Import spots to be filled:
1 x Hobart
2 X Sandy
2 x Knox
Mt Gambier maybe 1 but doubtful
1 x Canberra

Did i miss any?

Marcus Bellchambers to the Geelong Supercats.

@ Happy Days - Knox have filled import slots

Haven't heard much on Imports or restricted players from: Sandy, Nunawading, Brissy or Kilsyth.

Kilsyth signed American Dain Swetella last November - http://www.seabl.com.au/index.php?id=257&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=9101&cHash=70154f0029

Expect Brisbane to have two familiar import faces.

Ballarat have also filled both of their import spots, with Ken Horton and Ray Booker.

Best import pairing is always hard to judge before the season, especially with so many new faces coming in.

Tigerwatcher got some names for us for Knox or sworn to secrecy....

Enough discussion on this forum about knox but I think Justin Browne was a announced prior to xmas not sure on if they have another import.

Any word on Sandy? I thought they had potentional last year to make noise

What about Nunawading? Getting Greer back or another import?

Is Justin Brown filling one of the import spots? Being an Aussie i thought they were bringing in 2 imports plus Brown.

CJ Massingale has officially signed with Brisbane Spartans, as announced on their Facebook page yesterday.

Zach Henifin also confirmed as returning to the Spartans, so that's their import pairing for 2014

Brisbane will be tough with that import pairing throw in Scott Kenny and that trip wont be pleasant.

Brisbane look to have put together a team that will score the ball!!!

It they can get another front court player to support George they will be a very tough team to play esp up in Brissy!

Good on them for getting two imports and having a crack.

Throw Bendigo into the mix as well.

Hobarts 2nd import is from "Klinger" country Toledo:
http://basketball.eurobasket.com/player/Jerrah_Young/Finland/Porvoon_Tarmo/91965

Where will Bruce be playing if rumored not to be at ballarat next year

CJ will drop 40 on Knox - shanahan's worst nightmare?

Bruce will not be at Ballarat thats for sure.

CJ Fan 10th May in Brisbane will be when it happens.Shanahan may not have to worry because hopefully he will have been given the arse by then.His appointment will go down as one of the worst decison Knox has ever made.

Hardly Shanahans fault knox cant afford imports!!

anon nothing to do with affordability as CJ and Lester were both gone even if Knox could afford to pay and that was Shanahan's decision.My belief is he just does not have it to be a senior level coach. Ask players who he has coached
and they will tell you his man management skills are awful.

Looking to see what Frankston do, are they using Long as a import now he has passed the citizinship and now able to be played as a Aussie.

One import only, budget was reduced again this year.

Pandora your getting awfully personal about Shanahan. Are you mad cause he stood you down from a coaching position cause he found out who Pandora was??

Sorry to dissappoint Jeff but a longway from the truth.I am just a longtime Knox person who has watched the senior teams in bad times and good times and last year was a very bad time. When you sit and watch week after week and watch player reactions it is not hard to workout something is wrong. When you hear senior players say they just didn't listen to what he was saying at timeouts and they would then go out formulate their own plays becuase his didn't work.That to me just confirmed what I was seeing.You don't go from finals contenders in 2012 to how they performed in 2013 unless something is not working.What was the only major change Shanahan.
If this year he proves me wrong I will quite happily get on here and praise him but considering what he has lost and what he has so far recruited I doubt it will happen.

Knox Seabl men in disarray.French and Todd quit. Carroll and Phillip retire. Massinga and Strong released. Budget issues is a diversion. Wait to see who is signed. Shanahan has no respect from the remaining members of last years group. Quinn and Mitchell you were warned but bailed before you know what hit the fan.

so sad to see.

Why you happy to see Carroll go Anonymous?

#455141

Help us out, which league do you get?

To be fair, most of you have misinterpreted #455141's question. They did ask a specific question and it is a reasonable one. The problem is that they were not interested in the answer.

The question was why do rep associations fund loss making SEABL programs. In my view when a SEABL program does not self-fund through sponsorship, membership and gate then someone/something (junior playing fees) props it up and it can be defined as loss making. They were not saying the association makes a loss as some have interpreted it.

I would think the following all rely heavily on their associations - Knox, Kilsyth, Nunawading, Frankston, Sandringham, dandenong, Southern Districts, Canberra. I reckon the following, just because of regional support, would be less reliant but still seek association cash - Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong. I understand some of the others are completely self standing - that is get no money from their local association?

I think a lot of people see the (accurate) suggestion that most SEABL teams take money from their association as an attack on SEABL. It ain't necessarily so.

We can't put a label on all teams doing the same thing here, it is a diverse corporate sector for every Association based SEABL team to try and navigate, just like your local Football Team for example.

Every sporting club must try to gain funds through whatever means they can, but it is what they spend and how they use the money they generate that is the killer and can cause debt issues to be resolved.

Not all clubs have poker machines, a local council that is totally behind them or a venue they control!

Not wise to generalise and place every SEABL program into the same bucket when it comes to how they are financed, that's just being silly IMO...

"SEABL program takes money from the association or the association invests money in their SEABL program?"

I would say, if it's done right, those two things are indeed the same thing. Unfortunately, whenever it is raised some people on both sides get defensive while perhaps not understanding that concept.

