How would it work when teams moved up or down and salaries changed, sponsorship opportunities changed, etc. I don't think it could happen like that. Salary caps would change and sponsors would go from maybe getting TV coverage to nothing.

You know when the headline screams "Gaze calls" you are going to read some ludicrous nonsense.

If they do, then you will have the same as English football where the top 3-4 teams stay and the rest just play to miss relegation, it works there because they share the $$ from TV rights with clubs.

What HO said. It's like the AFL having Doug Hawkins on their commission. He is great for the game but misused as a 'voice' for the sport.

Each team in the Premiere League gets around $25M from TV rights (even more if you make the Champions League)...

It would possibly work in the AFL or NRL due to their recent TV deals but not the $3.99 they get for the NBL deal.

Could you imagine Albury having to find $1M to enter the league...

Dumb idea.

Love Drewy as a player and quirky commentator but this is a dumb idea.

It will not work in Australian sport. Our country is not big enough (in terms of number of cities) to support this model.

Where is the team that wins Div 2 suddenly going to get funds required to compete in Div 1? What say they only stadium in their town/city is 1000 seats with no corporate facilities or room for TV to broadcast from?

What happens if the say the Kings get relegated, do they continue to pull D-List celebs and play out of the entertainment centre & Homebush? Does Ben Magden stay playing in Div 2?

Probably modelling it on the promotion/relegation system throughout European soccer.

Lower division teams gaining entry into a higher division is almost like winning a final or plate etc.

Teams would maintain and even gain support, as well as sponsorship and a higher profile. But obviously has a lot to do with the standing that game has through out Europe.

Agree, hard to see how teams would deal with differing financial costs, sponsorship arrangements, player contracts etc.

Isaac, did you not suggest a similar model a while ago ? Or at least a two tier league ? Could of been someone else, but certainty raised discussion then in a more positive way.

Boti seems very anti BA in his recent articles. Could that be the best thing for the league: demerging ?

This is a "Gazey" idea.

The game relies on sponsors to support the cash positions of companies. How can clubs attract them if they don't get the exposure?

I would prefer to see a competition running concurrently (like the SANFL/WAFL/VFL) that supports the main competition (like the AFL). That way there can be more interest in the sport. Club could sign up say 8 players, but then select from teams underneath them. E.g. Will the Sixers pick Jones this week after getting 20 for Forestville? Why hasn't Smith been given a go after his triple double?

The NBL need strong clubs competing not clubs worried about how they can pay the bills

If Carfino and his cheerleaders back Gazey let's book it.

Master Chief, I suggested shared leagues and said that it was probably a silly idea. Clubs moving from one tier to another year by year wouldn't work for basketball in Australia for the reasons people have already outlined.

For someone so involved with Basketball in Australia, played in the NBL for 100 years, on the selection committee for Boomers coach, main media presence etc This is a really dumb thing to say.

Good in theory maybe but not plausable in practice in our country.

Its abit like saying, NBL should have a draft every year. Yeah maybe if Australia's population was 10 times bigger, there were 30 teams in the NBL and clubs had the funds and resources to scout 100's of kids playing in local leagues.

It's a better idea than most fans saying "just get rid of the salary cap and bring back Australia's best players".

At least he's thinking (somewhat) outside of the box.

That is not in anyway "outside the box" thinking.

Isaac's self professed silly idea is outside the box, promo and relegation is not.

I agree with HO. Post-retirement Gaze is to basketball what post-retirement Shane Warne is to cricket.

Isaac, yeah fair enough.

I don't think that experimenting with different concepts and models are necessarily silly ideas.
Just keeps coming back to all the facts that make such proposals unrealistic in this country atm.

This is my idea:

Baring in mind I don't have any superior knowledge on how businesses, sponsorships, clubs, TV deals etc actually work. So this could sound a bit simplistic:

.NBL becomes separate from BA ( Don't know how or when or whatever etc
.Licenses are offered to current ownership groups or any other separate buyers (can incorporate mixed ownership etc)
.League aims for 12 teams:

Adelaide
Brisbane
Cairns
Melbourne
Sth Melbourne
Sydney
NZ
Wellington
Townsville
Perth
Wollongong
Canberra/Newcastle- strongest bidder.

.All players become free agents(Players contracted previously have right to first negotiation with current club)
.Salary cap is actually increased to 1.25 million
.League introduces a marquee player rule where one player can be paid outside the cap
.League renames itself
.League kicks off in October as normal ( if not than maybe winter is an option to a avoid a prolonged hiatus)

Obviously very simplistic and avoided going into complete detail. But I think such a league has appeal.

Not sure what the process involves of a League becoming independent of BA, but a fresh, rebranded league could be appealing to sponsors, fans etc.

Club ownership would have first option to continue running their current clubs, but new parties would not be dismissed.

