Pretty good chance I would think. They average about one a year. :)

i hope not, and i really hope the kings don't, it would be a huge dissapointment for another team to fold, and have a big affect on the league, imagine haveing 7 teams, and if another folded, 6, it would be very bad for a team to fold in the nbl by next season.
i would be heartbroken if the kings folded :(

Expect either the Crocs or the Sixers to go in the off-season. Wollongong and Cairns have their communities behind them, and Sydney, Melbourne, Perth & New Zealand all have sufficiently cashed-up owners.

Can't see any more folding. NBL has to keep the remaining teams afloat somehow.

8 teams is the minimum for a respectable comp.

Wollongong are stable. Hawks only need an average of crowd of 2500 and two 5000 games to cover cost. They have hit the 5000 mark once convincingly and just missed out a couple months back. Average attendance is around the 3500 mark b

They are averaging over 4000.

Summary of Each team as i see it

Adelaide - Pros: Great Following from city and well known brand.

Cons: Venue uncertainly - Change in Management - Sponsor withdrawl/non payment - Owners losing money hand over fist in 2012/2013

summary: Venue & Profitability are issues that can hopefully be overcome.


Cairns - Pros: Turned profit last year - Community Support despite record
Cons: Struggling for new sponsors due to results
summary: get a few better results and they will be back in the black next year.

Melbourne- Pros: Cashed up owners and better community marketing/involment than in the past. Trying to move to a larger more user friendly venue.

Cons: Not turning a profit so they rely on the owners signing the cheque. Still lack support from basketball heart land due to BV politics.
Hisense Arena isn't cheap to run!

Summary: New marketing is gaining support in the heartland however they still require someone to write the cheque to stay afloat.

Sydney: Pros: Larger ownership group to share cost burden - Solid crowd support & strong community invovlement - Good game night entertainment gaind market share in a tough sports market place.

Cons: Not turning a profit - Large venue requires big attendence to break even - require owners to write a cheque every year to stay afloat.

Summary: They are improving and expect them to continue to make ground in the tough sydney market.


New Zealand: Pro: Good support & sponsorship. Moving games to a large venue to help ensure they can look after supporter base.
Professional operation that looks after players better than any other team. First pick of talent from NZ.

Cons: Distance from rest of competition.

Summary: Extrremly well run both on and off the court...every team should strive to emulate them.

Perth: Pretty much same summary as NZ they are both the bench mark in the league and new venue helps them even more.

Townsville: Pros: Good support in the community for the team - Great Histroy in the league

Cons: Struggle every year to turn a profit - always running on a shoe string make sit hard to compete with the big 2.

Summary: Good ogranisation that works hard with limited resources....despite this years import issues.

Wollongong: Pros: Great community supoprt - example of how to work with a small budget/limited resources.
Best coach in the league with great club culture proven over many years.

Cons: will forever be a struggler in terms of resources.

Summary: Example of community working together to have a team in the NBL - always worried if they have a few bad years they could fold if the community isn't engaged.

Nice stuff TW, let me give you some variations:

Adelaide:
Sure great brand, but a club in serious decline through a series of ownership, management and performance weakness. Well intentioned but under resourced ownership group and venue risk. When flying have the best crowd in the league - but years of not flying have taken its toll. The rest of the City seem to have moved on.
Rating: Seriously at risk

Cairns:
Community model has worked to date. Yet to be stress tested though. No on really seems to be able to say what happens when the club loses money and unlike Green Bay, have limited opportunity to occasionally top up the coffers with share raisings.
Rating: Stable

Melbourne:
Agree good backing but support is lacking because of years of clubs arrogance, and disregard for community basketball, not because of BV politics. Anstey a divisive character and is a bigger name than any of his team which is a marketing issue. Have a long haul to win that back - and are papering the house (Hisense) allegedly. Critical to NBL however.
Rating: Have a future

Sydney:
Critical to TV and NBL overall and cannot be allowed to go down and wont. Owners losing heavily. Major venue challenges with SEC about to be redeveloped. Consistent management changes indicate size of off court challenge. Still trying to be the Lakers of the NBL - not sure that works long term because it didn't work before.
Rating: Have a future

New Zealand:
Riding the crest of a wave that some NBL teams rode in the early 90's. Very professional, getting good support but test will come in 3-5 years when the gloss and shimmer wears off and the club needs to really call on the basketball community to back it. Still, superbly supported and it seems for the long term.
Rating: Secure

Perth
Well managed and backed, still to be seen if larger venue = profit. Good marketing, taking advantage if polarising attitudes of West vs East. New Venue a winner, depending on what break even point is. Not sure if Venues West is the Landlord, but if so they are an unforgiving and difficult one. Singlehandedly making NBL crowds look good.
Rating: Secure

Townsville
For so long the financial and management darling of the NBL have slipped terribly in recent years and have limited scope to turn that around in a tiny market. Have no scope with pricing due to long term history of premium approach. Need to re-find their community roots and fast.
Rating: At Risk

Wollongong
Rebuilt crowds this year on the back of a better team performance but need to be successful on court every second year to maintain position. A club certainly prepared to try things but like Townsville, have a limited market in which to innovate and develop new funding sources. Brilliant culture it appears.
Rating: Stable

Unfortunately I'd agree with the conclusion that Adelaide are seriously at risk.

My understanding of how Melbourne are 'papering the house' at Hisense is by offering discount deals. But if you look at the offers they actually equal $20-$25 per ticket so they are still getting a return and increasing their database at the same time because these offers require registration.

Agree with most of the sentiments of TW and HO, there seems to be four categories:

NZ and Perth - way out in front
Cairns and Wollongong - within their means
Melbourne and Sydney - not great but committed owners and improving
Adelaide and Townsville - some disconnection from traditional fanbase and struggling for coin

There is always a chance a team could fold because the league cant bail them out ala other leagues. The NBL has made steady progress in a number of key areas but nowhere near enough to ensure security of the comp at this stage.

From an outsider looking in it seems Adelaide is at risk but ownless we know the financial strength of the ownership group and thier ability to absorb losses we really cannot comment.

I would have to say comments in todays paper re the long term stability of the club are really positive.

It would be intereseting if they go to a community model and ask for $5k contribution how many on here would contribute funds

I did hear something that made me think the 36ers position isnt dire, FWIW, but Im pretty sure they cant afford many more seasons of getting 3500-4500 to their games.

I would certainly consider purchasing a 'share' at $5000 if it helped the club secure its future, but Id need to see a good plan to go with it.

some great posts in this thread guys (compared to some of the garbage threads of the last few weeks imo).

The NBL will be dead within 2 years if something dramatic doesnt happen, its unsustainable given the volatility of nearly half the teams and the fact there's only 8 teams in the competition.
I can see the SEABL expanding and taking over as the National competition given its more stable club association based foundations.

Amen to that, mystro! The first engaging thread I've read in a few weeks.

I don't think the NBL will fold and the league office will shift the goal posts significantly if required to ensure they don't let any clubs fold as 7 teams isn't viable.

Key Areas of NBL currently being reveiwed by league office.

Salary Cap - Looking at reduction to ensure ALL clubs can survive long term - It is after all normally the biggest expense and teams like Wollongong have shown you can operate on lower player budgets and not lose of quality of play. Plenty of scope to save $$ as quality of play won't drop dramactially as best layers already in Europe and players still in NBL aren't leaving to get gigs in other countries!


Fixturing/Travel Costs - Both go hand in hand and the NBL are looking to maxamise buck for your travel buck.
Don't be surprised if we see more Double weekends (i.e play the same team twice on 1 weekend Friday then Sunday) Not great from a fans point of veiw but saves on costs.


Thier are other meaures but those are a 2 of the key drivers to save cash.

Yes agreed, there is something SEABL and other minor leagues are able to get at grass roots level that the NBL isn't despite the monetary difference between the two leagues. Albury Bandits for example are well-known and loved in that area by locals, they even know players names, ask the average Sydney person who plays for the Kings and they wouldn't have a clue.

Are we sure Adelaide Arena hasn't already been sold?

Paul has highlighted the biggest of risks to the NBL's reputation.

BA generates less than 10m in revenue annually. The FFA generates closer to 90m. (interesting considering they have similar participation numbers)

As such it cannot bail out any team which gets into deep water and cannot complete its season commitments. This is unlike the AFL and NRL who provide special distributions and the A-league which has actually taken ownership stakes in a number of clubs and thereby underwritten them.

Anyone remember the farcical situation when Canberra folded? This league could easily find itself in a situation where a club simply cannot complete the season, thus re-engineering the fixture part way through a year.

I don't think it is all doom and gloom as smaller market teams are all slowly but surely swapping to community ownership and with Cairns turning a profit and the Hawks being competitive on the court one would have to say it has been largely a success.

Melbourne are slowly becoming less of a train wreck and Sydney are looking like they may make the Finals this season which will help put bums in all those seats.

Adelaide are the only team with a question mark over it's head really and most of it is caused by a lack of on court results the last couple of seasons (attendance and support falling away) and the venue ownership issue.

