Hoops

The Kings are buying a ring, how tragic.

Exactly. If you really love your club, you'll have the best interests of the league at heart as well because your club ain't winning too many games without it!

This has become a virtual replica of the Gaze thread. I think if that's referred to, you can see what's actually indicative of the view by hoopsters.

This is the NBL we are talking about, because of the usual dire circumstances over the last decade and a half, most of us have an interest in the NBL doing well. Not just our own club of choice.

^^^ +1

If any rich dude gave a shit about the 6ers, and they had a loaded roster, most the clowns on here would be singing a very different tune.

Remember for years people have winged about the NBL being poor quality, or said there needs to be owners with fat wallets, need to get star players, need more people going to games etc etc....

Sydney have a team with quality players who played in Europe and the NBA and have owners and sponsors who are cashed up and spending it. Melbourne too.

Why the hell are people now sooking and crying about "salary caps" or "buying rings"...... Was it only just 2 years ago we nearly didn't have a basketball league in Australia.

Spend up more and keep the quality and big names coming.

flip

10 points. if there was a points cap now, how would they all fit. Anywhere.
No points cap, no effective salary cap, a soft cap and no accountability. Works well eh

The other thing we just don't know, if and when it happens, is how these "deemed" salaries will be assessed.
One of the problems with the points system, was that an American straight out of College, a guy who's been playing D-League for 10 years, an NBA veteran, or an import who's been playing in the SBL, were all 10 points. Then the best local NBL players were all 10 points, but a Brock Motum coming out of Europe was only 9.
So are they going to do something similar with these "salaries"? All imports are worth $X, etc?
How do you value somebody who's last gig was $1M+ in the NBA?

Those numbers don't even go close to matching the ones in your earlier post.

The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.

So for 1 marquee its $150k, 2 its $350k, 3 its $600k.

Injury replacement for Kazzoo, is what's being talked about amongst the members re Prewster, but who knows for sure.

Yeah, well that's another thing, isn't it. The Kings are definitely flouting that one. Is Prewster on their roster? There's nothing on their website to say that he is (yes, Wookie, I know you can't trust a team's website for all your information, but they're up to date with everything else that's going on in Kingsville.) They haven't released a statement saying he is, either. And they'ver released statements about everything else they've done.

^^^^ and maybe why they are going with only 10 on the roster.

@koberulz, how it works is: (for example) marquee players A, B and C are given deemed market values (DMV) of $400K, $200K and $500K.

In this case, the first marquee player's salary is deemed to be $150K. It doesn't matter whose salary it is. The second marquee player's salary is deemed to be $200K, irrespective of who it is. The third marquee player's salary is deemed to be $250K, irrespective of who it is. If a club wished to nominate a fourth marquee player, that player's salary would be $300K.

So, the total salary of the three players (as counted toward the soft salary cap) would be $600K, irrespective of whether player A, B, or C was marquee player 1, 2 or 3.

So, the club may be paying them that $1.1M, or somewhat less than what their deemed values are (and a private sponsor paying them hundreds of thousands to lick stamps, or something), but if the NBL's Contract Review Committee has deemed their values to be those I've mentioned, they are worth $600K to the salary cap.

This is what @Dazz was trying to present in his most recent post, he just did it inelegantly.

There are two salient points here, in regards to the Kings, and also in respect to another of the salary cap rules.

The first is that the Kings can only nominate one player's salary as a marquee player, as they have three imports (restricted players.) Teams can have a total of four imports and marquee players, for salary cap purposes.

The second is a question, rather than a point, which is: can a team claim a marquee player's DMV in their calculations of five players whose salaries must be no more than $400K? This would leave $250K between four players, and may be the only way Sydney could come close to fitting those five player salaries under $400K.

Those numbers don't even go close to matching the ones in your earlier post.

Does it? Is there any rule that says the 300k marquee player can't be the highest-paid, and the 150k player the lowest-paid?

Can you do that mid-season?

