Hoops

Bendat withdraws Wildcats from sale negotiations

Now I'm getting flashbacks of John Casey and Steve Carfino in Hawaiian shirts. What a concept.

It was to do with phones as Vlahov held one up on NBL Big Wednesday on Fox.

There was never a listing for the company or business though, even in Hong Kong.

They were a mobile phone manufacturer, I remember seeing an ad somewhere. One of the game programs maybe?

Re: Vlahov ownership era - I would love to know the truth about the mysterious Oriant.

Cheers Mr Ked.

Vlahov getting back involved would be an utter disaster. Sure, he helped saved them in the early 2000's, but he nearly ran them into the ground back then too. He changes business interests every year after one has flopped. Not exactly an shining example of stability. I'd personally avoid any consortium involving local 'basketball people'

Senator 11. Vlahov and Longley were previous owners of the Wildcats. That was at the time b/ball was in trouble in Aus and the NBL was trying to get involved with Asia.
If the above is correct re Ticket 2, I would hope they are unsuccessful also. What we read of Lako and his time at the Redbacks is a bit off putting. Having a reputation for not fulfilling promises to players etc wouldn't help any organisation that relies on imports and a good culture.

I dont mind if Vlahov is involved. He knows basketball on and off the court as well as anyone. But it all comes down to who the prominent financial backer is, and how financially prominent they are.

Were Vlahov and Longley involved in the Cats ownership in the past or was that the NBL in general? They were the guys who introduced the Asian teams into the comp right? Was a good idea in theory but didn't work.

Lako automatically fails any smell test.

Who are rumored to be involved in Ticket 1 and Ticket 2? I've heard about the Bennett family, but who are the basketball people? Someone in that group must be "on the nose" in Jacks opinion. I've heard nothing of any names in the Ticket 2 group.

Did you know that the Ford Family still controls Ford, despite owning only a fraction of the company. The Family owns special shares that each carry (IIRC) 20 votes. Those shares lose their special voting rights if sold outside the family.
Every year at the AGM their is a move to strip those special rights, by changing the company constitution, and it gets defeated, by those special votes.

The constitution of Qantas specifies that it must remain Australian domiciled, that board members must be Australian residents, and limits foreign shareholdings.

There are many different self-perpetuating private organisations, some of them worth hundreds of millions, where new board members are appointed by the existing board.

I'm not suggesting a new ownership would agree to that level of "hands off", I'm simply pointing out that there are many things that can be achieved.

Even more can be done using different entities. As a purely hypothetical example, actual ownership (of the licence and IP) could be vested in a trust, controlled by an independent board. With the team operated under a management contract by the new "owners". Such a contract could specify many things. Similarly the Community Development arm could be placed into a separate entity, again with a contract that requires the Wildcats to provide current players and coaches to the tune of X,000 hours per year.

But yes, as we've said, its fundamentally about ensuring that the new ownership group shares the same values. So if you find out that one of them used to run a pub with skimpies, or made his fortune with a chain of adult-shops, then probably not the right fit.

Trev you are incorrect.

The Wildcats media statement was Martin was having surgery and would take his time to decide his playing future making use of the delayed start of the season to their advantage.

Martin's injury was well documented straight after the grand final. He said it himself that if he needed surgery he will hang up the boots because it's too much to cone back from.

He had surgery months ago, yet people have memories like a goldfish.

Everyone knew he will retire from the day he had surgery.

It makes sense for the wildcats to not disclose the injury during the season and playoffs.

However, the whole "Martin will decide" thing was done to keep membership tickets turning over.

Yes, the player should be able to decide, but the cat's ham it up a bit much at times.

Everyone knew it was an achilles injury, they just downplayed it so the opposition wouldn't try and target it.

"Don't believe the Wildcats spin. This is the same club that hid Martin's achilles injury and retirement plans, when he knew it was career ending."

Because heaven forbid a player actually gets to decide when his career is over and his medical reports released. What you wrote has no relevance to anything and just makes you seem like a tool.

Don't believe the Wildcats spin. This is the same club that hid Martin's achilles injury and retirement plans, when he knew it was career ending.

Bendat wants what he believes the Wildcats are worth. Culture is just the angle they are giving the media, because the consortium's offer isn't high enough.

Bennett is still most likely linked, but not her directly. Families money is involved I'd say.

"Someone coming in new ultimately will want to try something 'new'"

This exact statement is probably what Bendat is afraid of, he's built the Wildcats into a very successful club in a sport that borderlines on profit in Australia. An owner coming in who would be cocky enough to think they can do better and "change" the mould could be massively detrimental to the Cats.

I am no law expert, I just don't see how any of these undertakings would be enforceable. You can't cancel a sale contract when the new owners bring in Glen Rice Jnr and give him free flow of Fosters on the way to a School Visit.

I think the best thing you can do is find someone you feel you can trust to carry on the same values / beliefs / management going forward.

When money is involved, and its outflowing faster and inflowing, culture, values etc can take a back seat to the bottom line.

Someone coming in new ultimately will want to try something 'new'
- Sponsorship from less family oriented industries like gambling?
- More revealing dress on Dancers? They were slightly more revealing before the Wildcats went family.
- Less expensive community ties.

Sydney averaged over 9000 at home and there spend was less than Perth or United.

Why wouldn't he want say in the future direction? It's not like he's selling because he needs the money. He's look to pass the baton. Nothing "numpty" about it.

There are many different things that can be achieved through structure, using different entities bound by contracts, and controlling the method of appointing board members and the CEO.
He can also underwrite the financial future by insisting on the amount and structure of capital.

Understand that the organisation won't be legally owned by an individual or even a partnership. It will be a combination of trusts and corporations. Trust are governed by their trust-deed, and corporations by the law, their constitution, and share structure.

But obviously yes it also come down to reviewing the people who would assume board positions under the new ownership. Doing the utmost to ensure those people share the current vision and culture.
If reports are to be believed, somebody's history didn't measure up.

Unfortunately I didn't win the $20M in Saturday's Lotto, so had to withdraw my bid.

Second point, that I want to make, Dr B doesn't need to tell anyone how to run the club in the future. He just needs to FIND some-one who shares his views strongly. You're all thinking that there can't be 2 rich people who give a damn, right?

"It's not about money, it's about culture." Of course, it is. But only if you can afford it.

Weird criticisms above on new ownership being vetted. No one wants to see another Paul Smith.

(Meanwhile most of the other clubs that aren't already owned by him have to be re-bought by daddy.)

Wildcats are like the hot chick of the NBL - we attract many suitors but have high standards so most get rejected until the right one is found.

Angela Bennett was the rumoured party according to the papers, an heiress to the iron ore money. Didn't even know who she was, but apparently she's quite reclusive.

While I understand Dr Bendat wants the new custodians of the Wildcats to uphold the same things that the Wildcats currently do, how is any of it enforceable once sold?

I honestly don't know who they were negotiating with, but do know that Dr Jack said from the outset that there would be stringent conditions imposed. He certainly doesn't care about the money, all he wants to see is that the Wildcats continue to operate as he would have wanted. So it's easy enough to imagine him imposing conditions that a new owner doesn't want to agree to.

One word. Lako (no kidding)

I guess we will never know the reasons (but won't stop posters from posting), but would be very interesting to see what part of the due diligence was the deal breaker.

Just keep it Jack.

I know that this topic will well and truly turn pear shape and that emotions could get in the way of objective discussion. However, can anyone,please anyone tell me one good thing that BSA and it's CEO have done for the sport of basketball in SA since his appointment?