So the NZ Breakers would need a re-brand to become the Auckland Breakers?

Great news. Would make it a stronger Australasian league.

NZ has a population less then Sydney so the NBL can't base its survival on two NZ teams.
NZ teams are a little bonus as they bring a bit of variety to our league, but we need strong, stable Aussie teams befor we capture TV audience and truely become mainstream.
We NEED the Bullets and a second Melbourne team!

The Nth Island v Sth Island thing does allow for great rivally and Aussie teams can play both teams inone visit so that will help with their costs. Also makesNZ a nice option for a supporters trip.

What I like about this:

- For us it emphasises the due diligence we're taking to ensure we've got a model that will last.

What I don't like is this:

- If you look through the history, there's been quite a big turnover of teams in the Australia NBL," he said. "They come and go".

In the end there are always positives in building the NBL and axpanding it by developing a rivalry team that connects with its local community is a bonus for me, it is exactly why we need another Melbourne team, a team from Brisbane and why the Hawks and Crocs need to survive...

My greatest concern is that if teams in the NBL cannot survive under the current model, we are just pissing in the wind, no one wants to cop the spray!

Shows how good my NZ Geography is, I thought Wellington was on the top of the South Island. Doh!

I reckon Nick Mills (owner of the Wellington Saints) might be a bit pissed by this, he has apparently been trying for years to get his team into the ANBL.

Whilst I would prefer Mills' bid to this "community based" BS, I am all for a 2nd (and 3rd) NZ team in the comp. It would dilute the "national team" influence of the Auckland Breakers, and make road trips to NZ more economical. The strong sporting rivalry between Aus & NZ would impact almost every game.

I just hope that this HELPS the NZ-NBL, by retaining players in NZ and lifting the profile of the sport, rather than robbing them of crowds and money.

Swish, I don't think the population of NZ matters. You are likely to get more people to games in New Zealand than you are in Sydney. Likely to get more eyes on screens too. I don't care if a town has 50 thousand people, if 7 thousand of them turn up night in, night out to support the league, then they are well worth having.

A second New Zealand team would mean that their national team might be split between teams. Which is for the best. Right now we are giving the Tall Blacks every chance to beat us at the Oceania Qualifiers.

I am not sure what is halting brisbane? Something about a lack of arena? 50 thousand for the license back from BA (a crime!). Hmm. I would like to see Brisbane back and apparently we have a soft target of a month to see if that happens.

Hopefully the off-season and future isn't just about adding teams, and instead also improves their chances of success.

Otherwise, a second NZ team makes sense for reasons already outlined - rivalry, travel efficiency, and lessens NZ national dominance in what's historically been an Australian league.

Are any of the current Breakers from that part of NZ, and possibly homesick? Asking for purely selfish reasons...

thats just it, none of the current elite players in NZ have any ties to this bid from what I know and most will be loyal to the Breakers, the Blackwells, Vickerman, Henare, Flavell and the rest of the individuals who make the organisation what it is.
If Nick Mills Wellington Saints were the successful franchise then a lot of players have or have had relationships with him and his team already so luring guys may have not been so difficult for him than this franchise who will have to try and buy in talent & promise minutes etc.

The Breakers have developed most of the current talent in NZ through their development academy for young players and are successful on the court in the NBL. Add to the fact they have great Owners and Management to compliment great Coaches & facilities so I can't see a mass exodus of talent from Aucklands North Shore.
They will secure fringe talents and players no longer required by the Breakers (Maybe Jerimiah Truman, Leon Henry, BJ Anthony ) until they have relationships & reputation to draw talent unless they want to go all out & run their own Development Academy which will take time.
This new franchise will have a long road to winning a championship as the Breakers quickly learnt.

Oh and Pauli Henare is the Tall Black Coach now......

Nick Mills philosophy to an NBL franchise is "it's my money so it has to work, I will do everything I can to make it work because it's my money". This is why he doesn't want to be involved in a part owner/shareholder stake with this other bid as he believes there are too many people involved with not a lot to lose if it flops.

