If the three owners per team part is there than I would be surprised if Seamus and the Tigers were all for it. Unless of course they are planning on claiming 2 other parties have a interest in the club.

Friggin selfish owners. Give up a bit of ownership, align yourselves with basketball at grassroots and watch your team's flourish.

Greed, what about the four or so clubs who stand to potentially lose their involvement as it stands? They may not have teams around to flourish.

Good point Anonymous. : P

Anyone who was seen the crowd attendances at the current cricket test matches in India will understand why you need to be extremely wary with Pay TV deals these days.

If it is a bitch against 'live against the gate' then the Tigers with their small venue couldn't care less, but pretty obviously the Dragons with their large venue are going to oppose it.

Pay TV deals like thie one proposed means that some won't have to buy S/Tickets anymore

The way i see it is that this group contains the 2 richest owners in the league (Bendat and Cowan) so they must know something that isn't being made public.

Afterall these guys aren't in the position they are in financially by making bad decisions.

Yeah Eddy Groves didn't get to the position he was in this time last year by making bad decisions.
??????

it's obviously not just about making each team have 3 owners... Crocs are owned by about 50 people.

It's all about how the revenue from the NBL, including the $35M from FOXSPORTS, and how it gets divvied up to the teams and if the money filters down to the ground roots.

There could be something that BA have ready to divvie the money up but the reform doesn't mention it at all

I am not talking on court i am talking their business ability off it.

For them to be balking at the deal something has to be up. If it was all good and straight forward then they would not be meeting to discuss a potential veto.

If the NBL had any balls left they could simply threaten to kick them out if they wanted to make it hard for them.

Also remember as has been pointed out these owners have invested in most cases millions of dollars so it is not like they dont want the league to be a success.

If the league dies they will have detonated their investment. It is not in their interests not be looking after the league and their position in it.

HAHA yeah sure you could say that about Eddy he was a richman before ABC so he has lost money but not his business ability.


As for the new league what exactly is going to be different?

There will still be teams representing various parts of Australia, they may not be the same names or wear the same colours but i am starting to question what will be different.

All i can think of is that the promotion will be a lot better. That is something that could be fixed straight away. ie dont send out promotional material riddled with errors is a starting point and that is something simple that is a no brainer. A league revamp will not fix things like that.

New sponsors? if it is going to be attractive to sponsors in the revamp why is not attractive to them now? A big mac is a big mac regardless of if i give it to you in a Hungry Jacks wrapper.

It is going to be the same game played in the same stadiums by the same people. How will it be different?

This is one of my favouriye pieces and I thought apt for this dicsussion


The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

But in modern business (and education and government), because heavy investment factors are taken into consideration, other strategies are often tried with dead horses, including the following:

1. Buying a stronger whip.

2. Changing riders.

3. Threatening the horse with termination.

4. Appointing a committee to study the horse.

5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.

6. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.

7. Reclassifying the dead horse as "living-impaired".

8. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

9. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.

10. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.

11. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.

12. Declaring that the dead horse carries lower overhead and therefore contributes more to the bottom line than some other horses.

13. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.

14. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

There is nothing that has not been made public, with the exception of an excel spreadsheet that was given to stakeholders and not released to the general public.
The only information that was on the spreadsheet, was expected revenue targets etc- it was a sensitive document only in that it wasn't the business of the general public to know.... kind of like how it's not my business to know your bank account balance, but you preventing me from seeing it doesn't necessarily mean that you are shonky with your account.

The owners that are preapred to cut of their nose (and everyone else's against their will) to spite their face are the ones that don't want to do any more than the bare minimum with their players- ie, no promotion of the game etc and want to operate under the current dodgy stealth modes they have been getting away with for too long.

The review states, and the NBL and BA agree, that it is in the best interests of EVERYBODY that the players do more to nurture the game and earn their keep for the full 12 months instead of just half of it on court.
Many players and their owners don't want to do anything more than the bare minimum.
They are happy to engage our support for their quest for change, then when they get it, they whinge about trivial details that are in everybody's best interests anyway! Ridiculous!
Not everybody is going to be safisfied, but for these 3 clubs in particular to be carrying on like this in spoilt brat petty fashion, it is an utter disgrace and disappointment to $35 million worth of basketball that will end up in the toilet.

Long after basketball has dies in this country, the owners of the breakaway clubs will move onto other investments that they can screw and walk away from.
The rest of us will still be here holding the baby and wondering what could have been.

Surely the reason for the meeting in Perth would fall something like this.

Vlahov knows Fox rarely travel West and when they do the tip off has to accomodate and means it is a ridiculous 6 or 6:30pm game start, meaning poor crowds.

Dragons and Crocs would be concerned about their future in a 8 team comp as they could well be ear marked along with gold coast to miss out.