Guys the big difference between basketball in Australia and every other major sport is the individual teams receive not a cent from the league. it is up to the teams to come up with the finances, money to pay players and keep the team afloat. All other major sports receive some sort of funding or get a slice of the pie, for eg. NRL salary cap is funded by the NRL, same goes with the A-league. This is why we are finding some difficulties getting investors for a brisbane team.

I agree with the idea of reducing the salary cap,

I think dropping it back down to say 750k would be a good thing and help NBL clubs atleast break even, as arnt many clubs currently losing around 200-500k atm. (The AFL should also drop theres by 1-2 mil and would ensure that basically all clubs make a profit, no AFL player has the option of going overseas for more money so i dont see why they dont)

I personally think the NBL should work backwards to work out the figure, say the leagues average crowd is 4000, the average price for tickets is $25, and each team plays 15 home games that gives 1.5 mil revenue from ticket sales, then add the average revenue for marketing/sponsorships, etc then subtract all other non player salary expenses eg, marketing, admin, venue hire, coaches salaries, etc then what is left is your salary cap, working from league average figures, meaning that the average team would atleast break even, 1 or 2 would likely make a bigger profit, 1 or 2 would make a loss, but a reduced loss which increases there sustainablilty.

As said above i dont think we would lose too many current NBL guys to Europe as a result and there are plenty of decent guys in NZ/SEABL who could play a role in the NBL if we do.

This would also make it easier for more new teams to be able to afford to come into the league which is good, id love to see the NBL with 10-12 leagues, meaning more of the fringe players in SEABL/NZ get a shot, and there are always some diaomonds in the rough that come from this which is great for the league.

The players probably wont really like the idea, but if the cap dropped to say 750k,(or what ever the figure calculated above is) but 2-4 new teams were able to be added then the average player would still be able to attract similar salaries, in some cases more, if there were 2 new teams guys like Wagstaff and Petrie would get starter roles and likely increased money, whilst giving an opportunity to more australian players accross the board.

About time we get a decent thread on this website! Absolute garbage lately, and I've had to resort to reading the constant bitching over at ozhoops because hoops was becoming a joke!

Anyway, agree with all comments so far on where teams are at right now.

BTW - Absolutely loving being a Wildcats fan this season. They have enjoyed the highest level profile and support since the mid 90's and its great. All the media is back on them in Perth - except Channel 7, but they have an ageing staff that still believe AFL is the only sport worth reporting in summer.

Back on topic - Yes the biggest problem I can see is that the NBL is unable to prop up struggling clubs. If the AFL and A-League had the same problems, we would have seen North Melbourne, Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs all go under by now.

A-League would probably be down to 8 teams also if the FFA didnt intervene too.

Would love to see a community model in Adelaide and Townsville. Thats probably the next step for these two clubs. Build up the profile over the next few years then maybe a Jack Bendat type will come along to give it the major boost it needs?

Im only a fan of reducing the salary cap if it results in more teams. For example, at the moment we have eight teams averaging roughly $900K so there is $7.2mill being paid.

If we reduce that to $800K per team but increase the number of teams to 10 then we have more money being paid in total and most players will end up around the same mark they are now.

But as it is some teams pay to the $1mill cap and some only spend $750-800K. But overall the games are competitive almost every single night, so I dont like the idea of telling some teams they cant pay the cap if they can legitimately afford to.

Re Mystro, it's definitely not all doom and gloom, a lot of good things are happening - TV, crowds, online making steady growth - but unfortunately they are small steps.

If something big goes wrong (ie Euros and US stop printing extra money to pretend their economies are still viable) and sponsorship closes up like in 08 then that will really test the league.

As TW said though, the league can do things like reduce the salary cap and change travel arrangements to reduce costs to try and keep the league viable if things do go wrong.

Time will tell which way it goes but it will be hard to make big inroads without a couple more capital city teams.

Who do you think will buy the TV rights after TEN's contract expires? My bet is FOX.

I am not sure if any teams will fold this year but maybe one or two might move to community ownership.

My thinking is more along the lines of reducing the cap to save/help sustain some of the struggling clubs, not worrying about teams like Perth and NZ who can probably afford to keep spending the 1 mil cap. I think thats more important, as if we dont look after some of these other teams it may be a league of Perth v NZ, id rather see a 8 team league with reduced cap rosters than a 5-6 team league or no league at all.

For the Perth and NZ teams, well it means they just make a bigger profit, which they can spend in other areas, coaching, sports science, marketing, a development academey, etc to help benefit there clubs, and if they help the league as a whole grow, the salary cap could be increased again in the future.

Say the cap dropped to say $750k, around what the Hawks and Taipans are rumoured to be spending, making all clubs viable for the medium to long term, i cant see too many guys we would lose, if Cedric and Flynn were just in it for the $$ they wouldnt be in the NBL now, and clubs could still pay them the same wage anyway,some of the others may just need to take a bigger cut or drop out of the league, but say if NZ had to let go Corletto and replace him with a development player to keep Jackson under the new cap, Corletto would get picked up by a team like Adelaide, Sydney right now so wouldnt drop out of the league, it would be guys of the next level down a Crosswell, Joyce type who would likely miss out, sucks for them, but for the league overall it wouldnt be a huge loss, even if it means giving younger guys a go and then the money saved in doing that would be able to ensure the top players were kept in the league. I dont think many Aussies left in the NBL could get big money gigs in Europe, so dont think we would lose too many, if any.

If no new teams could come in it would suck for a few fringe guys who would miss out, or have a dramatically reduced salary, ideally it would be great to have 10-12 teams spending 750k so a total spend of atleast 7.5 mil which is about the same as currently is spent accross the league going by Pauls figures, and more players would get a go, so nobody loses.

Given there are groups in Wellington, Melbourne, Brisbane wanting to come in, the reduced salary cap expense requirement could help them come in if finances are an issue, its a lesser burden to meet, 250k less is alot of money, so then could realistically have the league at 10-11 teams again in the not too distant future.

My point is that teams can currently spend what they can afford and still be competitive. But yes, if reducing the salary cap means more teams then I am all for it.

Abercrombie, Pledger and Vukona can also play NZBL to supplement their income much like Aussies who play SEABL etc. Drop the Salary Cap and we may lose them to some of the lesser European Leagues which in turn will reduce the quality of the league. Adelaide could never fit all their players under a reduced Cap and I wouldn't be suprised if Gibson and DJ would look towards overseas like Worthington. We may never get another Cedric Jackson or Gary Ervin. The lifestyle of playing in an english speaking league in a warmish climate will only go so far.

The TV deal is slowly getting better and if the games rate well then the contract is worth more and then the league will have $ and can hopefully help support the franchises.

The clubs need to leverage a dividend/profit share situation out of the NBL.
NBL needs to work harder to put the clubs into that situation.

In regards to the lowering of the salary cap - and purely as an example - for Adelaide there is probably a fair amount to be saved while remaining competitive.

With games just 40 minutes, surely Adelaide can lose some of its depth - and salary expense.

Choose between DJ or Luke. (Besides Petrie should be playing more.)

Choose between Cadee or Croswell.

Based on this season, a 7 man rotation of Gibson, Weigh, Creek, Massingale, Petrie, Schenscher & Crosswell should still be good enough to contend.

Surely players can play 30-35 minutes per game?

Losing DJ and Cadee - savings of around $100 to $150k?

Final 3 spots filled with Daly, Pero and another local lad.

This will trim the rotation down, keep players playing and happy, and save the club money.

Obviously easy to see in hindsight, and maybe the tightening of player salaries was what led to The General losing his coaching mojo first time around. But there would be many good coaches in Australia who would like to take the condensed line up and coach in Adelaide.

Thats an interesting thought regarding trimming the roster shin splints. I dont see why players cant play 30-35 minutes either. Too many good players are only seeing around 24 minutes a game, which is nothing when they only play once or twice a week.

One problem would be if players get injured or in foul trouble, who would the coach turn to?

NBL desparately needs more teams to see more players - then you could have a roster of only 8 players, and with more teams, no playing jobs are lost. Someone gets cut from one club, will find a role on another club.

Hang on - I meant trimming the depth, not the overall roster sorry - I agree with that. Still have a roster of 10 players, but just lose the depth.

That will solve foul trouble, injuries etc!

Yeah but where do the players go if you dont have more teams?

Players can play 30-35mins if every team only runs 7-8 deep and plays their key guys 30-35, but if some teams are running 9-10 players and giving their stars rest the teams without the depth will be run off their feet.

Country Vic.

The only way you are going to get a rev share out of the NBL is if they sign a significant TV deal.

The only way that is going to happen is if TV ratings pick up significantly.

Subscription is not going to deliver enough income when crowds of 3500 - 4500 are the norm. and the NBL has few other rights revenue to exploit.

Its all very nice to say the NBL needs to work harder, but it has limited staff and resources now. In its heyday the NBL had 12-15 staff. Now it probably has 5 at most.