Bear and #455372,

I dispute the statement that no two sides would be remotely the same.

I think you would find the "models" would be very similar for groups of teams.

As stated, I think there are three model groupings:

a) those largely dependent on association funding (how the association gets that revenue is largely irrelevant - pokies versus kids versus seniors versus other - it just means that the association is heavily topping up the spend).

b) Those somewhat dependent on association funding - more likely to have a significant proportion of their budget met by sponsors/members etc.

c) Those who receive no association funding (i i=understand there are a couple of these).

The amount of dependency might vary, but that does not invalidate the model. One might get 80% of funding from the association or 55%, you are still "largely dependent".

And the argument is not about whether it is an investment or loss, its about whether there is an actual loss on a program basis - thereby necessitating the need to make said "investment".

Thanks HO, cheers mate, I comprehend your examples, but I wasn't exactly saying no two are the same, I was implying that all Associations are not the same!

Anyway, your models are of course also generalising, as they should do, kind of my point as well, that we shouldn't generalise too much.

Oh, and the comparison for your three country Vic Associaions, Bendigo, Ballarat and Geelong is an interesting one.

On face value it may appear to readers that they are much the same, that they have simlar models and are funded pretty much the same way as each other, or that is what it appears you are saying if I read your post correctly mate...

Those three are so different:

Ballarat runs it's own canteen, has a fair amount of control of a specific basketball venue and has potential for revenue through links with the Tabaret next to it. Not sure how much council and corporate support they get, but the complex needs upgrading so dollars would be thin.

Bendigo not only runs its own canteen but also has direct revenue through a fully licensed restaraunt, bar, pokies and TAB all encased within a large basketball specific complex supported greatly by local business and council. The place is in great shape and they of course hold WNBL games with TV coverage backed up by the fact they are in the heart land of Victorian country baskeyball.

Geelong must seek funds from their membership, find corporate sponsors and support from local council, but they do not control a venue which is in desperate need of upgrading, they do not run the canteen and have absolutely no funds generated from any form of gambling on site or nearby. Only recently the SEABL and Association arms joined together, but their model is vastly different from the other two.

Meerkat or Market mate??

"Not wise to generalise and place every SEABL program into the same bucket when it comes to how they are financed, that's just being silly IMO... "

Your comment Bear, not mine. You were talking about SEABL programs, as I was. Now you say you are talking about associations.

(and by the way, I didn't put them all in one bucket, i put them in three, I modeled them if you like....)

Even in trying to clarify your answer you have managed to confuse yourself. You talk about associations but then about Geelong and their membership - that would be SEABL memberships on whole, not association memberships.

See the difference? Specific SEABL program revenue versus general association revenue. The latter is what is used to prop up SEABL programs in most cases is my guess.

The issue is not how much money the association gets, or how it gets it, or their venue deal, or how they sell their ice-creams. The issue, and this is what previous posters to you were very clearly confused about, is that you can have a loss making SEABL program within a surplus making association.

Then a further issue arises. The further issue is how much investment in such a program is justified. Paul made a good point that people often associate an associations decision to generously fund their SEABL program as the SEABL's fault. Its not the SEABL's fault, and it may not be anyone's fault, if the investment proves worthwhile.

At what point however should an association not subsidise a SEABL program? If a program is costing 300k and only raising 100k off sponsorship and program sources, is that a wise investment ongoing? Or, should the association reduce the SEABL budget to 200k and take a harder line on player payments?

Is there a moral obligation to fund women's programs at the same level as mens even though, as most would acknowledge, women's programs are generally not good revenue generators?

How do Associations who do subsidise their SEABL programs measure that? In terms of kids who play in that team from their junior ranks? In terms of trophies won or finals played in? In terms of how many graduate from the SEABL program to a national league?

455141 was sort of asking these questions - would be good for someone in the know to put some answers to them.

#455459

You posted as I did so I missed these. Good answers - now, does anyone actually measure any of that? Do you think there is any evidence that these things all happen?

The NBL basically proved during its decline that participation in basketball was not affected by its standing - otherwise melbourne stadiums would all be half full now given how the NBL product has been decimated more in Victoria than anywhere else.

Ho, please let me know which SEABL program is not now backed, at least in some form, by its Association?

I am not aware of one, stand alone SEABL team, I would however love to know if there is one (Not the AIS either)...

Not confused, just trying to simply make a point about something slightly different than that which you are elaborating on mate, perhaps.

Good to see one SEABL club still has their Xmas message up as there headline on their website. Maybe there getting ready for next Xmas :)

Communication to their members via social media and traditional media outlets is certainly lacking.Facebook and Twitter are easy but the websites are a little more labour intensive.

To solve all the money problems of the seabl just do what Nunawading woman 's team has done ,if you want your girl in the team just get on the board .From there it is simple just put up the money ,Evan if she don't make the grade.From there the coach has got money to run 7 players all the rest of the team no court time ,the board and there siblings are happy for living a false dream while real players either leave or stop playing ,there is to much CONFLICT OF INTEREST .Makes it an uneven playing field ,in my view should turn back the clock and have no wnbl players in the teams or nbl .So we can really see our true tallent of the future in the great game , basketball everyone's game .