Hoops

Randle gone

Exactly, you would have to be very naive to think otherwise.

"All others abiding" has never happened.

But it would not be right to include in our consideration seasons where one team was breaking the rules where all others were abiding by them. This was the first season where it was understood all teams have the option to exceed the cap.

"There has only been one season with a soft cap."

Only officially, but not in practice.

"Teams can spend lots of money on players, but without a high quality coach the chances of success diminish. As much as I dislike Gleeson, I reckon he would have done pretty well with Uniteds squad and probably Kings as well."

There are many things that come into it.

Injuries were huge last season.

Adelaide - Creek but you could argue that the Sixers were not as badly impacted by injuries and in fact Creek's injury allowed Sobey more playing time hence growth.
Brisbane - Bairstow and Peach
Cairns - Nate, Loughton and Wortho playing with bad shoulder
Illawarra - Norton.
Melbourne - Goulding, Blanchfield, Andersen, Moore and did Barlow come in late?
NZ - Mitchell, Stockton, Abercrombie
Perth - Knight, Martin, Kenney, Ingram (Mental wellbeing).
Sydney - Kazzouh.

Mistakes at the organisational level.

Brisbane - 2 imports.
Sydney - Bryson ---> Blake ---> Jackson. Running the Shuffle.
Adelaide - Ferguson, can we afford an import slot to produce and play so little?
Melbourne - Sticking with Williams for so long, replacing Moore with Kromar.
Perth - Johnson ---> Ingram ---> Johnson.

Too many things come into play to blame it on just the coach or injuries or a player.

MEL & SYD will learn after the first year failure. Soon all of the top four will be $$$ teams, 2016-17 was an outlier.

Teams can spend lots of money on players, but without a high quality coach the chances of success diminish. As much as I dislike Gleeson, I reckon he would have done pretty well with Uniteds squad and probably Kings as well.

"LOL at using one season as a sample size to disprove $$$ = win, especially since the one big spender out of the four finalists ended up winning the title anyway."

There has only been one season with a soft cap. Therefore I can only speak tot hat one season.

Sure one big spender won it all, but 3 out of 4 big spenders didn't even make the playoffs. My assertion that big spending doesn't guarantee success still holds true. You can spend big but that money has to be translated to something that works on the court, this clearly did not happen for United and Kings.

LoveBroker it was ALOT...

In the short run yes, but not long term. LOL at using one season as a sample size to disprove $$$ = win, especially since the one big spender out of the four finalists ended up winning the title anyway.

"Pointybits, Perth won with cotton who they paid the earth for. So big money does win.."

We don't know what Cotton was paid nor how much the Wildcats salary bill was. So far its all speculation.

So since we in the speculation mood, 2 of the lowest spending teams in the NBL made the playoffs with one going all the way to the GF.

Two of the highest spending teams in Sydney and Melbourne both missed the playoffs, neither even came 5th. NZ was probably a big spender and also missed the playoffs.

Thats 5 of out 8 teams that seem to buck the trend of their spending. This suggests to me that spending big does not guarantee winning, nor does spending low guarantee losing.

Poker chips.
Nothing has changed except the points system is gone and the salaries are higher than ever.

Or do you mean the infamous Vegas gift the whole team got from Eddy after winning the title? Proof it's easy to circumvent salary caps.

I didn't forget, that's why I said Groves.

Don't forget Joey Wright in Brisbane. The title gift.

It is getting ridiculous now. Reminds me of the last $$$ cycle in the mid 2000s when the Groves/McPeake/Kings money was flowing. Of course eventually it crashed.

Most players if not all players in the NBL are now all over paid.

Pointybits, Perth won with cotton who they paid the earth for. So big money does win..

Who can forget Homocide acting as if he had won the Championship after beating the Cats in Perth after a single game elimination final. Talk about prematurimg!

Randle is a modern day Homicide. Over paying him wont make him any better. Bevridge sorted him out with a 5.2 season.

It seems that the 3 poorest clubs Cairns, Adelaide (minor Premiers) and Illawarra (grand finalists) clearly showed that big money doesn't guarantee a winning result.

I agree the plan to offset over cap spending seems to have simply disappeared.

Last but not least in the USA failing to get a gig in the NBA earns a listing of failed American ball players. In the "nineties" the Kings had success with Bruce Bolden as their 1st import. He was kept company by no less than 9 other imports hired and fired throughout just 1 season

Source?

I'm not really a fan of back and forth speculation and being drawn into agressive exchanges. I said what I know, I'm sorry this doesn't quell your immediate anxieties.

Patience is a virtue fellas.

Not sure what the point of steering me back to focus on my junior was? Does my being a parent of a player diminish my knowledge of the matter somehow?