Players can play 30-35mins if every team only runs 7-8 deep and plays their key guys 30-35, but if some teams are running 9-10 players and giving their stars rest the teams without the depth will be run off their feet.

Exactly shin splints you could definatly chose between Schenscher/DJ and Cadee and Crosswell and replace the others with min salary guys, in the 36ers situation one could be an import.

The 36ers could probably save 100k and run a line up of, (leaving 100k to higher a new coach) and possibly be better, if you wanted to reduce the cap by 200-250k across the league, you would have to take a similar approach and some of the players would just have to get paid less, ie 150k contracts may be 120k contracts, 75k contracts now may be 50k contracts in the future, all decent money for playing basketball imo, all on that money earn more than i do. Another approach is you could keep the main players on the same money, just have an extra min contract or 2 off the bench.

C Schenscher/Pero (min salary)
PF Petrie/Warbout (min salary)
SF Weigh/Creek
SG Dorsey or other imort sg/sf (on min salary)/SC or cheap import sg/pg(on min salary)
PG Gibson/Crosswell

To me that would arguably be better than our team at the moment and cheaper.

Sure some would say it lacks depth, but as said above you could have your starters play 30 mins each, Creek and the import playing around 30 mins each off the bench, and Petrie and Weigh sliding up a spot to spell the bigs when Creek is on.

Sure it would hurt if say Schenscher got into foul trouble, but if all teams had a similar budget roster, ie a reduced salary cap, everyone would be in the same boat, so wouldnt overall advantage anyone, may game to game, but that happens anyway, just need to teach your players to play smart defense. If its a real physical game, bring Pero in early to soak up a few fouls.

Having only 7-8 main players to chose from often helps solve rotation problems and can help coaches not have weird sub patterns as all 7-8 guys are going to need to play 20-30 mins. This would help the 36ers as would mean Creek would no longer be under played.

Sucks for the guys missing out but in this case Johnson and Cadee who i have slid out, would likely get picked up elsewhere, so wouldnt hurt the overall quality of the league.

Every team that isnt Perth or New Zealand should have their front office take a good look at how they are doing it. Is it any coincidence they are both at the top of the ladder..

I am against lowering the salary cap, I say increase it, when was it introduced? How much has inflation gone up since? Teams like Wollongong are proof you dont need to spend the cap to get wins while teams like Adelaide are proof spending up big wont guaranty wins.

To answer the topic, I dont think any teams will fold at seasons end and really hope that a Brisbane team is announced for 2013/14 and a second Victorian team is announced for 2014/15.

Also the keyboard warriors around these and other forums should not jump so fast to say if a team has more losses than wins that they are going to fold. Someone has to lose, support your team either way.

Very informative and passionate thread this is ending up being.

I have in the past been an advocate for looking into changes that would have our NBL expand into two divisions or conferences if you like.

But, I can see that we could go four, especially if we adopted the SEABL style across the board...

How good would it be to have a 20+ NBL competition with teams coming in from their powerful community based SEABL level and spreading the competition while saving costs in travel until the finals when inter conference games would be held.

I can see packed houses and thousands of kids wanting to go to the basketball agian and no teams would fold, ever...

Would be great to see that style of league bear, what is the salary cap for SEABL? what could clubs afford to spend? Could the top few SEABL/NZ/ABA teams afford to spend around 500k on a roster, or could 2 or 3 join forces to put together a team in the NBL?

sort of joining forces between the NBL/SEABL/ABA leagues to make one larger league, with a lower cap? could it work? i guess it would be a SEABL type league on steroids, which i think would be good, would have teams in all of the basketball hotspots and some basketball mad communities which dont currently have a NBL pressence would get a team in the top league and would get good support.

with say 20 teams, could you set the cap at around 500k, most players in the NBL would still get similar money to they do now, total money spent would be aruond 8 mil which is around the same as now, and alot of other guys would get a chance to play against the best and prove themselves, and a few diamonds in the rough would prove themselves and make good money, which they wouldnt get the chance to now, even if some of the bench players become part timers on say 20-40k contracts, as they probably do in leagues like NZ and SEABL anyway.

If there is a worry about talent depth you could allow teams to have 3-4 imports, with atleast one of them on a minimal say 40k contract to keep it affordable and keeping it a high standard league. I reckon there is some decent talent around who would pay for that, arnt Hurdle and Henry on something similar? and Massingale if used properly would have been atleast a handy 6th man level player, which if allowed 4 imports is fine.

From say a NBL clubs point of view could say the 36ers draw a similar crowd to they do now if they are in a larger 20 team league with a 500k cap, say Mt Gambier, a SA ABA allstars team or 2 (or if a larger ABL team could afford to field a team) are the other
SA teams in the league and you could have a SA/Vic conference as they are close together and would draw on the SA v Vic rilvary as those teams and fans would hate each other.

If they could still draw atleast a 4k crowd, the 36ers could make a decent profit as they would be spending half as much on the playing roster, which solve viability issues.

The smaller clubs like say Mt Gambier, would play in there current venue and have smaller crowds but also presumably smaller venue related costs, and crowds may grow if they are now in the top league and some fans may go up and watch the 36ers or a vic team play against them.

Not sure if that would be enough for them to afford a 500k roster, but if a revenue sharing model was implemented where all ticket sales are owned by the league, league pays the players and coaches out of this and profits are then distributed to all clubs evenly to pay all other expenses and they can keep the profits, it could make all clubs viable, especially if the NBL clubs continue to draw similar level crowds to what they do now with a cheaper roster, which is possible as it would be the top league in Australia and would be a bigger range of players and teams to go and see.

Would also be more tv and sponsorship opportunites for local deals for some of the clubs in the basketball mad areas currently not in the league ala SE Melbourne.

Very interesting concept Bear, would love to see the NBL/BA investigate it and implement it, even if they initially do it below the NBL as a div 2, or a slightly bigger version of SEABL, and then slowly reduce the NBL cap and allow the bigger clubs from the 'div 2' into the NBL if you cant fully merge them all together.

What could the conferences be, could it basically be SA/Vic, and NSW/QLD, with teams like Perth, NZ, Tas, ACT being slotted in, would be plenty of intense rilvaries born between SA and VIC teams and NSW and QLD teams,

When we look at the WNBL and teams such as Dandenong, Bulleen and Bendigo just to name a few it seems that you don't have to be a one team town, that's kind of the point I guess...

Imagine the Victorian NBL with teams like Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Knox, Dandenong and alike!

The money would come from the Associations, a broader fan base and community business connections, local sponsors as well as the major ones and of course TV.

But it would need to be a share the profit system, like it has already been mentioned (the AFL, ALeague & NRL already share their dollars), NBL will need to think BIG on this and a little outside the box??

how would reducing the salary cap work for the NBL? In case you are not noticing basketballers are leaving to AFL at an alarming rate. By reducing the cap all that happens is the middle to bottom players will get less. Clubs will always play the top guys. If you think the wages of guys on $120,000 would reduce you are kidding yourself. It will be all the guys under $100,000. If players are leaving you won't have to worry about the league because there won't be one.Who's going to want to play basketball for $40,000?We need to think about the consequences for actions. Reducing salary cap may reduce costs. Better to cut costs on fixture and length of season. Quality over quantity.

Need the best imports playing as it's guys like Jackson, Flynn, Ervin who sell tickets and sponsorships,etc.

A good call to play only to 7 deep rather than trying to be 10 deep. especially as we only play 40mins.

I honestly think this league doesn't need any watering down as we have some very good talent with some very competitive games and small market teams have largely made the switch to a sustainable model.

would love to see something like all the money behind each team get together and get a decent NBA team (Bulls/Knicks/Nets etc) Vs the All NBL 1st and 2cnd Team (or 2 NBA teams going at it with an NBL Finals game maybe as the curtain raiser) at the Sydney Entertainment Centre (or any other big venue in a major centre that you could potentially fill) and all teams share the revenue generated. Put on a premium show with top tier talent and charge a premium price.

Reducing costs while expanding the League by being smarter in scheduling and at the same time giving clubs the opportunity to pay some decent dollars to their main 'marque' players.

Place more emphasis on the stars of the team like the NBA by allowing the salary cap to be big enough to create a strong competition and retain the top level players too.

Then have your younger development players as the back-ups and foster the local community interest, maybe keep a rule in about 3-4 local players per team!!

I am not saying this would be easy, but we can put a man on the moon, can't we...?

Only way anything will improve is if you support your team.

If you had a 20 team league and a salary cap of say 500k you could build your roster with salarys of say

1.120k
2.100k
3.80k
4.60k
5.50k
6.20k (part time)
7.20k (part time)
8.20k (part time)
9.20k (part time)
10.10k (part time, possibly u18 player)

All current NBL players would likely get the spots paying atleast 50k, which is a decent full time wage for 6 months work, all players can play in other leagues if they wish to suppliment there income, all contracts are just for the 3-6 months the season runs, could time it so it is played in the Europe/Aisia off season, so some players can play in both to earn good money, and there would be enough spots for even a few top SEABL/NZ/ABA players currently not in the NBL to pick up 50k contracts.

