I might be grasping, but that's sounding positive.

I hope for two things:

1) the consortium finds the money they need and the Sixers are able to play this season.

2) common sense prevails on the salary cap and it is set quite a bit lower than it was last season. ie, at a level where player payments don't cripple the ability of organisations to at least break even.

C'mon Larry and the consortium - get these things done and done right and we can all go back to enjoying a financially stable league where the focus is on the court, not whether the owner can afford to pay the bills!

The salary cap at $1.2m is unsustainable for the League at this present moment. It goes against all the safeguards they are trying to put in place. I would imagine players to be more interested at this point in time in having a league to play for than an over inflated salary. Not to say they will play for nothing but around the $800K mark is more workable.

At the end of the day it doesnt really matter what the cap is as all teams will pay over the cap anyway. That is unless the New NBL actually police it.

The cap was $800k last year and i believe there was only one team that was anywhere near that figure (Woollongong). Other teams like Cairns, Melb etc we around double that.

Sounds like the same cryptic stuff Chuck said to Brisbane several times just before their licence got taken away.
Quietly confident was a term that got thrown about a lot and in the end didn't happen.
I'm really hoping this doesn't happen to Adelaide and the guys can pull through for the sake of the amount of people that could be affected.

Anonymous - They would not need to be rebranded. Mal owns the name, IP , etc but the consortium would be purchasing all this as part of the purchase price. That is unless they are paying the $1m for a new licence which i highly doubt.

NVS - I think you're right with your response to Anon re Mal/consortium.

EC - I think $1.2m is fine for a few of the teams with strong owners, but not ideal for all of them. That's why I think a two-tier league deserves serious thought - more opportunities for everyone: players, coaches, admin staff, fans, owners wanting to try their luck, etc.

Play an $800k team in a $1.5m league and they will lose games, lose fans and struggle. Play the $800k team against other bantam weights and you have more of a level playing field.

Isaac, do you think the 2nd tier league would attract supporters when there is a superior league to follow? I think we somehow have a 2nd tier already in ABA and there is no where near enough people supporting it even with a salary cap of $800K. I am not quite sure how a 2 tier league would work and whether there would be any point in having it. If there were 2 teams in Adelaide, the 36ers with a salary cap of $1.2m and a 2nd tier team on a cap of $800K, I know where my interest would be. I don't play basketball so my interest is on entertainment value. Entertainment would have to be superior on the $1.2m cap as it would attract the more skilled players.

Adelaide would have one team - at this point, probably in the second tier until it could build up again. Wollongong and Cairns in the second tier too to minimise damage to their financial situation. Maybe a Brisbane QABL team. Perth, NZ, Melbourne, South, Gold Coast, Townsville, etc would be in the top tier. Ideally, with time, Brisbane and Sydney teams would grow to replace Gold Coast and Townsville at the top level, and Adelaide would regain a spot there too. The second tier would provide options for Hobart, Canberra, Darwin, etc.

Would fans still show? If there was a 36ers team to watch with many of the same players and it was a case of second tier or nothing, I think so. And if the fans are there, sponsors would be too (one of the consortium is a sponsor and is obviously interested in greater involvement, they're just short of the cash to be in the top group).

(Warning: half-baked idea ahead.) Actually, it might even be worth the NBL considering the purchase of the 36ers if they're such a steal. Buy the brand and then license the right to operate certain components to various parties - Richard Hill oversees running the team itself, another company handles marketing and game nights, etc. Each would get a share of revenue.

I speak of Adelaide because that is the team I am involved with but if it only had a 2nd tier team, then you would have to assume that the better players like Ballinger, Schenscher, Holmes, Bruce, imports etc would not stay here but look for a more lucrative role in a 1st tier team elsewhere. I don't agree with reducing the quality as that would not bring the fans in. From what I understand the 36ers would be made up only of players like Burdon, Hoban, perhaps Davidson, Cooper, Winitana and then some of the better ABA players. As passionate a fan of the 36ers that I am, if my opinion is any indication, I would not be supporting a team like that. We already have enough divisions in NBL, ABA, A grade juniors etc down the line. I am happy to watch ABA games to fill in the basketball need in the NBL off season, but always look forward to the 36ers.

It always gets me when people just look at the economics.
Is it really the salary cap that is to blame, or is it the excessive running costs of the club? As far as I recall, we had a buoyant competition until we lost FTA TV. Then we lost Mitsubishi, and we got stuck with a monstrous bill for the Powerhouse, which the association built under extemely unfavourable economic restraints limiting their potential income. Who in their right minds spends millions of dollars on a facility that can only be used for basketball for a few months of the year. Surely the figures never stacked up?

Is the club to blame for overspending, or BA for not getting a television deal done that will allow its friggin clubs to sign a friggin sponsor or two!!
I'm with EC. We've been spoilt with a very successful club on the court, with a prestigious history. Why would I go back to something less.

Talking of sponsors, what level of sponsorship are you going to get for a half baked amateur competition with NO FTA TV exposure. This is a recipe for disaster and sure extinction.

Look at what the AFL has done to the SANFL (regardless of how you compare the onfield games). I still love my SANFL club, but I go to 10 AFL games for every SANFL game I attend, because I want to see the best. My free time is limited, and I will always be attracted to the highest standard.

Some of you may argue that in the absence of that higher standard, we will take whatever we can get, but I disagree. I'll just start following Adelaide United(if they exist) or perhaps the Adelaide Rams (if they come back) or some other high level sport.

Maybe we should join the Tigers and Dragons and sit it out until the economy improves. At least then BA may be able to organise a tv deal, with a major sponsor, and the clubs might then be able to attract their own sponsors.

DDB, the biggest costs though aren't admin but the players.

EC, a second tier team could still afford at least one strong player (e.g., a Redhage), a few mid-rangers (Holmes, Davidson) and then filler. It'd be watchable for sure. You could have Davidson, Ballinger, two imports and a local mid-ranger and that's not far off some teams now.

But the other idea is to stagger the tiers so they play at different times. The top tier might have guys like Penney/Bruton playing and then in Europe for the rest of the year. Some players (like Ballinger) might suit up in both tiers (playing in Adelaide and another team, for example). And then some (like a Winitana) might play in the standard tier, and then supplement his income by playing in the NZ NBL as well.

Let's say that a top-level player now gets $200k in the NBL and $40k in the NZ NBL. In two Australian tiers, they might get $90k in the base NBL tier and $150k for a shorter elite top-tier season.

Someone who gets $80k now in the NBL and $10k in the ABL could instead get $40k as a benchie in the top-tier and $50k as starter/first-sub for Adelaide.