Added to that Cowan probably wouldnt be too happy with the three ownsership proposition (but i also couldnt believe seamus would be happy either with that one).

This isn't a bad thing though.
It is good that people are caring and being pro-active and getting into discussions. From here they can all put forward their concerns and a solution that helps everyone can be found.

The model needs to be sound before the $35 M from Fox will make it work, I gather thats one of the sticking points along with the ownership IP and return of existing (paid for)Licenses.

HAHA so how are these 3 owners the ones that are not doing anything than the minimum?

Cowan spends more on marketing the Goons than the NBL spends on the entire league.

Crocs and Wildcats problem is not having big enough venues to get more people to.

So that tells me these 3 know what works and what doesn't. Or put another way i bet the Hawks and Spirit would love to have the problems of these 3 clubs.

Any objections invariably are coated by self interest...it's human nature. It's fine for the renegades to question but if you look deeply enough the things they question will always be how they impact THEM. Unless all parties are prepared to sacrifice I can't see this being a smooth transition if at all.

HAHA - the Fox deal has been on the table for almost a month, yet only just gets brought out now?

Of course BA and the NBL are for change - the NBL has nothing to lose and BA has everything to gain. The most risk is in the hands of owners, IMO, and I don't blame any of them for being cautious.

What risks do the owners really have? It's not like their teams really are money making cows and most teams take a negative loss in that department?

Amen, Isaac.

And the way this thing smells at the moment, I'd be shying away too.

The Fox deal comes to light, some of the owners suggest they may not be happy with the arrangements (not including the parts they don't have information on) and Derwin (the Chief executive of the organisation most likely to benefit) comes out saying that they HAVE to jump on board otherwise the deal might be pulled. Seems to me that, as you pointed out, the people who stand to gain the most are pushing and the people who stand to lose the most are at least looking for time. I think they have every right to do so. IF Fox want games on every night of the week, what will that do to crowds? I know I can't take my 2 kids to an endless stream of midweek games. What if they want them packaged for an hour? Would you pay a membership to go and see a one hour game on a Tuesday night, for example. What if Fox start making demands about WHERE teams can be because of the logistics of broadcasting? Too many if's to commit $3 million on in my view.

I would tell Fox that it's not going to get done that quickly and tell 'em to come back in a month. Talk to alternatives....There might be some now with more FTA channel options. Less money for FTA would probably be a much better deal and they wouldn't necessarily make the demands that I'd suggest Fox will make.

Either way.....the owners MUST have a voice in this.

Guys, there's a difference between having a voice and pushing to get other clubs to come around to anothers' way of thinking which jepordises the whole project's stability.
No one is saying nobody can be cautious- I know people in Brisbane who are justifiable worried about this latest development because they possibly may not end up back in the comp- at least the other teams in the league currently aren't trying to relaunch and start from scratch to get investors on board- they have a lot to worry about considering other clubs still at least have owners.
The Bullets' people have made it clear that they will have no such part in a rogue league as seen from BQ's CEO's letter sent to clubs to beg them not to make assumptions and make their default being that if they don't get what they want and how, they will form their own league- there needs to be some give and take and nobody seems to want to be willing to do that.
These clubs are jumping the gun- if they were level headed they would collectively ask for a confidential meeting with NBL/ BA to discuss the viability of what is being asked of them, and as a last resort, CONSIDER their own thing, not make it the first thing they will do.
It has never been more apparent that we have too many chiefs, and not enough indians.

Why are people still posting on the previous thread????
In answer to EC's comment there, it is not $3million for the licence.
The figures that I had in recent months quoted were for the Bullets, so I don't know if these figures directly relate to everyone else.
It is $1.5 million for the bank guarantee, plus with other costs, takes the AVERAGE for what will be needed, up to $3 million in ballpark figures.
(That could fall a little under or a tad more, but that is the approximation that has been done by them)

What risks do the owners really have? It's not like their teams really are money making cows and most teams take a negative loss in that department?

HAHA i think you will find the split is

1mm Bank Guarantee ( ties up owners capital and costs them interest both for the guarantee and in opportunities that that money can not be used for)

1mm upfront per annum into the marketing / administration fund

and
1mm for the new licence.

So 3mm flies out the door in a hurry before a basket has been scored or a ticket sold.