Without knowing for sure, but im guessing SEABL/ABA teams have players on low part time contracts with some not being paid at all, so having 5 part time spots, one going to a local junior and at 10-20k you can still keep your college eligibility cant you? so you could have the top players ala Delly, Drmic, Greenwood, etc fill that spot for a year or 2 before going to college and he would still do ok as a young guy coming off the bench, then if they wish to return after college would likley be able to land one of the 50-100k spots without too much issue as there are plenty of teams.

Some of the part time players could be employed as development officers or even in the offices as accountants, etc if they have the required qualifications, which some would, and sponsors could take some of them on as part time trainee type roles as most of the part time players would be young, the good ones could work there way up into a full time spot.

Im pretty sure thats sort of how it would work in SEABL and even SANFL in footy, which comparing to the AFL is fairly close to where the NBL is at financially, and all clubs would be financially viable.

I think part of the problem is clubs/league/fans expect to be able to compete with the AFL and send themselves broke trying, if we accept we are more SANF/VFL level financially, probably slightly stronger, so if we accepted that, paid players accordingly ie a 500k cap we could make it viable, then if it comes to a time where every club through revenue sharing makes a profit of say more than 100k, you could raise the cap to say 600k and stay viable and grow the league to the strength it can afford,

Revenue sharing is vital for this, as some of the smaller clubs wouldnt bring in the revenue, but a bigger club like the 36ers would probably bring in plenty, not fair to the bigger club maybe, but it allows the smaller clubs and league as whole to survive remain viable. To quote sheldon on big bang theory (think its a Spok quote), 'the needs of the many out weigh the need of the one'. Make it so the league sells the tickets, collects the revenue and pays the players and does some league wide marketing/sponsorship deals which the revenue is also shared, then all profit is spread evenly amongst all teams.

Imagine a league of 20 teams, 10 roster spots per team, has 200 spots available, currently there is 80, and some of them are imports, would be great for basketabll in Australia to double the amount of jobs available, even if half of them are part time.

The NBL doesnt have the financial backing of the
AFL or Euro leagues, so we cant even try to pay the players at that level, which we dont, but no point comparing, think about it the top NBL players like Gibson, Schenscher would get the 120k or 100k spots around the league so wouldnt earn much less, and most of these guys wouldnt earn much more in Europe anyway so dont think we would lose them, basically all others include development players would get the 50k + spots, so still a full time wage, would maybe mean a pay cut for some, but probably a more realistic value in the NBL's ecconomy for a guy like Cadee to earn 50-80k than 100k+ (not saying he is on that, wouldnt have a clue), given you can get imports like Henry for 50-80k if not slightly less.

how would reducing the salary cap work for the NBL?

A good call to play only to 7 deep rather than trying to be 10 deep. especially as we only play 40mins.

by halving the salary cap I think you will lose a lot of the better players that put the bums on seats and then the guys you can afford won't sign as they will have no shot at college as you have just made them ineligible by paying them peanuts.

I thought you could earn around 10k-15k without losing college eligibility these days, as its just considered covering expenses or something? could be wrong, but if thats correct you could get them to play young and not lose there eligibility.

The only players from the current NBL i reckon we could lose are Jackson, Flynn, Ervin, i reckon the rest of the Aussies and imports would stay for 50-120k as most wouldnt get more elsewhere imo. Could Gibson get a high paying import gig elsewhere, significantly more than 120k? not sure, guys like Brad Hill who are also NBL starters would be even less likely, so not sure we would lose to many, if any, especially the ones who would have to play as imports.

Even then you may not lose the top imports as you could offer them 120k 3-5 year contracts, which is more security you can get in Europe and Aisa and d-league only pays around 30k, even if you did lose them, if you can get guys like Henry a decent import for 40-50k a season im sure you can get guys as good/better than Henry for 120k and still be entertaining enough, guys like Ervin, Ere, Farley in their first you were rumoured to be on less than 120k, sure you may not keep him, but enough guys like that would come through.

I have always thought if you ran a 2nd div team with no import restrictions you could get 10 imports to play for 40-50k each and with a bit of luck and savy recruiting could field a team more entertaining and better than most NBL teams, guys like Cadee would be on 80-100k at a guess, i guarantee you could get a import twice as good for less, eg Henry. Would help the NBL clubs always recruit good imports, as they would get a good look at them before signing them.

You could run it as a bit of D-league, each team has 5-6 imports and a few fringe NBL aussies/college returnees who didnt get a NBL gig all players get 50k, play for a the job, its a full time wage to play basketball and they would get exposure to the NBL as they could train with NBL clubs, trial for import spots, train against current imports to prove there worth.

If i had a spare 10 mil, id buy the Dome and run a league like that field a couple of teams myself and try to get associations from around the country not in the NBL but big enough to get a decent crowd, involved id pay all the players from the league, everyone gets 50k so no salary cap scandles and collect all ticket sales and distribute accross all teams, i reckon with a bit of careful selection you could field a team as good if not better than a NBL team.

Even if its a shorter season/tournament, i reckon you can definatly put together a good basketball team for 500k, the NBL could do it also, with a different model, or shorten the season and play it in the offseason of most other top leagues so the good players can do both.

For 50k each (500k per team) if some rumours are correct you could field a team like

C Allred/Strong
PF McFarlin/Tucker
SF Dorsey/Pace
SG Farley/Massingale
PG Williams/Gilchrist

(just using guys who have played NBL/NZ/SEABL off the top of my head)

Sure some of them are old, not that proven, but i reckon that would be competitive with most NBL teams and would be more entertaining than some aswell.

various other d-league or guys out of college without pro gigs, in lower euro leagues not earning much more or didnt get re-signed around the world, like Henry, Hurdle, Chritopherson would play, sure some wouldnt be that great, but i reckon you would get enough good ones to make it a decent standard and entertaining league.

Ultimatly i just want a model where there are atleast 10 teams, where all are financially viable, if it means slashing the cap to achieve this then so be it.

I also reckon AFL should do similar, how it allows clubs to lose 1-2 mil a year is beyond me, they could slash the cap by 1-2 mil, most players would still be very well paid, ie more than 50k,there is no overseas league to play in and the AFL would still pay its players better than most Australian sporting leagues, sure the AFL can prop them up now, but if the TV contract was ever significantly less, not impossible, and not there to prop the whole league up it could find itself in a tough situation, a few clubs would really struggle to survive under the current model.

Players probably will complain, but who cares, the league is bigger than any player, the average club in any sporting league needs to be at least break even point, the salary cap is the easiest thing to reduce/adjust to acheive this, currently most sporting clubs are only a tv contract reducing/falling through, an owner or group of owners falling into financial hardship, which happens, away from completly collapsing, it doesnt need to be like this though if financial models are worked out properly.

I personally think the NBL/any pro sports league, should work out the average clubs revenue, the average clubs expenses - excluding player salaries, and set the salary cap at the difference less a small amount so the club turns a small profit, what ever that figure is, is the salary cap, could be revised every 3-5 years to keep up with current conditions of the league, that way almost no clubs would go broke and collapse in any league, every year there are AFL/NBL clubs close to colapsing, if it werent for TV money from the AFL teams like Port, Kangaroos, would struggle to survive aswell. I just dont get how its seen as acceptable or a good model.

If this involves in the NBLs case having some part time players, involving more SEABL type teams, but having 20 teams in 2-4 conferences to make it all viable and slashing the cap, but means no club ever collapses and we never have to worry about our team not existing if a white night doesnt come in and save us then im all for it.

If a few players leave/dont come than so be it, atleast we will have a solid league, for ever.

the A-league doesnt get all the top Aussies or superstar imports in there prime either, but is still a fairly well supported league, i think it still has a bigger budget than NBL and has TV money/Lowy money behind it, so the NBL should be looking at a slightly lesser version of this, the NBL hasnt got TV/Lowey money to rely on so would have to be a little bit cheaper, but imo could probably build a strong 10+ team comp with a 500k-750k cap without turning away too many players, fans or sponsors, i honestly think the product, being the game would be just as entertaining, and maybe they could slightly reduce ticket prices for us fans as they wouldnt need as much revenue.

Radicalisation of the league by significantly expanding team numbers (say from current 8 to 20 as some have suggested here) would be a disaster.

The public perception would be terrible.

Any big money sponsorship left in the league would evaporate - are Crown going to sponsor the Kings when they are playing Mount Gambier and Frankston?

League sponsors would up and walk. There is a reason the league is sponsored by Iinet and SEABl by Godfreys....

Crowds would die rapidly. Adelaide vs Geelong was a poor drawcard when the Supercats were in the NBL, imagine the Adelaide public when the SEABl outfit from Geelong rock-up to the second game of the season...

