerns?

Even Perth, how are they disadvantaged in this scenario? The are free to run their cub however they see fit, they have more varied opposition to play against and a more realistic possibility of an income stream being generated by the league itself. The only thing they lose in having Marvin sitting on the board which shouldn't be a huge issue when looking at the big picture



Wonder if this proposal would have gone if it was Bendat money being stumped up? No doubt the Perth fans would have loved the idea but the masses east of WA would have cried conspiracy. I guess that just proves how well Perth have gone building their fan base and us against the rest metality

Dazz is just going into attack mode to 'protect Perth's patch' before anyone has raised any criticism of it.

I don't understand how the richer clubs do not see that they need financially viable opposition clubs to play against otherwise they lose or at least lessen the value of their own investment.

I accept that there is a time when you need to cut underperforming/uncommercial ventures as being unviable, but Dazz believes that they are viable but just have incompetent management. Well then, rich clubs, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT to help them become viable!

7 ITEMS THIS PROPOSAL WANTS TO ACHIEVE
1. Underwritten expansion where necessary
(Guaranteed 2 new teams)
2. Significant Investment in marketing & promotion of the league in all major markets
3. Centralised Services to reduce clubs costs
4. Establish professional Referees development fund
5. Increase financial stability of smaller clubs
6. Guarantee a share of TV rights directly to clubs
7. Build grass roots support of basketball and league

Okay, so all this and a partial money back guarantee if it fails. Interestingly, the current NBL's refusal to accept this deal has resulted in nothing too good coming from a plough onwards without a real strategic plan concept. Which is kind of what was presented by all accounts.

I too would like to see the detail, but if all we have is the executive summary, well reading the ideas presented I can only presume the current NBL board just didn't trust that these ideas could be achieved.

Like I have said many times, we need a 'white knight', a leader and the balls to trust that leader, maybe the league needs to crash before phoenix can rise, I don't know, but it is sad to read so much negativity about the NBL when there are obviously people out there who do care about the future of the league...

It's a shame that we can't get a major sponsor that can give us exactly what's written in that document especially setting up TOA amd referee and scorers bench etc help.

Why does Kestleman need 51% of the league to make such changes?

Is his monies spent on advertising at Mvourne Ubited this season what MU fans want to see across the league?

Definitely love to have another Uncle Toby's All-star game weekend

I mentioned it in another thread,

One question i have is, couldnt he have bought say Wollongong, Townsville, Cairns, Adelaide and funded Brisbanes expansion and possibly Melbourne 2.0 for $5-7mil which would have effectively given him ownership of 50%+ of the league??

I wonder why he didnt go down that path and take control of the league and put his plan into place,

Maybe he couldnt be bothered fighting the resistance after it was rejected.

Hell he could probably start his own league and compete with the NBL for $5-7 mil if he wanted to.

Would also be interested to why this didnt happen either??

I reckon a investor/controller model is a good way forward, gives it a firm direction and he seemed to have a plan which is more than the NBL seems to have now.

on ABC right now they're showing wheelchair basketball. Now, not discriminating the sport but how do they show this on FTA and not proper basketball? Is it more exciting to watch? mmm