A second NZ team is one of the best things that could happen to the league now. If we can keep all 8 teams and get brisbane in and even just sustain that for a while it would be great.

I need to get this off my chest, sorry...

I'd like to see this in the next few years for my vision of a solid and much improved NBL, without being too unrealistic.

CURRENT CLUBS:
Perth Wildcats - To continue their success
Adelaide 36ers - To be financially sound and solid
Melbourne United - To keep building their profile
Cairns Taipans - To build on their current success
Sydney Kings - To make the SSC a hot ticket
NZ Breakers - To keep doing what their doing (off the court)
Townsville Crocs - To return to the TEC as a revamped and renewed club

NEW CLUBS:
South Dragons - To equally rival United
Wellington - Because its a good idea, and will soften the Breakers dominance
Brisbane Bullets - Obviously

Nice rounded 10 team competition.

*Townsville to wipe the slate clean with a brand new ownership and a commitment to righting their wrongs with the community and get back to a level where they have a respectable profile.

*Wollongong to unfortunately go - Of course it will be good if they can manage to stay, but I think their toast as a club and after 35 years they just don't have the popularity or the cash to keep going as their financial issues are forever ongoing. Their fan base, while loyal, has always been way too small. They can be an 11th club if they can stay.

TV:
All games on Fox, many of which are live, with 1 game sold to FTA such as 7mate. NBL to pay for it with sponsors (which they will get) if they can't get a deal.

Got that out of my system. I can go back to dreaming now...

Mills seems shut out of the picture and the league seems hell bent on a consortium style bid. The team would have investors from all over the Lower NI and would share games, sponsorship etc.

Personally, I prefer Mills' sole bid. Keep control in one man's hand. Don't get too many fingers in the pie.

I am moving to Taranaki in 2 or so weeks. For people unfamilar with the geographical layout..Wellington is 5 hours drive from Taranaki, Hawkes Bay 4 hours, Palmerston North 2 hours drive. You're talking about a very vast area.

Hoping to get in contact with Bill tomorrow so will let you guys known if he gives me any goss.

Nick Mills philosophy to an NBL franchise is "it's my money so it has to work, I will do everything I can to make it work because it's my money". This is why he doesn't want to be involved in a part owner/shareholder stake with this other bid as he believes there are too many people involved with not a lot to lose if it flops.

Something I read said Mills had been involved in BBL in NZ for something like 30 years. THAT is EXACTLY what the (A)NBL needs.

All these dreamers who prattle on about community based clubs, have obviously never been involved in one. I have heavily involved with several such organisations, and their universal strength is their unparalleled ability to attract lazy brainless fuckwits. In each of those organisations I took a leading role and turned them around through a bit of smarts and a LOT of hard work. Increased numbers, got new sponsors on board, raised thousands of dollars... And in the end I gave up because in every case the committee was split between those of us actually working our assess off for the club, and the clueless morons doing nothing but coming up with one stupid idea after an other. Worst part is that because those leeches never actually contribute anything, they never get browned-off. The Committee meetings are the highlight of their lives because they don't actually do anything in between. It's actually HARD to get the real contributors on board, because they're the ones running businesses and coaching teams.

One of the big problems in Australia, is that nomatter what you want to do, or how much money you want to give back to the community, there will always be a bunch of self-righteous prats who think they know how to do it better.

Ultimately, lets say you need to tip in say $1M a year to keep a franchise running. ONE guy with a $1M is far, far better than 10 guys with $100k each. Go with the 10 guys, and I can guarantee that by the end of the year, half will have left because they're pissed off at how the other half are running things.

I also come back to the point, that If you have a Nick Mills backing a team, and they have a bad year or two, he has the income and reserves to carry it. A Community organisation doesn't

"This bid, along with Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne and Tasmania, are contenders for four spots in the league in the 2015-16 season"

WTF, I'm so confused here. Last week we were talking about only having 6 NBL teams and the Brisbane bid being dead. We know Brisbane is still on the cards but now this article is stating that there are still bids in Tas, Melb, Canberra and Wellington pushing for next season.