Likewise TV is gone. TV that pay (FTA, PTV) are only interested in big markets - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. And, add to that many of the venues you would be playing in would just not be suitable to put on tv (Frankston, Nunawading, Kilsyth, Ballarat, Sandringham etc)

Talent is spread so thin the league would no longer serve as a pathway for talent in the way it needs to. And, you can't market names anymore, which is something the league already does poorly, because there are so many mediocre players in the league.

Add to all that the result would be that the lessening of quality - not just playing but team management, high performance, medical and recovery, coaching, etc etc - and of course off court with marketing, promotion and on and on.... the pro teams from the old NBl would just quickly stagger down to the semi-pro level of what is below them.

Finally JA, teams collapse at the next level now. The SEABL used to have Mildura, and Hume City, and Grafton, and Bankstown, and Illawarra, and Newcastle.... all of them with much much smaller player budgets than half a million....

Either JA and Bear are trolling, and if they are then they put a lot of work into their trolls, or you are just a little bit fried! :-)

Wel said HO. JA your idea sounds fine in theory, and you obviously have a lot of passion on this topic, but it's too far out there to work effectively. Sponsors, TV and crowd (averages) would go right down if we went from an 8 team "boutique" league (which is how I see it) to being to being an over glorified national social comp.

And Bear of course! You have quite a strong and interesting proposal, but as HO said, it's just not viable.

Nice hypothetical though...

Not trolling, just a theory, and was just putting some thoughts out there, not saying they are correct, just some thoughts that came to mind, as i get sick of the will there be a 36ers (or any other team) next year stuff and actually seeing clubs collapse, there has to be a way to make it financially viable without losing too much quality.

If my ideas arent correct thats fine, but people have to fix the current model somehow and explore all options as the current NBL financially and many peoples attitude towards it is a bit like Martys coaching style seriously flawed, not really working, but stubborn and not willing to adjust.

Even those who say NZ and Perth are fine, they are now, but what happens if there owners businesses run into trouble somehow and are no longer able/willing to lose several hundred thousand dollars a year on basketball, its the Bullets all over again.

At the end of the day i just want to see a viable league, not reliant on an individuals wealth, where it can stand on its own 2 feet , even if that means reducing it in some level ie the salary cap then growing it back up and was putting thoughts out there, which i think all clubs, BA officials should do and explore for the future of the league, imo the league either needs to find a way to increase revenue, very hard to do, or reduce expenses, a bit easier, with the salary cap at each club being the biggest.

Another thought to put out there is that maybe they do a NBA system of a soft and hard cap, maybe a soft cap of 750k but can exceed if signing a nominated marquee player (1 per club) or a player who as played atleast 5 years at your club, upto the hard cap of say 1 million. Like the NBA those who exceed the 750k pay a luxury tax dollar for dollar which is distributed evenly between the league and all clubs below the soft cap. Gives a little bit more revenue to clubs and the league if clubs wish to pay more than 750k.

Again like everything else, just a thought, i just want to see viable league and the 36ers to survive long term in the NBL in some form or another.

Dont really think the current form financially is all that strong with many clubs losing significant money and just think that there has to be a way to fix it.

A business wouldnt last year after year losing money happily, so why should a pro sports team. A business would do everything in its power to make changes and make a profit, pro sports clubs should be run the same way, businesses often reduce wages/staff to help profitability, so my suggestion of a reduced cap whether it be 500k, 750k is not totally out there imo, i think it should be a figure calculated based on the revenue generated by clubs and the clubs other expenses, what ever is left is the cap, not just some random figure, without seeing a clubs books i couldnt work it out, just going on rumoured club positions, ie Cairns rumoured to be spending 750-800k on roster and made a small profit, so maybe thats about where the cap should be, but someone in BA should get all clubs books and work it out properly and not worry about what players think, just make the club viable, so if you do the sums and the affordable amount to the average club to break even is 800k, then thats the cap, most players salaries would stay similar, if its closer to 500k then so be it, would need greater adjustments but that has to be the cap, if its 1 mil+ then great make that the cap, the figure doesnt matter, just make it viable and make the league, clubs, players adjust to this, id rather the 36ers reduce there roster to that figure and survive for ever and lose Gibson, Cadee and Weigh (not ideal, i also dont want this to happen, but gotta make the club viable) in doing so than keep everyone, even add another star and collapse within 5 years.

Whats worse players take a 10-20% pay cut (or even more), but the league becomes financially stable and survives easily long term, or the players earn the same money, if not more, but the league or many clubs goes bust within 5 years meaning there are less or no jobs out there for the players.

To me in the ideal world id like to see a 10+ team comp with the cap between 800k and a million, so we can afford the same level of player and add a few more teams to create more opportunities for players, coaches, fans, etc but not sure if thats viable, thats the issue i want to see solved.

NZ have big sponsors on decent contracts. The Breakers get mentioned on the Sports news the day before the game, game day and the day afterwards. Cedric Jackson has the cover of Skywatch Magazine (Sky TV's magazine/program guide) this month.
Everyone in NZ wants a piece of the Breakers (especially as they are winning), the winning won't always last but I think they have engaged the community well and will stay relevant if the results drop away.
The club have done a very good job of getting all the things off the court right.

Yeah, just ideas for sure, but I recall a guy called Packer who had an idea once...

HO if Geelong rocked into Adelaide and beat them would you change your mind, I wonder?

Our problem with the money and sponsorship deals is two fold in my view:

1. We fail to see that major sponsors should be league sponsors and local sponsors in number should be seen as the answer.

2. Stadium size! We can't compete with AFL, NRL, ALeague because we can't hold 20k+ in more than a couple of venues across the nation.

Finally, the WNBL seem to be doing just fine when Dandenong play Bendigo, so what the'......

Maybe in the view of some the SEABL teams are seen as backward, country hicks or not worthy of being in the same venue, but the team means nothing without players and I would rather follow the Supercats year in and year out than wonder if my club will survive each season...

Oh, by the way if I am Trolling (and I don't even know what the means), then I apologise...

Congrats to the Breakers, they definatly appear to be a model franchise, they probably also benefit hugely by being the only NZ team, but power to them.

They also have a good player development academy set up dont they? if only all teams could afford this.

I think one of the key things you mentioned is that they have engaged the community, something alot of clubs dont do well imo, engaging community could equal stable franchise, other clubs need to take note.

Agreed Bear, nothing wrong with having a Geelong or Bendigo in an national league imo, especially if they are a stable franchise, and if having these teams in with a reduced cap makes it so every NBL franchise is viable for ever im all for it.

I honestly think your idea has some real merit and nothing wrong with thinking differently about things, especially when the current model doesnt work, sure NZ and Pert are ok, but thats 2/8 teams that are stable, so overall the current model is a fail, think about it if only 2 out of 8 36ers imports are good are you happy? why are we happy to have only 2 out of 8 teams financially viable and stable?

I honestly believe a league of around 20 teams on a smaller budget could work, as Bear suggested even if its not the top league, maybe as a div 2 behind the NBL, if the basketball community could support both, but above the SEABL, i guess the NBLs version of a D-League, could be played After the SEABL/NZ/ABL seasons even during the NBL season so we can get the best talent not snapped up by NBL teams, even development players like Shaun Bruce could play when Cairns are on a road trip and he isnt with them, would be good for him to get some game time for his development and be good for the league to have him, could also have NBL guys returning from injury come through div 2 to ease them back in, a bit like AFL and SANFL/VFL and the teams have the option of growing into the big league if they can prove themselves to be viable financially.

Would love to see it happen, if its a div 2 league, you could have no import restrictions to keep the talent level high and have a set salary of say 50k each, 500k per team, would also help NBL clubs get good imports on the cheap, as some of these guys would turn out to be good and better than some NBL imports imo, plus they are in the country and would be made available to trial and train with NBL teams so you could get a real good look at them before signing them.

Then would love to see the winner of div 2 or top 2, play against NBL teams in a tournament or something, to see how close the teams are in terms of talent.

Honestly if i was a Lowy/Packer type id try to set it up and see if it works, i reckon you could put together a team on 500k, (50k per player) with say atleast 5 imports as good as and as entertaining as a NBL team.

Some way the model of pro basketball in Australia needs to make some changes, for long term viability and stability, anyone who thinks it should just stay the same have the same mentality of Marty and his coaching, 'ill do the same things and it will just get better and work in the end', and how is that going?

right now the whole of Atlas place (Breakers hq) is over run with 5 and 6 year old kids getting holiday Coaching from Judd Flavell. When my nephews play mini ball (they live over the north shore near Breakers HQ) quite often one of the Breakers is there to tip the games off. The players are available to sign autographs and have pictures taken after "every" home game.

Impressive by the Breakers, there are some simple things ALL nbl clubs could do

I heard that a kid was at a breakers clinic and was having his Birthday Party at McDonalds the next day and CJ Bruton and his son turned up and hung out for an hour or 2 and made the kids (and his parents) year.