Ok then.
Consider how well you would handle this, given what happened to the Kings and Bullets (in particular, because I am more familiar with their road in detail than the Kings'):

* A basketball club owned by a single owner is filthy rich.
* Owner then has difficulty making and keeping money via their own business, let alone the $1 million or so that clubs are expected to lose on average.
* Owner doesn't want to sell club, because his blood sweat and tears are invested in it, and he loves the game.
* By the time the owner reluctantly decides to sell his beloved club due to not being able to afford it, and nobody knows this is the undercurrent going on with his financial situation until it's too late.
* Players stand by the club and vow to stay and fight.
* Some players confuse this with secretly negotiating their back door exit, which confuses potential owners because they don't know what their money will buy them from day to day with players leaving.
* Fans are under stress in fear they will lose their club.
* Club folds and disbands, causing staff to have to find work elsewhere, when as it is, the world is in a global credit crisis.
This situation quite literally see-saws almost on a daily basis like Days of our Lives soap opera over a period of 6 months, and everyone feels helpless because they don't think enough was done at earlier stages where these cracks would have been identifiable and fixable.
* Kids stop playing basketball in Brisbane because they feel so upset and dejected.
* The following day, the interim CEO publicly claims we all just need to move on and the league is stronger now; so strong, that the game is in overhaul and is in it's last season under it's present format.

If all this sounds like an enjoyable experience to you, then let me tell you, it's not.
The bank guarantee is a preventative measure to guard against clubs going under unexpectedly (which can happen to anyone right now- I don't care what anybody says- no business is safe from economic burden) or during the season.
It is a safety net for the benefit of the owner to be able to still pay bills and players and staff, etc, so that clubs don't have to bicker about hardship funds that the NBL dips into for some clubs and not for others.

Think about this long and hard- it is to prevent the very thing that clubs are complaining they are on the verge of anyway.
I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, what Brisbane went through over 6 months.
How quickly some of us forget; or were exempt from experiencing.

I can't see how fans can be critical of the owners. They've put $Millions of their own funds into their clubs, & the reform commitee still hasn't given them clarification on a couple of possible concerns.
As DICKO mentioned, Cowan's put bucketloads into promotion, & has his team playing out of an expensive stadium. Why? Because he's got a product, & he wants it to succeed. If you want to sell something, advertise, price it right, & make it as convenient as possible for the consumer. The stadium's one of the few available that's central & accessible to the public, but that ramps up the cost factor. He knew all that before he even applied to the NBL. Sure he's made his mistakes, but overall he's been magnificent in trying to make it succeed.
Now the NewNBL want HIS money up front, & will spend HIS money, THEIR way. Then Poxtel p1$$ in everyones ear that they'll air every game (as if). I don't see how any of that works for him.

Listening to Andrew Gaze on fivaa...the eight team idea is FOX. That is what THEY want.

DDFan, Groves put a crapload of money into the NBL too, and look at how he ended up in the end.
Just because somebody has money (at the moment) doesn't mean they are smart enough to keep it in seasons to come.
Fans have a huge right to be critical of owners- especially if an owners greed for dominance costs the ENTIRE project.
The casualties are enormous- other owners, sponsors, players, coaches, staff and fans.... hello?
I'm not sure why some people just aren't hearing that.

I'm wondering what is meant by "relinquishing club identities?" No-one has clearly explained this yet.

If it means that all teams essentially become franchises of the league (like the NBA) but major teams like Adelaide, Perth, Melbourne keep their nicknames and colours, etc I have no problem.

If, as some have suggested, it means that Perth would be forced to be something other than the Wildcats, Adelaide are no longer the 36ers, etc, I would be totally against that.

As someone pointed out on that other thread, we don't have the same problems as the old NSL with its ethnic club affiliations.

Anyone know enough to be able to give a definitive answer?

I'm with Isaac and a few others here as well - you can't blame owners for being cautious about what this report means for the future of their club.

I'm actually quite surprised that there seems to be such indecent haste! Normally when a report is released there is a consultation process and extensive negotiations before any collective decision is taken about the way forward. This is an important decision for the future, it is worth taking the time to do properly.

The attitude of Derwin and Foxtel is akin to that of used car salesman, who will always try to convince you that you have to buy now before their once in a lifetime offer disappears.

Gaze thought it might need some re working, consultation with voters.

sixers wildcats and tigers stay.

It's as much about control as it is about the money.
No team owner will vote for anything that removes his power to operate his status symbol the way he wants to.
That is the reason having 3 owners for every team is unworkable.

HAHA, Eddie's situation was completely different to Cowan's. Eddie spent the money on the players, gave away lots of free tickets & called it promoting the game.

With Beantown on the car salesman analogy.

Players commiting to 12 months of promotions & clinics is a pipedream too. Haven't the consultants heard that players go overseas in the off season?

The plan's full of holes, but it our only chance, let's grab it. WTF.

I'm all for consultation.
It's bad form IF there's been no meeting/ video call discussions- maybe they didn't want to disrupt the current season and make the game look worse to the naked eye- who knows.
Having said that, I still disagree that the whole project should die because of small sacrifices in the whole scheme of things.
Owners who think everyone should pander to them because they are spending their money should probably invest in products they like the conditions of.
What time is the meeting???