Players would enter a free agency pool.But players tied to clubs under previous NBL would have the right to continue or renegotiate with club, or seek free agency. Would allow those with family, house, living considerations to stay put. Same goes for contracted player looking to leave.

Cap increase would be a risk. Main reason is to entice overseas based players to come home. Would be an aim of the league to make sure that the new league is a playing destination- second only to the NBA (Am aware of the fact that current cap is barely manageable with various teams though).

Same reasons for Marquee player rule as above. Imagine the media and fanfare if the Kings had recruited Matt Nielson for season 1, or Adelaide had enticed Brad Newley to come home, or a big name American was enticed down under- Iverson, Marbury etc.

Just an idea. Was kind of modelling it on the A- league re-launch. Obviously very simplistic ideas, and not really taking anything into account, but could be re-worked into a more realistic concept with a proper thought process.

I think we need to throw all ideas out for discussion and in the end it comes back to $$$ and lets face it at the moment the current NBL just doesn't turnover enough!

All in all the current Australian sporting landscape can't cope with NBL teams spending the current cap as this is the biggest strain on there balance sheets.

In the NBL unlike the AFL/NRL teams not turning a profit aren't being propped up by a league/governing body (Like 4 AFL teams currently) so suggesting we increase our largest area of expenditure is pure madness and conservative measures and approach should be taken rather than the "spend money to make money" saying cause last time I checked even really wealthy people don't “throw good money after bad” and sustain losses over long periods...…..!

I think we need to throw all ideas out for discussion and in the end it comes back to $$$ and lets face it at the moment the current NBL just doesn't turnover enough!

All in all the current Australian sporting landscape can't cope with NBL teams spending the current cap as this is the biggest strain on there balance sheets.

In the NBL unlike the AFL/NRL teams not turning a profit aren't being propped up by a league/governing body (Like 4 AFL teams currently) so suggesting we increase our largest area of expenditure is pure madness and conservative measures and approach should be taken rather than the "spend money to make money" saying cause last time I checked even really wealthy people don't “throw good money after bad” and sustain losses over long periods...…..!

Master Chief's idea is a good one - but I dont think the league or the market is stable enough to go down this path just yet. This may be a long term goal, but in the meantime it would seem more prudent to take the league back to semi-pro. I understand this would mean a cut to the salary cap and we may lose players to overseas (the argument would be that these players would probably go anyway) but it would allow for clubs to operate on a smaller budget (evenly across the competition) and make them more sustainable.

Of course this isnt completely palatable - telling the Wildcats or Breakers (who are both running successful on-court and off-court models) that their budget needs to be cut in half doesnt seem logical. However I think its time to make the tough calls and ensure that at minimum we have 8 teams with sustainable business models competing for the next few years.

The strategic plan could then be to focus on expansion, better media coverage (resulting in a dividend to the clubs) and slowly increasing the salary cap/allowing marquee players etc.

The suggestions of including additional teams from regional areas, another NZ team, expanding into Asia etc, etc all should be investigated - but lets get the foundations solid before we build the skyscraper.

Was mindful of salary cap concerns and stated several times that the concept was simplistic and questionable.

Teams wouldn't be forced to spend the cap. Marquee rule would be optional, of course. Even if cap was maintained, marquee idea doesn't necessarily have to be thrown out the window because of current costs associated with current NBL structure.

Would have to weigh up the benefits of spending more money to attract overseas based players vs the risk of not getting a return for your investment. Crowds, Media exposure, sponsorship.

Would be risky to gamble pumping more funds to attracts these players home, of course.

Such an idea is not likely, but the league may need to take a risk to revolutionise the sport. Imagine Nielson, Newley, Ingles or even Anderson returning home; not because they are in the twilight of their careers, but because the league is appealing as a whole.

Master Chief, we can't even get 1-2 extra teams in under the current financial situation, let alone trying to keep Townsville and add four more. And with the expectation of having higher costs!

The situation is that some teams are doing OK, some aren't. Ideally, you wouldn't hamstring the top sides from dominating their region with marketing and the like (as you said), but you do want an even playing field on court.

That's why I think anything that allows a club to spend less on their roster and still match it with the top teams is absolutely key to bringing all up to the level of Perth or New Zealand. And financial so that they aren't completely reliant on benefactors. That will be the key in both cases to bringing home Newley and co.

Promotion and relegation based on results would be problematic. But based on strength of clubs could have slight merit. e.g., Townsville can't compete, so maybe they look to step down to a lower league while Bendigo shifts up because they're in a strong position.

But that's probably overcomplicating what's required.

In comparison with other leagues, THE problem the NBL has is its TV deal doesnt deliver a dividend to clubs.

To have 2 and 3 clubs making a profit a couple of years in a row without any dividend is a good effort in pro sports, but the million dollar question is how do you prop up the rest without that TV money?

