Just mentioned on Ch10 Perth, Jervis maybe heading to Brisbane and Hire could be suiting up for another team, didn't say who.

This was the NBL everyone wanted, remember? Especially Boti.

The NBL that Boti wanted didn't include Perth winning the title

Hire to the Hawks? Losing Jervis will hurt the Cats so maybe if Perth is getting Motum they could not keep both Knight and Jervis so one had to go.

Rumour 300k for Lisch to Sydney? AJ staying with the Hawks, Penny going home, Pledger to Brisbane. Will NZ be able to have a competitive team to sell?

Pledger aint going nowhere

Pledger signed for 3yrs at New Zealand

All these signings and as usual, nothing going on in Adelaide. Let's wait until all the good players are gone and end up with another side that can't make play offs!

No saucy sources, but I half expect Garlepp to head down the Princes Highway... I don't think you could run Tommy and Foreman though unless you want to be murdered on the boards and have AJ picking up 5 fouls in the 1st Q needing to challenge everything at the rim.

Garlepp not leaving Sydney. New 2 yr contract done.

Adelaide aren't interested in anyone except midgets.

Midget brigade to get the spoon in 2016/17. BOOM!!

I was thinking the same as AngusH. Guys can play anywhere in off-season but seems very odd that Garlepp is playing Waratah for the Illawarra Hawks??? I dont see Why Rhys would have any interest in being Gibbo's back up

All NBlplayers want that LischMoney now

There has to be a balance, and this balance doesn't seem sustainable...

#771 care to explain what I said was crap? See if you can do it without resorting to attacks on me.

Boti has blogged that Penney returned to NZ for "serious family-based reasons", so money probably wasn't the driver there. Maybe he even approached the Breakers?

I think this was a risk with the LK NBL plan, but it's unfair to say that this scenario is what "everyone" wanted. Same goes with throwing Boti into that.

You can see many improvements since the separation from BA. Fox presence was great, the app was great, social media has been excellent. The site is subpar, but they've made efforts with content. Awards dinner and its coverage seemed very good. This is while BA fumbled their WNBL and other awards and so on. This was a riskier plan, but with merit regardless.

I think you can back the LK plan without being for some of the potential risks that come from it. Arms race being one.

Also consider that there were big salaries thrown around last season with teams spending almost $2m. Jawai got paid. If they can polarise salaries (stars vs scrubs), there's a chance that could work. But it hinges on a TV deal, and the gamble is that entertaining teams with drawcard players will attract TV.

Hopefully the luxury tax actually filters down to the smaller teams.

It was a matter of simply going forward or going backwards, they chose the forward option, at speed...

I didn't actually say it was the scenario everyone wanted, but this scenario was inevitable with the new strategy that had everyone lapping up whatever LK was throwing out without actually considering the risks.

What good is having an improved game night presentation (and the other things you mentioned) when fans aren't actually turning up to watch their team because they know they aren't competitive? This was Illawarra in 2014/15!

Boti's blog contains all the recent examples of the arms race almost killing the league but he couldn't join those dots 12-18 months ago? And blaming the player agents? Thats a cop out - more like he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him.

I don't blame players for jumping ship for extra coin.

The thing is that the extra money being offered is so significant. Not necessarily out and out dollars wise, but wen you consider its actual value, it's huge.

An extra $30k for example is huge. If someone came and said basically they will pay off your mortgage for a year and then some you'd jump at it.

There's not too many non-monetary factors in the league which are going to override the money factor. Every team is in a location which is a great place to live, an NBL championship is not that prestigious that guys say 'ah lets give up $30k to win a title' and it's not like players can earn more money from sponsorship/selling their image from living in a particular area ala NBA.

Agreed, these guys need to make the most of the short time they do have, none will be super rich to live off what they make now, but certainly able to get a good start..

Shame still as it is taking from the poorer teams who sometimes make a good player very much better....and with it, money thrown at them

I think it's too soon to say how much teams are potentially setting themselves up for trouble financially until we start seeing how much the tier 2 and 3 guys start signing for. It's not surprising to see big dollar figures thrown at some of the guys so far, but if we start seeing a similar creep across the board then obviously it's a worry...

TBH I think they would've been better keeping the import slots to 2 to go with the other financial rules.

"All we wanted was for the NBL to continue to survive, some more TV coverage and sustain the League for a bit. That's what we wanted then and now"

You weren't getting any of that without the current issues inevitably occurring.