CJ=the man

I heard that too. Apparently when he was in Sydney Bruton used to head straight out to the SEC car park after some games to farewell fans and give kids high fives etc. That's pretty impressive.

that is why when I'm at games with my Nephews and ask them "who's the man?" they answer "CJ!!!" without any hesitation lol.

I would say the majority of NBL clubs are getting very good at getting out in the community. From what I can tell Perth, NZ and Cairns are the best, and hence the best supported, but other teams are copying them more and more.

There is a reason attendances have gone from 3500 in 2008 to what will be 5000-5500 (or 11,000 for Perth and 4500 for rest of the league!) this season, clubs are getting more well known in the community through FTA TV and increased appearances.

The league just needs to keep doing what it's doing, building slowly, try to find some new revenue sources and improve the TV product.

But a complete overhaul that would kill any chance of a new TV deal in 2016 is the last thing that's needed.

Bear, that is just simplistic.

Its not a matter of if the Supercats go there and win. Its that the perception that the Supercats are a poor drawing rivalry team, from a regional city, not from a major centre. I am not having a crack at Geelong here, I am just taking about the realities of a national, professional competition.

Even in the recent NBL, the fact is that games against Gold Coast and Cairns at home did not/do not draw as well. Fewer people care. Adelaide care about playing Perth, then probably Melbourne, then Sydney and whoever they have had their latest off court dustup with. Adelaide might draw well against Wollongong currently (i do not know) because a home town boy plays for Wollongong - but in the longer term that is irrelevant.

The mix of regional/small market teams and big city/bigmarket teams is a problem in Australian sport generally. Even when Port Adelaide were doing well in the AFL, they were not a great drawcard as a visiting team, nor did they get great TV coverage.

The NBL has too many regional teams now. There is something wrong with having Bendigo and Geelong in the NBL. And what is wrong is that commercially, for tv and to home fans, these visiting teams count for little.

As for your theory on sponsors.... sure, stack your team with 100 little local sponsors, instead of 4 big ones and 40 smaller ones and see what happens... (in the NBl environment)

a) TV tell you to go away, because they have no one they can sell broadcast packages to because little local sponsors don't buy that stuff
b) Your league looks mickey mouse because serious players (Crown/Lite 'n easy etc - ie, national brands) are not seen to be interested in your product
c) You then get in a vicious cycle of seeking lowest common denominator support.. and your product declines with it.

Its my observations that SEABL programs are not getting the levels of support they once were - and that SEABL crowds are off the boil as well. Relevancy is very hard to maintain.

I have been called much worse than simplistic, but I do agree that the ideas can be observed as simple, that's where most ideas start I guess.

I would love to see the NBL continue to do the right tings and improve in the areas it needs to to survive and then prosper, that is always the first option...

Food for thought in a thread like this is what makes reading them worth while.

Just want to put the regional thing to bed here by saying that it is narrow minded view points about smaller regional cities and the perception that they don't matter in the overall scheme of things that I find disappointing in so many way.

Geelong is the second largest city in Victoria and that means something! How many cities in NZ are larger than Geelong and how good would the NBL be if a powerhouse Supercats team was back?

Last time I looked, the Supercats were the top 1 or 2 SEABL team and have been for years.

That makes them (by default) the unofficial number 10 or 11 or 12 team in the country, depending on how many teams are in the NBL of course...

Sorry, but I don't buy the 'there is no interest in regional teams' line...

As a case in point for what HO is saying, losing the Gold Coast really has had minimal impact. Losing big market teams has had a huge impact.

Notice Ten and iiNet both signed on once Sydney were back in. Think of the one game per week coverage Fox gave when there were no Sydney Kings or Brisbane in the comp.

The average rating on Sundays for games with regional teams is around 20K but close to 60K for two metro teams, and 30K for regionals on Fridays compared to over 40K for metros. As ratings have grown the past few years so has the gap, because once you draw in more than the hardcore there are simply more casual viewers in the big cities.

What the NBL desperately needs in the next two years before the TV deal expires is Brisbane and a second Melbourne team in so the majority of TV games are capital city teams.

I should temper the rating comments by saying those are metro ratings, so the gap does close a little with all ratings considered, but it is still significant and metro ratings are what matters most to broadcasters and major sponsors.

Sure, I get all that, no drama about Collingwood being the major draw card for the AFL...

Oh, wait a minute, isn't Melbourne the major team in the AFL???

Oh, and isn't the Melbourne Storm (complete outsiders) the best thing to happen to the NRL, other than the Warriors??

Oh, and I forgot about West Sydney Wanderers in the ALeague, what are their crowds like??

Yup, we need the major players and the big draw cards, not saying we don't, just think we need to think outside the box sometimes because the box is getting a little crowded...

I fully agree Paul, radical changes risk undoing the positive steps that have recently been made. Keep tweaking and improving a little at a time and soon we will have a great product.
I think if they can keep improving the TV coverage (more live FTA games at better times in Aus) the league will be in a great position.

Who will get the TV rights after TEN?

There's two years left on the current deal after this season. What happens in those two seasons will have a big bearing on the next deal and the next 10 years of the NBL. Crucial times.

Bear.

"Geelong is the second largest city in Victoria and that means something! How many cities in NZ are larger than Geelong and how good would the NBL be if a powerhouse Supercats team was back?"

There would be no "goodification" of the NBL if the Supercats were back in:

- too small a venue
- does not have its own TV coverage
- they mattered little when they were in the league
- too few corporates and relevant corporate decision makers
- it doesn't matter how many cities in NZ are bigger than Geelong, as NZ being in the league is largely irrelevant as well commercially

Again. This is not a crack at Geelong, its just the facts. Geelong have done a brilliant job since being in the SEABL from what I can see - but that is their market, not the NBL. And it would be a negative step for the NBL to try and bring them in.

And mate, i said your comment was simplistic, not you!

NBL Fan - Nobody knows the answer to that!

and Bear, I have no idea what you are trying to say with your comments about Melbourne Storm and Western Sydney Wanderers... or melbourne for that matter.

Thanks for the clarification HO, not taking it personally just throwing ideas around, obviously we can take any points made in a post and highlight them for our own purposes should we choose to...

My point was that we can take players across to almost any team, build or locate a suitable venue and get the right coaches etc... And make a successful team, which has been done in many sports, including basketball.

So, while you may be correct in your assumptions based on some facts, my point is that if we accept things just as they are we are doomed to mediocrity my friend..

And just to confirm, I am quite simplistic in many ways, and complex in others!

I agree with a city like Geelong, definatly should be considered to have a NBL team in some form if they have the support/finances to do so, just to rule someone out of the league because they are not Melbourne or Sydney is silly imo. The AFL has a Geelong team which has been one of the best teams since i have been following AFL in the early 90's playing in around 5-10 grandfinals, winning 3 premierships in 20 years, very impressive, not saying a NBL club would do the same, but 'regional' teams can be great for a league and shouldnt be simply ruled out.

Wollongong to me is a very successful NBL club, with on court results, and is also a 'regional' team, and the community model is working for them well, not saying it would work in say Geelong or Dandenong, but it could, if there are people with the backing to give it a go then the NBL shouldnt be saying, sorry you are too 'regional'. IMO it would be great to get these types of areas involved in some form, if they cant afford it/dont want to, then fine, but some of the bigger SEABL clubs have great basketball following and shouldnt be seen as 2nd rate just because they are not in Sydney or Melbourne or because they are not currently in the NBL. If a model could be established where some of these bigger clubs could be involved in the NBL in some form than i say go for it, would be great to have 10-20 clubs, heaps more opportunities for players which to me out weighs lowering the cap if required to fit them in, i dont see the mass exodus of top players that some say would happen, as they could still earn 100k+ and is a Gibson or Schenscher going to get a Euro import contract for significantly more?

Also agree you need the capital cities for tv, sponsorship, etc, but doesnt mean you cant have both.

Id rather see a stable Geelong, Knox, Wellington team play year after year, even if its at a lower salary cap (either the league reduces it or they spend less like the Hawks) than a Sydney or Brisbane folding every 3-5 years.

Werent the 36ers born from a whole group of SA clubs/associations coming together and fielding a team? why couldnt a few clubs in a simialr regional areas put together a team for there area, and still maintain there own SEABL club if they wish, if you make this affordable to them, one way reducing the cap a bit then it may be a possibility. Ie could a few clubs/associations in the Sth East of Melbourne come together and put in a NBL.

I agree with Bear, the mindset needs to be broader, can be done in baby steps, like you could grow the league add 1 team a year max for a few years, once they have met certain criteria, and adjust things like the salary cap to make EVERY team viable, again can be done rather slowly, like you could easily go from 1 mil to 900k next year, then do the maths and see what money teams are making or losing, if most teams are losing significant money, then drop it again to 800k, and so on until teams are actually viable.

Not saying there are other teams like Geelong wanting to be in the NBL, but ideally for me it would great to have the big basketball cities/associations around Australia like Geelong involved in the NBL, obviously they would have to want to, and meet the criteria, also not against the NBL making a few changes to meet them half way.

