how many sleeps is that?

9 as far as I know.

I believe our roster will most likely be as follows:

PG Maher/?
SG Farley/Hill
SF Holmes/Forman
PF Rychart/Nash
C Cooper/Rees

I believe they are still working on trying to find a way to fit Rogers in but I wouldn't put any money on it happening.

The NBL is evidently not looking at our attempts to fit a 10 point player into a minimum salary in a kind manner.

yay 36ers :D :D :D

Would the Sixers be allowed to make Rogers a playing assistant coach? Or even Paul Rees? Would this then free up a tad more cap space?

Statman, the NBL won't approve a 10 point player playing for minimum, despite the Sixers being under the salary AND point caps. And despite the fact that other clubs are breaking the cap!

Picture the league where every team is under both caps with 10 player points to spare, but has $30k to spare rather than $100k. Someone like Paul Rogers is willing to play for a designated price, but the league won't approve it.

Who suffers? Paul Rogers can't get a job anywhere. Fans can't see him play.

Imagine Lebron wanting to play NBL (far stretch of the imagination I know) for $30k in the above situation. Sorry Lebron, even though crowds would rise incredibly, the NBL won't let you in. Great.

Sorry PR, no job for you this year!

I know this might sound a bit of an over-reaction, but if Paul Rogers is willing to pay for peanuts and signing him won't put Adelaide over either the salary or points cap, and the league won't sign off on it, then Adelaide should IMMEDIATELY file a law suit against the NBL for restraint of trade. I'm sorry, but if we can put that team together under both the $ and points cap, then f*ck the NBL, they HAVE TO approve such a deal. They can't penalise teams for playing WITHIN the rules!

i agree if its just the nbl stopping it then take them to court, and a precednet could be tucker at the tigers, he replaced blake who im guessing was on minimum n he would be a 10 point player, if we can sign rogers under both caps the nbl hasnt got a leg 2 stand on so challenge them

Actually, Rogers would be a maximum 5 point player, as he started with the 6ers

Not true. As he left and has since played in Europe, he has lost that internal rating.

4. A player, other than restricted (import) players, commencing his career with a club shall never have an Internal Rating greater than 5 while he stays with that club. If the player chooses to leave that club, he will then be allocated his External Rating.

2. Any restricted player who is returning to the NBL having previously played in the NBL competition will be assigned a points rating for his first return season by the Points Appeals Panel.

Oops, forgot about that

It is interesting in view of the reduced salary cap and the capacity of players to play overseas for a few months and earn more than they will learn in Australia for a season we could face a crisis with players returning who are of NBL standard but who are not able to get into a team because they can't fit into the current salary cap and points restrictions even if they are prepared to take a pay cut. eg Rogers makes enough money overseas to fund his year but needs to get into an oz team and perform and maintain his fitness to get picked up overseas next season. OR a guy is injury prone and could be a bonus or a dud so a team could take a risk and but league thinks it smells. It could be that some of these deals smell but really they reflect on the state of Australian basketball and the limited financial rewards available in Australia.

Yes, it appears to be a major restraint of trade.

I can't see how the NBLs rules would stand up if tested.

Similarly there would be a lot of other sporting codes such as the NRL and AFL that wouldn't be too happy with the NBL creating a precedent if they were to lose in Court in defending their rules.

My problem with this is what rule are the 36ers actually breaking?

I understand that other teams would be threatened by the 36ers with Rogers.

I understand that other teams would be jealous of Adelaide's fortunate situation in having a player willing to play under market value.

However, the rules state you have $736k to spend and a certain amount of points to do it. They also allow for legitimate outside employment/sponsorship.

Therefore, I don't see the problem.

The points cap was brought in to specifically deal with this sort of situation of an Andrew Gaze playing for minimum and giving a team an advantage.

The points cap was not brought in to demand that Gaze be paid in the vicinity of $100k!

If the 36ers have planned their roster well enough to have most of its roster attract the loyalty points factor then good luck to us!

Especially at present times where some teams spend in excess of $300,000 per season in employment on the side type salaries for jobs that can hardly be described as legitimate.

I agree completely that Brisbane would have no trouble being allowed to sign Rogers in similar circumstances.

I hope the 36ers don't roll over on this one.