"The recipe as I said previously has been done before. It failed. Now we have demands that all of the clubs that didn't spend to the cap have to spend to at least 90%. A sad mistake. One more season after this and LKG may simply walk and where is the sustainability in this model? Nowhere to be seen."

Exactly! Its going to kill the league AGAIN and he'll walk away. But everyone was so blinded by the bells and whistles that they didn't dare suggest that things wouldn't work out....until now.

I'm philosophical about it.

As much as it would be disappointing to see a team like Townsville get pushed out of the league because they can't compete financially, a large part of me thinks that we need to progress at some point and it becomes a case of 'leaving the weak links' behind.

Now, if there a majority of clubs were like Townsville then sure I wouldn't support the growth changes as much, but i'm not sure there are (Sydney, Perth, NZ, Melbourne, Wollongong, Adelaide and Brisbane all seem financially capable with new changes)

One or three players per top 4 teams on eye-watering single season money has been the case probably every 2 out of 3 seasons for the life of the league,

I remember Ray-Ray Borner allegedly being paid $40K to move out of Melbourne in the 80's - this at a time when the price of a 3 bedroom character house in one suburb of Adelaide was sold for $55K in 1983, the same one which sold last week, un-renovated/extended for $625K.

A public service clerk position which now gets paid $105k was only $16K in that same year.

That team and the league still survives today.

Also the trick of it all is television money - no-one other than Perth is going to cover their budged with just ticket sales.

Get a good lucrative multi-year television deal in the next 2 seasons and the rising financial tide will lift all boats.

Get a good lucrative multi-year television deal in the next 2 seasons and the rising financial tide will lift all boats.

How is the NBL ending within two years a better outcome than what might have happened? How can you say the current model is unsustainable, a mistake, and bound to fail again, then say its "certainly" better than something we previously had?

The silly thing is, we're basically agreeing on the same things but your 'curious'obsession with me isn't allowing you to see it!

This was the NBL everyone wanted, remember?

I didn't actually say it was the scenario everyone wanted

Do you think those two quotes of mine contradict each other?

If they don't, one of them is incorrect. First one is a silly statement to make on two fronts: "everyone" and conflating the prospect of a risky arms race with private ownership of a league.

I also don't think the budget is primarily dictated by the hand that feeds Boti. In Adelaide, for example, there'd be owners and GM controlling that while the hand mostly feeding Boti is likely Wright. Probably similar in Wollongong.

Gunning for agents seems off to me. They're acting, ultimately, for their client. Owners and GMs should be more in the sights.

No, my issue with the Fraser model was that it was being suggested at a time when the focus was sustainable growth, not stopping everything to suit a few poorer teams who had been given a few opportunities already. At some point, we had to move on from meeting the demands of the poorer clubs. It had nothing to do with power clubs - it was about trying not to remain stagnant and clubs doing the right/simple things to encourage fans to attend (eg Sixers poor social media from a season or two ago)

My issue with this scenario is that its gone too far the other way, far too quickly, and its history repeating itself. I like the "build it and they will come" mentality but this is a bridge too far. I'm angling for meeting halfway, if you like.

Everyone...many people...a strong majority...however you want me to say it, there was almost no talk of the risks of the LK plan done by anyone. Conflict of interest didn't even get a mention by the most critical of people.

You don't think that the arms race wasn't inevitable when United were already a key participant 12 months ago?

Again, I think you're overreacting. Wait to see how the rest of FA pans out before getting too concerned, IMO.

Fair enough, but I have seen it all before.

MACDUB, I wouldn't have the Hawks and 36ers in the same boat as the other 5 teams. This season alone it has been rumoured that Wollongong couldn't afford to keep Lisch & the 36ers supposedly scraped the barrel to retain Randle.

At best you have a 7 team comp which is crap really and of that 7 only 5 can splash money around which essentially means you only have a 5 team comp.

It's been a 2 team comp for some time?

I'm really interested in what the NBL values these apparently highly paid players at, for the purposes of salary cap. If players being paid $200,000 last year are now being paid $300,000, say, what will the NBL decide their deemed salary should now be? If I read the press release on the new rules correctly, that will determine how much luxury tax, if any, clubs will pay.

I also note that the proceeds of the luxury tax only seem to be available to a club if they are struggling to reach the salary floor. I wonder what will happen to any excess left over?

Isaac's point about polarising players' salaries is a good one, as well. If, as posted above, Perth were spending close to $2 million last year, spending that much this year would give them around $1.6 million to spend on their top 6 players (as the bottom 5 are limited to no more than $400,000). So, $500,000 on Ennis, one player at $300,000, a couple at $200,000 and 3 more at $130,000 each and they've spent about what they did last year.