If the NBL can just continue on as is, make a few steps each year and get all clubs viable without any falling over, than great, i just dont see it, and think some changes need to be made to acheive league whole viability.

Quote: Paul "There's two years left on the current deal after this season. What happens in those two seasons will have a big bearing on the next deal and the next 10 years of the NBL. Crucial times."


I concur, if the great crowds continue and people continue to watch FTA coverage there is no reason the TV deal will not improve. Add a couple of franchises (Melb & Bris)to the mix and the NBL will be in a great position moving forward.

The ALeague bit the bullet and although they have had their problems, they have established strong major city teams as the backbone of their competition.

Brisbane needs to be a power team in the NBL, no question!

JA, the NBL have made it clear that the expansion focus is currently Brisbane and a second Melbourne team. The Wellington Saints have tried unsuccessfully to join the Breakers in the NBL with a very strong bid (they are one of the most successful NZBL clubs and are already run better than some current NBL franchises imo).
I tend to agree with BA stance as with these 2 extra teams in large population centres the Australian TV deal can only improve.

I hope so Mystro, would be great to get a good tv contract, one that could pay even half the players wages for the clubs would be awesome!

Would also love to see 2 new teams in the comp, would be great to have 10-20 teams, if it gets closer to 20, then conferences, etc could be looked at to be more efficient with things like travel and build strong rivalries.

Some say it would spread the talent too thin, but i dont mind the idea, as you could simply allow teams to have an extra import or 2 if there are not enough aussies to keep the standard up, at the moment i think the league is too deep, you dont get to see the best out of guys like Creek, Wagstaff, etc because they dont get enough court time to establish themselves as stars, and not enough opportunity for young guys or top SEABL/NZ/ABL players to get a shot, some will prove to be very good like a Petrie, Dillon have.

You could also build your marketing a bit more like a NBA club does, where say each team has 1 or 2 star/top aussies and then 2 or 3 imports, you could really build your Aussie star up as a superstar of the club, market them well, and build a big profile for that player around there clubs community, this would get the fans connected with the players/clubs aswell, especially if you can get guys to commit to long term contracts, if the league was in a stable condition then maybe 3-5 year contracts could become a regular thing, which means rosters would have more stability.

Would Kobe, LeBron, Durant be as big names if the NBA was just a 8 team league and they all ended up on the same team from word dot? (and all other stars would be the same) Imo they would end up a bit more like Perth with say Lisch, Knight, Redhage, seen as great players, but not as absolute superstars or franchise players as all play together at a similar level, all 3 of these guys could be franchise guys on a separate team imo.

It could also make the games more entertaining and higher scoring for the fans, as Lisch if he were to play 30+ mins a game as the superstar of his team, get most of the plays run for/through him could probably average 20+ points per game, would also because teams are slightly wartered down, but more quality players are playing more minutes, like a Creek would actually get 30 mins a game which would be great for him and the league, you wouldnt get Creek, Petrie, Wagstaff coming off the bench anywhere, they would all be stars.

Again, more thoughts, but a large reason why i was a fan of Bears 20+ team league, and just putting thoughts out there of ways it could work, obviously just off the top of my head and would require great investigation, research and consideration, and it may not be possible, but nothing wrong with exploring.

End of the day i just love Basketball, and want the NBL to succeed, i also want the best players possible in the league and to be playing big minutes, the way to create more jobs for players or minutes for players is more teams, and then just throwing out thoughts out there of ways it could work (off the top of my head).

To me guys like Creek playing less than 20mpg is wasted, some blame that on coaching, but if there was say an extra few teams it wouldnt happen, not matter who the coach is,as he would play in a team not quite as deep as talent would be more spread out, no team would be able to afford any more than 2 or 3 of the 'top' Aussies so they would all start and play the big minutes they deserves, a reduced salary cap would also create this spread of talent amongst the teams, Creek would outshine most Sf's in the NBL pretty quickly to imo. I feel similar about Wagstaff, Petrie, even Corey Webster and various others aswell, would love to see them all given big minutes to shine, like LeBron was from day 1, not saying they are going to be LeBron or that they would all star, but given the opportunity i reckon quite a few of them like Wagstaff, Creek, Petrie, Webster would do very well. Even as a 18 year old rookie would have loved to seen Creek thrown in the deep end and started with big minutes, a bit like NBA rookies are, its exciting for the fan base to watch him develop, they get to know him and build a liking to him and sort of a 'relationship' with him, so its even more exciting when he develops into a superstar and means his talents arent wasted sitting on the bench. I also think you could be surprised how good some of them would be, i wouldnt have been shocked to see Creek average 10-15 ppg with some exciting plays if given plenty of opportunity from day 1, again like the NBA guys do, as most NBA teams are not that deep, most of the benches are filled with guys who are at the same level as D-leaguers, or old guys on the decline looking for a title, look at the Heat and Lakers for example, where as in the NBL you can have your 3-5 stars and a really deep bench, like Perth, but is that better for the overall product, when Wagstaff, Redhage and Knight (all potential franchise guys) are playing less than 30 mins a game, (assuming all fully fit)? I dont think so, an example is Neville was a role player at Perth, moved to the Crocs is now a franchise guy and star, thats what i think more teams would give you, no more talented guys wasted on the bench.

You could easily spread current rosters + development players out amongst 12 or so teams without losing any real quality imo, teams would not be as deep, but the stars would play more, which would keep the quality high, if it does lessen the quality of the game allow another import or 2, but still keep the top Aussies playing big minutes, even if the 3rd has to be a cheap import, Massingale is a cheap import who would be a solid rotation guy off the bench for some depth.

The top Development players like Shaun Bruce would also get full time contracts, and regular minutes which would also be great and well deserved.

That is why im a big fan of having plenty of teams, and throwing ideas of a way it may be able to work, and what ALL teams to be stable and viable, which they are currently not, so just throwing ideas around of how to fix that.

I just want the NBL to succeed and see the best basketball possible.

If Wellington have a legit bid, then they should be allowed in imo, even if its ahead of Brisbane/2nd Melbourne, in the ideal world you would get all 3, but its stupid to not let Wellington in just because we need Melbourne/Brisbane in first despite not having a decent bid. Thats the kind of thing that does frustrate me and prevents growth.

I for one support any group including Wellington, who come with a strong bid/model to enter the league no matter where they are from, if the model is strong and they have the required finances, venue, etc, then they should be allowed in.

I am not a fan of internet slang, just worked out that IMO means 'in my opinion'...

IMO the NBL must have two major city teams in each state before it expands any further, that includes them bros' over the dutch, there I've said it..!

JA. You cannot solely rank a bid to join the league on the quality of their program/town/business plan etc.

Would you let in a team from Mackay if someone built a 3500 seat stadium there and offered a 2 million bond? Seriously?

Any new team has to bring far more to the league than its own merits.

Remember Singapore. The gateway to Asia? the whole billion viewers in Asia crap? What did Singapore bring? Torturous road trips, appalling schedules and a massive drain on the league, along with terrible crowds in Australia. No one cared about playing Singapore.

Remember Gold Coast and Geelong circa 1996. The league PAID them to leave. The other clubs, Magic, Sydney, Tigers etc etc said "enough, these small market teams hurt our gate, hurt tv and hurt the product, lets get rid of them".

Remember Gold Coast and Townsville in the a-league? Poor crowds, poor finances, poor TV and shocking drawcards on the road. they dragged the league down.

Sorry, your Geelong AFL example is poor. They are a club with 100 years of tradition. They have a broad supporter base Australia wide. they play four of 11 games in Melbourne every year to capitalise on crowds. And its AFL, which infests our population with its rivalry. You are born following an AFL team - thats not the case for basketball.

If you truly want the league to survive, then unfortunately that means it has to be almost exclusively made up of big market teams.

My ideal league in 3 years time.... Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne x 2, New Zealand, Perth, Sydney and ONE of either Townsville/Cairns or Wollongong.

My ideal league would be:

2 teams from Sydney
2 teams from Melbourne
2 teams from NZ
Brisbane
Gold Coast*
Wollongong
Cairns
Townsville
Adelaide

*(only if they can sustain it, would have to be an amazing bid with mega security)

Teams could play weekend double headers (Friday and Sunday games) against both Sydney, Melbourne and the NZ franchises to save on travel costs etc. Get inter City/Country rivalries to go with traditional ones.

Fair enough HO, i can see the logic in most of your points,

But, Surely a small town that couldnt half realistically get enough fans/sponsors to support the club wouldnt be able to build a stadium suitable for the NBL, thats one thing i dont agree with,

without knowing i dare say Wellington has a stadium suitable or close enough to and is a big enough city to hold a team, if it met all other criteria eg a solid business plan, a solid financial base, good support from a decent sized basketball community, obviously the NBL are trying to get 2nd Melb (knox) and Brisbane going, but wouldnt a place like Canberra also have a suitable venue, so yes if a team from canberra or Wellington, decent sized placed could meet all the criteria set out by the NBL i would let them in, for the rest of them a lack of a decent stadium or ability to build one will rule them out, and no millionare is going to build a stadium, etc in a place that couldnt reasonably get atlest 3-5 thousand to a game and support at the very least a really strong SEABL team let alone NBL team.

