Big Ads
Years ago

Community Ownership - Adelaide 36ers

I know very little about how professional sporting teams move from private ownership to community ownership however I wonder if this is a concept that should be discussed when contemplating the ownership model for the Adelaide 36ers.

Is it possible, practical, warranted?

I'm curious to understand the pros and cons of a community ownership model from people who have an understanding of its structures and processes and whether it should be an important and timely discussion among the basketball public of Adelaide.

Topic #30414 | Report this topic

Anonymous
Years ago

Way too late for that option. If it was looked at under the SoS structure initially then clearly they decided again that option. I would think that the structure should have been in place year ago. Not starting now. The possibility of not even having a suitable venue to pls in may be more serious.

Reply #396181 | Report this post

BJF
Years ago

Never too late for anything, Hawks and Cairns have demonstrated it can be done, every AFL team is run that way. Why not run it as membership based instead of private ownership?

Reply #396190 | Report this post

Marcus Camby
Years ago

Imagine if the Sixers members had an actual say in when the sack the coach.

Adelaide (AND ONLY ADELAIDE) would require weekly coaching contracts.

Sackable offences would include :

- You lose a game (no matter how bad your players play).
- You hire a redhead as an assistant who is shorter.
- You are not affable.
- You release an ineffective import.
- You hire another import and the visa has a slight delay.
- You don't break into tears when you lose a game.

Reply #396231 | Report this post

Manute Bol's Father
Years ago

Haha cambo. funny post mate. Pretty sure not one of those single events in isolation is a stackable offense but when all of thm are true you'd probably have a case!

Reply #396236 | Report this post

HO
Years ago

Bjf, afl clubs are not community owned. They might have members, and that membership might give them a vote, but that does not make them "owned" in the sense of a shareholding.

Reply #396242 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

The community model should have been done years ago. If the SoS looked into it then, then that's probably another mistake they have made.
The community involvement is something that has been a tool in the time of crisis for Cairns and Wollongong. The Sixers have missed that boat.
Maybe they should be concentrating on having a venue to play?

Reply #396263 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

The AFL model has allot of merrit and is closer to how the NBL teams used to operate when they were association based/controlled.
To be honest the NBL has really struggled under teams being privately owned.

Reply #396268 | Report this post

eli1
Years ago

This was brought up in the 36 Forum a few years back. Wasnt viewed sustainable. Bum bow!

But agree its somewhat viable. 3000 members, who basically owned the club, as a shareholder majority but did not run the group. Still have your CEO, membership guru, media, communication and co.

Just owned by the public. Weren't the WCE originally set up like that years ago in WA?

Reply #396619 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

And when the club loses millions a year? NBL going to bail them out like the AFL does?

Making comparisions between the structure of AFL and NBL team is like comparing the NBL to the NBA.

Reply #396625 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

The clubs don't lose millions a year most on average loose about half a million.

3000 members become shareholders could bridge that gap

Reply #397052 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

$500K is a big loss by todays NBL standards.

Reply #397054 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

There are NBL clubs which have lost a lot more then $500k in a year, including ours.

Reply #397081 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Indeed, some do each year, but most each year dont.