If the NBL ain't happy with Rogers playing cheap in 10th spot, would their opinion be any different if he wanted to play cheap in 9th spot?

Exactly Isaac,

Would not have made any difference if it was Rees in 10th man spot or a development player.

Points cap does not come into play and Rees would not be rated higher than a 5 in any event.

Salary wise, Rees or development player would both be same also.

I don't think there has been an absence of common sense from either management or the coaching staff.

Rees is great insurance in the event Cooper gets injured or Rogers is not allowed to join the 36ers.

Isaac, my interpretation of this rule is quite diff to yours, read it again and take it literally:

4. A player, other than restricted (import) players, commencing his career with a club shall never have an Internal Rating greater than 5 while he stays with that club. If the player chooses to leave that club, he will then be allocated his External Rating.

First -
"A player ... commencing his career with a club shall never have an Internal Rating greater than 5 while he stays with that club."
In the literal sense this rule states that the IR stays the same while they stay with the club.
Second -
"If the player chooses to leave that club, he will then be allocated his External Rating".
Literally this is pretty straight forward.

My point is if you take them both literally then nothing is said about the ER staying an ER if the player comes back to the club where they had the IR.
If they leave the club where they had an IR then they get given an ER - if they stay at the club they maintain their IR.
Literally this means that if Rogers returns to Adelaide where he started and had an IR then this IR should be given back.

"while he stays with that club" -- he didn't, so he lost any internal rating. Email the NBL to clarify if you want, but AFAIK they're not considering Rogers a 5 point player.

Again I've just got to say that if Rogers is willing to play for minimum and his points allocation doesn't put us over the cap, then the NBL has no business doing anything other than rubber-stamping the deal. Let's pretend that this was Sydney for a moment. They have historically been allowed to do anything they want in terms of roster-stacking.

I personally don't have a problem with the team Brisbane has been able to put together and it is quite possible that guys like Bradtke and Copeland were willing to play for stuff all at the twighlight of their careers. There has been some negativity about Eddie Groves in this forum, but to be honest with you I think if he was in charge of the NBL it would be in a much better state than it is now.

I do think that there is a perception that a strong Adelaide (and for that matter a strong Perth) is detrimental to the overall success of the NBL. But what has Sydney's three championships brought? Network TV? No. National Radio coverage? No.

So a final message for the NBL office: we got this done inside the ridiculous boundaries you have set, so sign off on the deal and keep you f*cking mouths shut.

Isaac, I understand the NBL's interpretation of the rules they make, but taken literally would it stand up in a court of law situation. You can't have ambiguous laws that are open to misinterpretation.

As with Ryan, if the NBL makes laws/rules and the clubs abide by these then what is the problem with who they sign.

I was quoting from the public version of the rules on the NBL site. They may well have a more official set hidden away.

Isaac, you were quoting from the "Screw Adelaide" version.

There are other versions floating around titled "Sydney eyes only" the "Eddie Files" and "Tiger Rules"

I thought that as long as a club kept under the salary and point cap then it's legit. If the bean counters can manage to build a roster that fits then they should only review the facts being:

1) Is Adelaide under the salary cap with Rogers..... YES

2) Is Adelaide under the points cap with Rogers....... YES

Run it through the Courts. What should it matter what a club plays it's players as long as the salary and points cap ain't breached. If a good player is comfortable playing for $30k then good luck. That's not a NBL administrators problem. Breaching the cap is, not how much a player is paid.

This is by far the worst thing the nbl could do for adelaide, this is a damn joke!

They want the crowds and revenue up, we find a way to do it with adding a great player and still under cap and points and they pull this shit!?!

I was a big fan of the commish before he pulled this out

I could be wrong but I don't think it has gotten to the stage where the NBL has stopped Rogers from becoming a 36er.

Before that was to occur, Rogers would actually have to agree to signing with the 36ers for the minimum and then the contract would have to be lodged for approval.

I don't think it has gotten to this stage yet. Are we even certain that Rogers is willing to play for the $21k available?

It definitely looks like even if Rogers does agree to play for $21k that the NBL will try to cause us trouble but as has been stated above, I don't see what rule we would actually be breaking.

Does anyone actually know the status of the contracting talking with PR? Is it still happening or what?