Look if say you could get Wellington, 2nd Melbourne, Brisbane up and running i would be very happy, would keep all current teams, makes no sense just to kick out Wollongong, Townsville and/or Cairns to me, run an 11 team league, which would spread the talent a bit more, get guys like Creek playing bigger minutes, that they deserve, then you have basically achieved what i want to see, but this looks like a number of years off if ever happening giving they are seriously seem to be struggling to get a Brisbane/2nd melbourne team up and going, if its finances the issue, i suggest drop the cap a bit, even 200k is a lot of money to not have to find, so that could help get them going without hurting the players salaries or quality of the league.

If at anytime any other group gave a serious bid then you would have to consider it, if it meets the criteria set out, they are in, thats what criteria is for. The Mackay example you gave just wouldnt happen, as no one is going to sink millions into something that likely wouldnt work, a wealthy person sinking some money into a big basketball area, like a big SEABL club ala a Geelong, Canberra, etc is more realistic, but even still unlikely, and yes if they met all criteria set out by the NBL then i would let them in. One of the criteria being a realistic estimation of crowd/sponsor levels, based on pledges, fan bases in current league, etc.

Ho, man you are right...

There have been some shockingly poor decisions made in the past!

Also, who cares about Singapore or little backward towns with small venues and no growth.

Unfortunately mate, basketball too often suffers from small thinking with episodes of grad ideas that cost the earth and almost the league...

You have also hit the nail on the head by saying the teams like SEABL based Geelong need to understand their market and stay there...

Well, then let's take a step back and look at the NBL market shall we?

I don't see 8 teams based in major cities only capturing the mega millions of dollars needed to grow the competition into something I care to follow! Sorry mate, happy to go watch SEABL, far more interesting and guess what???

1. Real rivalry and atmosphere
2. Little to no risk of going bust
3. Local community involvement and great entertainment
4. Value for money
5. Kids identify with their the players and team

The Big problem that we have in Australia is that our 'weathly' investors are Millionaires, not Billionaires.

Considering at best a team is looking at around 1 million per year for the bare essentials to operate a team, the average team would then need another million to be able to field their team at a decent size arena capable of holding enough people to produce a profit on game day.

You would then need at least another 750k-1M in order to produce an appropriate amount of advertising aimed to draw attention to the league, rather than just to the niche market of Basketball fans.

That's a huge chunk of change for any single investor, and even if you put together a group of 4-5 millionaires to invest in a team, they might only be able to afford 800k - 1.5M each at best per year without going bankrupt.

Exactly Bear, there are some great positives to SEABL that the NBL misses out on, trying to be too 'big time'.

Thats why i dont mind the idea of the NBL being a smaller budget league a bit more like the SEABL set up, not sure if thats exactly what you are getting at with your 20+ teams, conferences idea, which i like,

The NBL could still be a bit bigger than SEABL, instead for examples if SEABL teams have a player budget of 250k, NBL teams have a player budget of 800k-1 mil, so you could have teams with a player budget 500-700k, and get more teams, and have them all affordable, with some of the smaller teams helped out with a revenue sharing model.

The NBL isnt a big money league now, and clubs are going broke or close to by trying to extend themselves too much. I honestly cant see the NBL getting all the teams they want in and viable long term, as Brisbane/2nd Melbourne have been talked about for years and still doesnt appear to be viable, hence why they are not in. The big TV contracts/sponsorships that people dream of are also not coming now, and dont look likely anytime soon either, look if we could keep it as is, grow 1-2 more teams for more player opportunites and have all clubs viable great, i just dont see it.

If we did slowly make it a little bit smaller/more affordable, 1 small step per year, i dont think you would see a mass exodus of TV and sponsors that we have now.

So if the NBL drops the cap to a more affordable level say 500-700k, what ever the affordable amount is calculated in, by say dropping it by 100k per year until its down to that level, this figure is re-assessed each year, therefore its a gradual tightening of player salaries across the board and i doubt you would see too many leave, you could even make your 9th and 10th (even 8th) men as local part timers on around 20k, obviously having other jobs, and less training requirements, to help keep some of the top players in the league.

Similtaneously if this makes it more affordable for the 2nd Melb, Brisbane, Wellington to actually come in then get them in.

So day they drop the cap the 900k next year, keeps all clubs more viable and no one drops out of the league,

The following year you could drop it to 800k, keeps all clubs more viable again, dont really lose any extra players, but it is now affordable for say atleast one of Brisbane, Wellington, Melbourne to come in.

Why would TV jump off, there are more teams in bigger markets being bought in, surely they wouldnt care if the salary cap is 200k less, there are also more spots for players and in total more money is being spent on players, so talent would spread but not really lost to the league.

To me that would be a step in the right direction.

You could then continue the same formula of dropping the clap slowly, even by 50k per year and seeing if you can introduce viable teams from some of the basketball hotspots around the league.

Surely a TV network isnt going to say geesh you now have Geelong or Dandenong in your league we are no longer going to show your league. Sure they may not show any of the regional teams home games, thats fine, hopefully NBL.tv is still around for those games and many of there away games would get on TV. Fans arent going to be like its 36ers v Geelong, stuff it, especially if all teams are on a relatively even level of spending on players and therefore talent, and a good game, remember Wollongong and Cairns have recently made grand finals, and i dont not go to 36ers games because Wollongong is playing.

I reckon with a slow and gradual process you could have a league with capital city clubs and basketball hotspot regional areas included, at an affordable budget without hurting the overall quality of the league, and it is done in a gradual way so sponsors/TV dont get scared off, it would be 1 team at a time, i would have thought it would be seen as a positive by many to have all the current teams plus extra teams, if i was looking at i would think cool the NBL has added a team from Geelong (without anyone else dropping out) looks like the league is growing.

Just ideas JA, just ideas mate...

Mystro, you left out Perth - the best franchise of them all ;)

I can understand cos you just want the Breakers to win the title each year!

If Wellington came in it might hurt the Breakers fan base. And would the Breakers have to become the Auckland Breakers? I guess if the NBL can't get Brisbane or Melbourne back into the NBL in the next four years then bring in the Wellington Saints.

BRING BACK THE BULLETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So JA, to be clear, you are going to admit any team that has a great case into the league, no matter how negatively they affect the league as a whole.

You would have no problem of the league had 5 big city Australian teams and 12 regional teams?

Doh, unintentional sorry Wildcat fan but Perth is a no brainer for inclusion. Best franchise for sure.

RE NBL Fan: Breakers main fan base is Auckland. People in Auckland buy Memberships and attend the games, sure people from other parts of NZ follow them on social media and television and buy merchandise but so do people in Australia so it is really no different.

HO of course not, but dont see how a regional team would negatively affect the league if it enters the leagues criteria.

What negative effect would having say Geelong or Canberra on the team provided they meet the criteria and are viable for the long term? Why are they such bad places if they can provide a sustainable franchise and a good supporter base.

Obviously if possible you would want probably majority in the Capital cities, or atleast all the major cities included for bigger marketing opportunities, larger population, etc, but nothing wrong with having a few more regional teams in either, especially in some of the basketball hotspots around the place.

Better to have a few viable regional hotspots included than a capital city going broke every 2 years imo.

Not overly fussed on exact numbers of how many teams from capital cities, or how many regional area teams, i want as many teams as viable and sustainable as possible, expanding to as many good basketball areas as possible, to give as many players an option to play as much as possible. Im not a snob to either capital cities or the regional areas, im happy to include teams from both, many great basketballs come out of the regional areas aswell, eg Mitch Creek is from country Vic isnt he?
so dont get why many snob them off see them as a waste of space.

JA, so not one of my examples rings true for you? Either past history or future possibility?

IMO too many teams and the quality gets watered down to much as the talent is spread around very thinly.

I agree with HO's point that too many regional teams will end up dooming the TV deal to mediocrity as they will not stir enough national interest especially as they'll likely only have 1-2 top teir players and they're likely to be imports with the rest being locals that no one in Sydney or Melbourne care to watch. It's unfortunate but it's a reality.

Hopefully the Kings can make the Finals for the next couple of seasons and Sydney can get behind the NBL and then we may see another franchise emerge giving the NBL more leverage on TV deals and naming rights sponsorship etc.

Boys, this post was initially questioning the possibility that an NBL team would fold.

We all have some ideas, that's what forums are for IMO, therefore points of view will differ, of course.

We seem to have split views on whether the league should continue on its merry way or have a radical overview.

Unless several teams fold and the league looks like it is going the way of the Doddo Bird, I can't see any redical changes, however the ideas about more teams, lowering sallary caps and including community owned teams as a way to keep teams from folding has some merit IMO.

Anyone heard of the Green Bay Packers?

An NFL regional team in the scheme of things over there, community owned and doing very nicely, thanks!!