The journo should be more interested in Cowan and his press conference. Where's Ralph?

Sorry, wrong forum.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Sixers.
But am I the only one tired of the conditions clubs keep imposing?
The reason why they had them sign participation agreements is to avoid clubs pulling out or to keep trying to renegotiate individual needs each club has.
Are BA expected to have different conditions for different clubs to abide by because this is just getting ridiculous.
Teams need to either sign the darn thing, or not sign it.
You can't sign your participation.... with conditions attached- it takes everybody back to where we were months ago when all that was going on was negotiating and nobody moving closer to a season getting underway because everybody was bickering about conditions.
They can't move forward if clubs continue to do this.

I think you will find the conditions relate more to Mal signing the license over to the consortium and Eddy signing the lease agreement on the Dome both of which are yet to happen. Hopefully this will be sorted by friday

I still think sit out a year, and come back and have a kick ass comp starting next June/July.

Worked well for Soccer.

And what happens to all those men and women playing and running the league in that time No 44? These are Men and women who have families to support aswell as themselves. Unlike Europe and the NBA, people don't earn millions which would easily see them into next year financially. They are keeping it going for the sake of the people involved and fully launching a truly national and revamped league in 2010-11. Thats not to mention how many player the league would lose in that year off.

Worked well for baseball. Oh no, wait, it didn't.

nick, you cannot run a league this summer for the reason of keeping people employed. might sound harsh but it cannot be the driver for the decision.

the drivers have to be commercial, marketability etc.

this is also the reason (unfortunately) that club ceo's should be banned from commenting right now - they have a vested, but different, reason to want this summer to go ahead.

HO, great point (as always) and that is my primary argument, that clubs would lose some of their established base by having a season off. A secondary advantage is that players and others involved stay employed.

Most of the club owners have actually been pretty good with what they've presented to the media, but it only takes one or two to keep the seesaw (it's on, it's off, it's on) effect building uncertainty.

For what reasons, other than membership slippage, do you think owners want the season to go ahead? If they were all honouring existing contracts, you could put that on the list, but I believe that only the Breakers are doing that.

That'd be good if Mal signs the licence over, and Eddy signs a lease on the Dome, by about Friday, to the consortium.
Fuss-Lewis-Finlay-Hill-Ng-Mcpeake , are the names I've heard.

isaac, the commercial reasons for wanting a potentially diastrous summer season to proceed would almost all be linked to sponsor continuity and venue positioning.

Run away for a year and your core second tier sponsors, box holders mainly, might wander. Likewise, your venue agreement might come unstuck and in the difficult markets (Cairns, Gold Coast) be hard to get back.

Right, and keeping those are in the interest of owners and the league together. I'm confused as to why you think that in particular is a reason that owners should be muzzled?

Not to mention the players may go overseas to make a dollar and not come back

isaac, its the ceo's that need to be muzzled, not the owners. This is one of the rare times I think the owners should be exclusively in the debate and talking about it.

Ah, yes, fair point - CEOs/GMs may press for a league that keeps them in a job. As I've said before, I do think some of their comments have contributed to the ongoing uncertainty about the league - on, off, on, off, etc every few days where reducing that fluctuation would be better for the sport.