Tempo, you don't win anything easy you muffin top.

Can you do that mid-season?

IF a team had ZERO imports, they could have 4 local marquees. The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.
So straight up, that only helps if your 4th highest paid local player is worth significantly more than $300k.

SO maybe when he comes back they drop Powell? That would allow them to move a 2nd local into Marquee status.

People just hate to see a team they don't barrack for winning ;). Perth has copped it for ages. Kings fans finally have something to brag about and are letting us all know about it lol

The Sydney fans are getting cocky, the Perth fans frustrated and the 36ers fans confident enough to take on the world one minute, pissed off the next.

oh, that looks great :-(
btw, I meant to say "keep all 3?"

In my reading of the rules you are allowed four players on either marquee or imports, so if the Kings are paying four players $300g each less 50% reduction that ends up $600g, leaving $500g left before they are over the cap for at present six other players. They might be over the cap but it ain't by much.

My understanding is that Marquess can now only be locals, which on its own I think is a good move.

IF a team had ZERO imports, they could have 4 local marquees. The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.
So straight up, that only helps if your 4th highest paid local player is worth significantly more than $300k.
But Sydney have 3 imports, so currently only one player is a marquee.

One thing I don't know, is whether they will keep all 4 when Khazza returns? I assume he would be on injury waiver at the moment, so I assume his salary doesn't count?
SO maybe when he comes back they drop Powell? That would allow them to move a 2nd local into Marquee status.

But it still all comes back to the point that we are waiting on this "committee" to do its job and announce the numbers.

Suck it up. The cats and Breakers have DOMINATED the last 5 odd years with sprinkles from other team.

The Kings are now the BEASTS of the league. If this team stays healthy then they will easily take out the comp.

You cant compare them to United last year. The start United had was the biggest smoke and mirrors start i have ever seen. Landing 3s 2 feet behind the arc with a hand in your face was always going to dry up and everyone knew it.

Thats all United did, jack up 3 after 3 and won so many close games.

Sydney are completely different. We have EVERYTHING covered. Inside presence on offense in Powell and Maric, slashes in Newley and Lisch and deadly shooters in Cadee , Lisch and now Blake who is also a fantastic creator for his team mates.

This team has every base covered and most impressive is there D.

As i said, if they stay healthy, they win it easy.

Yes, we've had owners with deep pockets before, but that has not been matched by the league.
The Cowan Dragons fiasco being a case in point. He puts in the money, wins a ring, then cracks the shits and bails. Whether you blame him, the league, or both, its a bad look when your reigning champions don't bother coming back.

Things like TV deals are huge mutual commitments. No network (be it FTA, subscriber, or web) wants to effectively spend money advertising and promoting a show that may not be available next year. Hence LK's commitment to the league is important.

I'm fine with teams like Melb/Syd spending big and'buying' rings (or attempting to) if it means better players and teams in the league. As long as the luxury tax is appropriate and the money from it is being used effectively and being put back into the league and weaker/poorer teams.

Would be great for the league imo to have so much cash being spent by rich clubs, could help kick start a flow on effect to help build up the league.

big spenders = more cash going in league = more cash going to poorer teams from luxury tax = better players all round in the league = bigger crowds/interest from fans = more TV/sponsorship deals = more money for everyone = back to the start to restart the cycle

Yeah exactly, we really need it to work this time.

So it's the combination of both that is the point of difference? Fair enough, touch wood it does work.

I'm just waiting for the second Melbourne team, second NZ team to join and the Newcastle Falcons, Canberra Cannons and Tassie Devils to come back.

"We've never had club owners with deep pockets before?"

I'd advise reading what I said again, Snooch.

"We've currently got club owners with deep pockets and a league HQ that really puts effort into promoting its product. We've never had that before so touch wood it works out."