Smith........boring. He won't be back.

smith is just some random making up info, no track record and now we have to believe it's a lock. and lol at there being a five year plan... wow ok that is so vague

go concentrate more on your kid in that junior thread

Randle is gunning for a summer league spot. He ain't signing anywhere until after then. So Smith could be correct, maybe JR has verbally committed to Adelaide if he didn't crack NBA

New Boti article suggests that Sixers are still in talks with Randle but that no imports have been signed or confirmed yet, and they're unlikely to be signed or confirmed until July.

http://bit.ly/2nKbMhT

Which would make your current info wrong derr

I will not change my handle ha ha.
If i am wrong, it is not because the information i was handed was incorrect, it would be because Rome has made a last minute decision contrary to the one he has agreed to off paper for now.

Boti keeps saying that Randle remains a priority for the Sixers so I'd be likely to stick with that until we hear differently.

So after all that, is Randle gone or not?

Firstly, please don't apostrophise my psuedonym, it's Freethrows. ;D

Yep.

Without a serious TV deal ($$$) and after LK's initial $10mil capital pledge runs dry we are back to square one.

Arms race is not viable whatsoever in the long term. I appreciate the short term aspect to drag talent and increase revenue base.

New owners and still a cluster.

Oh, and the salary cap for next year is supposed to be the average of what was paid across all teams, this year. So in Freethrows' scenario posted above, the cap would move to $1,750,000 and the salary floor would go to $1,575,000.

"I always had the notion that all teams were required to spend the full cap."

The original press release stated "Salary Floor implemented – Clubs must spend at least 90% of the Salary Cap." so each club had to spend at least $990,000 in 2016-17.

Oh, and the salary cap for next year is supposed to be the average of what was paid across all teams, this year. So in Freethrows' scenario posted above, the cap would move to $1,750,000 and the salary floor would go to $1,575,000.

Then again, that press release also stated "Salaries publicly disclosed." so maybe these salary shenanigans all ended up in the same too hard basket as public disclosure.

It's worth noting that earlier in the 2016-17 season, people were bandying about figures of $1.8 and $2 million for a couple of teams' salaries. When you add the supposed luxury tax, that'd cost them $2.37 and 2.87 million respectively. Phew!

Smith and findings locked in a fight for credibility here. Whoever loses will leave the forum with their tail between their legs, only to return with a new username.

I always had the notion that all teams were required to spend the full cap.

Sore toes from the last time I kicked rocks.

Anon: "Freethrow's I definitely agree that right now the system isn't perfect, but personally I think eventually the big spending by some teams can be a huge positive for building the league up.

IMO the challenge is for the league to embrace the big spending by some clubs, but find a way to harness that to improve the league overall. It comes down largely to if the tax is large enough and if the money from it is actually making it to where it needs to be."

Firstly, please don't apostrophise my psuedonym, it's Freethrows. ;D

You make a very good point. My fear is that the tax is not only not large enough (if you read the statements put out by the league, as vague as they were, they did stipulate the tax rates, and they start quite low, at only a little over the salary cap, and don't get large until teams spend really big), but also that it might not ever get shared to any other teams.

Picture this scenario: Cairns (for example) spend $1 million dollars out of the $1.1 million soft cap. They are under the cap by $100K. For argument's sake, let's say that Adelaide and Illawarra do the same. That's three teams $300K below the salary cap.

Now let's imagine that Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane all exceed the salary cap. Sydney and Melbourne spend $3 million, and Perth and Brisbane each spend $2 million. New Zealand spends exactly to the cap. This is all for argument's sake, not my opinion of what's actually happened, or likely to happen!

According to the NBL's rules, the salary cap taxes payable by Sydney and Melbourne would be a whopping $2,368,750.00 each. The tax payable by Perth and Brisbane would be $868,750 each.

That's a total of $6,475,000 in taxes. Wow! Now, there's only three teams under the cap, and only by a combined total of $300K. According to the NBL's statement on March 30, 2016: "The subsidy will be distributed to teams which may otherwise find it difficult to meet the salary cap."

Does that mean that Cairns, Adelaide and Illawarra would, in this scenario, get $2,158,333.33 each to spend the next year? What about poor old NZ, who spent exactly to the cap? They would miss out. Or does it mean that Cairns, Adelaide and Illawarra would each get the $100K that would bring them to the salary cap? That's equitable!!! Not.

I think this example shows how feeble an attempt at maintaining "the long-term competitiveness of all teams in the league" the soft salary cap really is.

I am just here to tell people to kick rocks at this point

smith, you can't go calling other people's sources in to question, when you don't give any information about your own sources. It doesn't make you sound any more credible.

5 year plan for the club, didnt say he was signing for 5 years..

i said watch this space.

You heard from RANDLE"s mouth? or someone who cleans the toilets at the arena?

Smith, I heard from the horses mouth that no deal is done. How does that Michael Jackson song go?? Oh yeah, Just beat it.....

You may have a five year plan but players can't sign more than three years. also smith is no Fundingsland.

Smith I really hope you're correct, but it's fully contradictzing Fundingslands thread and he was right about Sobey.

He didn't say it was a 5 year deal just that there is a 5 year plan in place.

Players can only be signed to three years max.

No fake. Watch this space.