Either the journo that wrote this article is going by news from 6 months ago ( or wrote it 6 months ago) or the NBL is really good at keeping secrets.

Dazz, I couldn't agree more.

Given how ownership by an individual or a very small group has worked out for the majority of clubs in that situation, I'm inclined to give this idea a good hearing. Bendat and the Blackwells are the exception rather than the rule.

Personally I would love to see a second NZ team in the NBL.

Club-by-committee vs my-way-or-the-highway types. Neither is always ideal.

"Club-by-committee vs my-way-or-the-highway types. Neither is always ideal."

The former isn't an issue as long as you have the right governance structure, the latter isn't an issue while the owner is cashed up and interested!

Consider depth wise and local talent development, there should be enough capable NZ players to fill a second NZ team. Including those who are attending US colleges, Breakers and local clubs development and certainly more promising young players to come. Otherwise I think it will be a bottleneck for basketball path development in NZ, they need another local professional team to be setup.

He owns successful restaurants and property

Sharod, the best of those players will play for the Breakers as they probably got them there and are a successful proven franchise with a great reputation.

The problem is that with "committees" you STILL get the "my way or the highway" types, except they have no actual investment. People aren't perfect, and some are downright asses and/or idiots.
With either model you could potentially get a stupid ass in charge. Except, its easy for an idiot or ass to become "president" of a committee, even if only long enough to do a lot of damage. The difference is that somebody who is stupid and/or unable to manage people is LESS likely to be a successful squillionaire business owner.

Of course you could still get somebody like a CP. He'll throw lots of his money into it for a few years, piss everybody off, and go home. Clearly thats not good, but at least its his money to piss away. How much worse if the community raised the money only to have the same thing happen.

It's also much easier to evaluate the track record of an individual, especially somebody like Mills. I know almost nothing about the guy, but the (A)NBL can easily investigate his history with the NZ-NBL and Saints, to determine if he's the type they want on board

The problem with that Dazz, is if the individual walks or runs out of money the club is stuffed. We've seen it time and time again in the NBL.

The best situation is having owners who are effectively shareholders, vote for board members who then appoint and oversee the operations of the CEO and front office. If we want our league to be a truly professional operation we have to aim for that point.

Small ownership groups are great when the right people are involved, but the league should also start asking for succession planning so that the clubs can transition when that day comes.

The problem with that Dazz, is if the individual walks or runs out of money the club is stuffed. We've seen it time and time again in the NBL.

Sorry Paul, don't mean to be argumentative, but that is backwards.

A club will run out of money regardless, based on its financial performance. The difference is that when a community club runs out of money there is nothing in the bank to back them up. The same club, losing the same money, but backed by somebody with cash, at least has reserves to fall back on.

The only potential difference that might favour a community model is HOW it is run from the outset. They may of necessity opt for a more financially prudent model. Whereas yes, you could get a flash-in-the-pan backer who runs a big dollar campaign for a few years, then cracks the shits.

It's no coincidence that the most successful, dynamic, and profitable companies are run by entrepreneurs. Now days, even the stodgy board-driven ones have started hiring "entrepreneurial" CEOs.
Of course with entrepreneurs you also run the risk of getting a Bond/ Connell/ Skase. The point I guess is for the NBL to do their due diligence. Avoid people like Johnson and Cowan.
Again, the problem with a committee is that the funding committee may be excellent, but the NBL has s no control over what happens in the future.

You do realise most sporting clubs in the world lose money and are propped up by owners?

If you have 10 owners and the club loses $200K they are more likely to accept their $20K portion of that. A single owner is more likely to get sick of losing that much, we've seen it over and over in the NBL.

Some might not like it and move on, but replacing a 1/10 share is likely to be easier than finding someone new to shoulder the full burden.

Dazz, remember Eddy Groves?