In my reading of the rules you are allowed four players on either marquee or imports, so if the Kings are paying four players $300g each less 50% reduction that ends up $600g

Haha yes I can't wait to see the Kings gone, hopefully with arrogant Melb and Bris soon behind them and NZ can piss off out of the aussie league too. The sooner its just Perth, Adelaide + 2 regional teams the better. Imagine how much depth each team would have when theres just 4 teams it will be a superleague.

it will be funny to see King's when the money dries up. Hopefully they're buried for good. Maybe go back to the Razorbacks, who would be great to see back in the league Not this cocky, rubbish "We are kings" garbage. Terrible franchise.

Cairns Brisbane and Sydney all had owners with access to money. Just that it was someone elses.

We've never had club owners with deep pockets before?

Cairns, Sydney, Brisbane - just off the top of my head, at stages had club owners with deep pockets. But when the money dried up....

Yes I agree it needs to be easier for teams to drive into the paint and score and those will lead to better ratings

I think they're shify and they're begging the NBL not to expose them... they're prob looking for ways to not pay as much as they should be in luxury tax.

In my reading of the rules you are allowed four players on either marquee or imports, so if the Kings are paying four players $300g each less 50% reduction that ends up $600g, leaving $500g left before they are over the cap for at present six other players. They might be over the cap but it ain't by much.

Exactly... They could be doing everything by the book but it's the perceived wrong doing and their lack of action that is causing the damage... If they even came out and gave a deadline for when it was going to happen that would be something...

If the NBL actually made good on being transparent, it would clear a lot of things up... If the Kings (and Melbourne, let's not keep leaving them out of the conversation) are paying well over, then they get taxed... A lot of the hate is coming from the assumption that they're doing a dodgy, which considering what has gone on in the NBL in the past, it's actually a fair assumption, and the NBL's lack of communication and burying their head in the sand/ignoring it, is just making it look highly suspicious...

They need to set the contract review committee and be clear on how much tax will be distributed and when... No point in waiting until next season for teams that might suffer THIS season...

Yawn at this thread.

This site's members have an average age of 16. Don't worry Jerkin' we know the kings are cheats. Just don't tell Wookie. Wookie can't handle his beloved Bananarama-Kings being exposed. Thank God for spellcheck on here, hey kiddies? Or you'd be destroying grammar left, right and center.

starts silly thread


comes back and spits dummy when people point out it's silly

haha, I expected nothing less here than misdirected anger and vitriol toward me for making that statement. No one is saying they shouldn't seek a championship, but when you blow the salary cap this much, you've got to question it. Also - Get a life, halfwits. it's just a comment, no need to wet your panties and run to daddies nipple because someone has a different opinion to you as this site is most famously good for, you're all just angry little children by the sounds of it.

you don't like it when people question the "system".

I think rules and reffing can deal with scrappy behaviour. Call the game in a way that keeps the defence honest, allows the offence that little bit of extra space and not have to deal with that extra bit of physicality impeding movement/ability to lead to the ball.

I support the 12 minute quarters though. To begin with,stats are a huge thing in sports, particularly basketball. Blahblah Westbrook triple doubles etc. It's good for building a narrative. I also don't think extra minutes = extra junk time, I actually have always considered it to be extra substance time.

To me, there is that aspect that 40 minutes is too short, I think 48 is ideal to be honest. I'd also like to see introduction of 20/30 second timeouts, maybe two at the expense of a full time out each. Full timeouts draw out a game and kills atmosphere on occasion, 20 second timeouts tend to enhance IMO.

^ Well said, sir.

It's not about calling more fouls or less fouls, there's not a big difference in fouls per min from NBL to NBA (about 3/40 mins) it's about being more consistent about what is and isn't called.

You want players to know how what will be called each time they step on the floor, then they learn to defend a certain way, rather than just pushing the limits to see what will be called each night as many NBL teams do.

I agree with ME's last para, it's about allowing the offensive player space to use their skills by penalising defenders who get up-and-in, while allowing them to play positional D without being whistled for soft ones. Then you get a cleaner and more attractive game.