Have teams not expressed interest in joining the league ? Brisbane, Newcastle ? What is the situation with Wellington ?

So there is no chance that 4 new teams would find a way to form under a fresh league- distanced from the current BA ? 10 or the current 8 would be enough to get the league going.

Concept is not flawless and things to be more broadly considered, but I still like the idea that a national league revamp could be beneficial in forming a fresh image for basketball.

Ideas like this are popping up for that exact reason of the crocodiles situation.

The idea is based around re energising a national basketball league.

MC, yes, there's interest and the NBL are very keen to get Brisbane and another Melbourne team in. But they haven't been in a financial position to make it happen and making it more expensive to compete won't help.

TV is keen on big market teams. New big market teams would be more confident if they could see potential success at a lower cost.

More teams also means a greater pool of jobs, including more starting roles and more $100k+ jobs. Could lure someone home even if most would stay in Europe.

Could the lack of success of gaining entry be related to the current structure ? Could it be more viable under a new structure? (don't lay claim to knowing the answer to both, so that is actually a question )

The worst thing for basketball to do would be to return to a winter sport and compete on the crowded winter sporting schedule. The sport would fade further into oblivion against the might of AFL and NRL.

I don't think the structure itself would make or break anything. A fixed position on a guarantee might. Also, owners collectively admitting new clubs might be more forgiving than BA. Whether those two things are for the best is a separate issue. The league can't afford to take on teams it can't keep or lose others in the process.

Its amazing how little he knows about the Associations that play in SEABL & other State Leagues - I guess thats what happens when you've spent your whole life being part of an NBL Club and not an Association.

None of the Associations with teams in SEABL can afford to play NBL thats why they are where they are - they don't want to be promoted to the NBL just to go bankrupt.

In terms of Townsville they can still exist as their ABA team Townsville Heat playing in the QABL. So while they may or may not participate in NBL next season they won't disappear and don't have to go and play SEABL.

I think MC's plan is very good and close to what could be achieved with the right environment & people involved.

A new NBL Board is required which has to be able to generate revenue well in excess of $10m annually to make the NBL a viable long term proposition.

Then money needs to flow from the NBL to the Clubs just like the AFL & NRL so the Clubs can focus on building a good product both on & off the court.

At the moment its like the NBL & Clubs are trying to run a Professional Basketball League on a shoe string budget which is destined to fail.

With more Teams in the League they should then only need to play each other twice as in Home & Away.

Travel costs will be reduced with less away games and combined with Road Doubles then some real cost savings can be made.

Then the overall season length can be reduced by several weeks and that will also naturally reduce costs to run Clubs.

I can't see these ideas being taken seriously by BA so it will be interesting to see if Clubs take matters into their own hands.

BA has the money now and it wont give it up, it coerced the existing owners back in 2008/9 to give back the licenses and be given new ones, because it wanted control of the $$, since then OBFU.

Hawkeye. Two responses.

One is Paul's, not mine, and that is that the league is in better shape (crowds, TV etc.) under BA's jurisdiction.

Second, and it is a what if question that no one thinks about. Where would the NBL have been if it had continued under its previous administration. It was heading down the gurgler back in 2008 - would it have been better now had it continued?

If it had been reborn then as a stand alone organisation would the current situation have still emerged?

It is just too easy to sit back and slap BA in the face and say everything is their fault. Remember, the only turnover that has not occurred at senior level in BA in the last 12-24 months has been the NBL management team.

TV And crowds would of been just as they are now, as I understand the TV deal was in the pipeline before the change. But even if not the TV $ are with BA.

I thought the only reason the Slingers went out was that BA took over and wanted the $1m guarantee? Same for the Dragons?

Agree BA is not all bad, but its problem is its main focus is not the NBL.

The falling over of teams is caused basically by the myth that if you spend more you can make more. If all teams had to put a budget together that was revised if the income was not created then they would all survive.

The teams would not be as good, the players not get as much $ etc etc.

The teams with out $ problems are ones generally ones who do that or have a major Sugar daddy to pick up the losses.

Sport management is not easy and the public and sponsors can be fickle.

Anyway, relegation and promotion is not an answer in it self , that only allows an out for clubs in difficulty and newbies who wish to roll the $ dice to step in.

It's such a bummer that we have to have a TV deal with a network that's floundering, and is struggling to find a niche that makes money for them.

If we're not making money for them, then they can't afford to carry us; they'll stick us in a dark corner and go looking elsewhere, even if it's just repeats of 'I Love Lucy'.

Maybe we need to help them come up with some sort of alternative basketball-related ideas, eg Basketball Superstar, or a drama series based on the politics within a basketball club (not necessarily looking at Adelaide or Melbourne in particular LOL).