Melbourne may likewise not be spending a lot more than last year, considering the line-up they had bought last season. Brisbane may be operating with a similar mindset and budget. But Brisbane probably would have spent big anyway, given the LK involvement.

I suspect Sydney is the only team that's spending a LOT more than they were last season but so far that's based on one player - Lisch. They may not throw that money at other players.

None of the other 4 teams seem to be splashing the cash. Adelaide may have done so for Randle but, as pointed out above, are unlikely to have big dollars left to spend big on other players. Cairns have half their team (3 of starters) on continuing contracts. Illawarra nd Townsville appear not to have teh money to splash out.

So I'm yet to be convinced there's going to be a massive increase in total salary costs across the league, at the end of this free agency period.

Bottom 5 playes must be UNDER 400k. Doesn't mean they add up to 400k. I'd say they are still at similar levels.

The 5 players could be earning a combined 200k though? and being paid what they are worth

SC, I actually remember loads of talk about conflict of interest (just as there was when Marvin was very influential).

"Everyone" wants the same middle-ground of responsible growth/effort that you mentioned, not the potentially risky arms race you tacked 'This is what everyone wanted' onto. I can't remember loads of people saying "I can't wait for teams to spend well beyond their means."

I remember the year Cairns spent $750k on Cattalini, Mee and Black or whoever the third was. The South Dragons and significant signing bonuses. Brisbane's paper bag payments. A big pay day for Wortho one year. Perth's spend on Jawai last year (amongst other signings around the league, no doubt). It's happened for years. Depends how it's done and where the players are moving, perhaps.

I mind less if players move from strong clubs to weaker ones than the other way. Or if a team is financial (e.g., Perth) and bringing in new talent like showcase imports.

If Randle is to be getting $300k (as said once here - no idea if true), it probably deserved a mention. But then, if that's the guy giving Adelaide near-sellouts, maybe it's the smart path to take. And maybe Lisch will bring Sydney wins and get them the crowds.

Loads of subjective talking points, but I definitely take issue with you suggesting that everyone wanted risky spending from clubs.

Anon871 that was the most wtf comment I have read for a while. As stated, of course it means those 5 players can have a combined salary under 400k. But moreso, 400/5= an average salary of 80k. They were on 10% of that? They were on 8k? Times were tough.

I think he was referring to being on 10% of the 400k, hence 40k. Still, doesn't really make use of what the rule was put in place for, which was to ensure that there would still be the smaller contracts available for role players, not to overpay anyone.

There is every chance they could get double that before. But they don't. There's no requirement that you have to spend $400k on 5 players. I think something similar was floated but didn't eventuate. I'm pretty sure you can spend $200k on 5 players if you want.

A lot of these rules are concessions to the players' association to get the three import rule over the line and I think that's where some of the oddities seem to come into play. If it was purely about what was best for the commercial success of the league, I think things would be different.

The minimum $400k over 5 players is a decent way of preventing 1 player getting $800k and 9 players sharing $300k in a $1.1mil cap and whatever other less extreme alternatives.

I think though, ideally there should be a minimum wage of say $70k [Roughly slightly above average wage in Oz I think], so 4 players can make up $280k and other player $120k in the most extreme scenario of the $400k being dealt with.

How did I fail Maths? Is 400/5 not 80? Is 10% of 80 not 8? Lol not seeing any failing of Maths here. I see a failure for you to communicate your point, which has been picked up by others. But why are you assuming these minimum salaries will go up? 400k is the supposed to be the ceiling, not the norm. There will still be 9th and 10th men getting that 40-50k. I use Adelaide as a great example of how that is going to work. If we take a guess that they may go for Randle, Johnson, two other cheaper imports and maybe a Madgen/Brandt someone else they can snap up as a quality Aussie, a bench of Creek, Teys, Sobey, Hodgson and another low salary Aussie will be well shy of 400k

The minimum $400k over 5 players is a decent way of preventing 1 player getting $800k and 9 players sharing $300k in a $1.1mil cap and whatever other less extreme alternatives.

^ What he said

KET, no way should minimum be $70k. If anything, $40k is high. This is for half a year and those players can get paid gigs in the NZ NBL, SEABL, Premier League, etc during the off-season. There should be a bigger disparity between the stars and the scrubs, not smaller.

Anon, why do you keep dividing $400k by 5? It's a maximum. And it's one that didn't exist before. If teams want to spend $200k on 5 minimum salary players, they can. If anything, it's stopping runaway prices for bench players, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.

^ What he said...