@Ricky, there's plenty not being called at the moment. Travels, three seconds, illegal screens galore. What needs to be done is to require a higher standard of refereeing across the board. There is too much inconsistency, which is what makes it most difficult for players to get going.
There are too many soft fouls being called.

It's wasy to suggest the players should adapt to the refereeing on a game by game (sometimes quarter by quarter) basis, but give them a break: a lot of the time, they're trying to adapt to a different game plan, or trying to stop being pushed around by Nate Jawai or AJ Ogilvy!

Allowing players to travel in the name of a spectacle is just silly. Great basketball can be (and is) played within the rules.

Referring to the topic of the OP, it's only tragic if the Kings are able to buy a ring by cheating. The only way I can see them to be cheating would be if they don't have five players whose total salaries are $400K or less. Hill, Garlepp, maybe Cadee... then who? Prewster isn't part of the roster, officially, is he? Wittington? He's a D-League guy, so could be on a lot less than Powell and Blake would be. How much is Khazzouh on? After that, you're starting to get into the guys everyone thinks are on the BIG money.

"First thing in making it better to watch is 12 min q's plus refs need to be trained on allowing some fouls and travels to go uncalled ala NBA.

Calling all these cheap fouls on stars and basically sitting them on the bench. GTFO refs, you're drunk.
"

Why do people think 12 minute quarters are the answer? If a game is unwatchable, another 8 minutes - or half an hour TV time - of it wont make it any better.

I think they need to change the rulings to allow the offense to shine a bit more. It doesn't have to be big changes, but something that allows someone like Torrey Craig to soar through the air and feel like the rules protect him from being permanently injured or completely obstructed from it.

If the NBL actually made good on being transparent, it would clear a lot of things up... If the Kings (and Melbourne, let's not keep leaving them out of the conversation) are paying well over, then they get taxed... A lot of the hate is coming from the assumption that they're doing a dodgy, which considering what has gone on in the NBL in the past, it's actually a fair assumption, and the NBL's lack of communication and burying their head in the sand/ignoring it, is just making it look highly suspicious...

They need to set the contract review committee and be clear on how much tax will be distributed and when... No point in waiting until next season for teams that might suffer THIS season...

I don't know if 12min quarters are the way to go, because if it keeps being scrappy and soft useless fouls being called, then you're just going to have development players playing in the last 4-6 minutes, so the refs need guidance and consistently on how to call a fair, consistent and exciting game, that's the biggest thing holding the league back atm in my opinion...

First thing in making it better to watch is 12 min q's plus refs need to be trained on allowing some fouls and travels to go uncalled ala NBA.

Calling all these cheap fouls on stars and basically sitting them on the bench. GTFO refs, you're drunk.

Agree KET. That would just be a repeat of the 2000s most likely. I think it's also important the league understands the difference between standard and spectacle.

A lot more money is being spent this season but the games aren't any better to watch. In fact, for a most part they've been scrappy. Money needs to be spent wisely, and that means either in promoting the league or making the league better to watch.

I agree with Paul. I think development of the NBL to a profitable product is a process, and I think this is a stage of the process and given the way LK is operating, I wouldn't judge it on the way the NBL has failed in the past.

If the NBL is operating like this in the medium/longer term future, then much like in the past, teams will fall under their own unsustainable weight and other teams might fall as a result of being noncompetitive.

However, if this is a stage which drives the medium/longer term future to greater capital investment (perhaps from Chinese or other investors), greater revenue and greater interest then it may well be incredibly beneficial and sustainable.

On the assumption that this is a stage of the process in achieving the above, I am fine with teams - particularly big city markets like Melbourne and Sydney increasing the talent in the league and paying the $$$ to do so (so long as they are capable of it).

What I won't be fine with, is if in the medium/long future, it's always rich v poor, rich far outspending the poor in rosters. That would defeat the purpose of the league and competitive sport generally and you might as well have a finals series between the two-four richest clubs. Clubs needs to do their best to be competitive, and each club needs to be capable of resourcing to match each other when it comes to paying players.