Damn.

Until they say his gone, keep the faith! Just hope he stays in the nbl! Would Perth be interested? Got Webster but you would be stupid not to offer him a contract. Imagine a Randle, Martin, Webster and Kenny?

No thanks

Wow, who looks after him Fundingsland? Schreiber or Moldovan? Hope they're just not trying to squeeze the 36ers. Money can't buy happiness.

"My guess is that these offers are more about destabilising the 36ers than recruiting a stud"

Ummm, so every team that is part of the bidding war actually don't want the player, they just want to prevent the Sixers from having Randle, thats what you are suggesting?

Many would love him, but there is merit to the idea that clubs will put in offers designed to drive up the price for other clubs who have more of an intention of signing him

How big an offer are we talking?

Fundingsland can we get a ballpark range? 500k-600k?

Melb united will actually save money over the season. They won't have to pay for game day/night entertainment, just supply s couple of pies to start the food fights.

They can pay that much for him if they want but I don't see him being nearly as good under any other coach.

For what it's worth (probably nothing) he just congratulated Sobey and Hodgson on re-signing, on twitter.

The Coach of the Year can't coach?

Aight.

They say Popovich's greatest coaching trait is the way he handles his players.

Remember those years when Parker was the leader of the team including one year literally seconds away from winning it all (until Ray Allen happened).

Without Pop, Parker and his ego probably plays in the French league instead of being a future hall of famer.

Point is you can't select coaching traits and consider them to not be "coaching" when it fits your argument.

What do we want from a coach? Wins, player development, chemistry and an entertaining style. Joey ticks all the boxes, and not just on the one occasion.

36ers previous coach was all about X and Os. They sucked. They lost, they played boring and they didn't develop (apart from DJ). The only times they played well was when Perth came to town and did extended defence which forced Adelaide to throw out the rule book play transition basketball and play basketball based on natural instinct. And they won a few times out of it, while showing some spark.

^ Anon, there are two issues with your argument:

1) The NBL has made no moves whatsoever to implace the salary tax they stated they talked about at the start of the season. They haven't even formed the Independent Review Committee to start the process. I, for one, very much doubt that anything will come of the salary tax, at all. I will be surprised if anything does come of it.

2) The theory is that clubs spending over the soft cap will allow other clubs that don't spend to the cap to have more money to spend on players. This is a version of the Reagan/Thatcher "trickle-down" economics that has seen the top 1% of the world's richest people now own about 50% of the world's wealth. It doesn't work.

Finally, on the subject of the salary tax fund, the NBL gave no details as to how or to whom the money would be distributed. The only thing they did say was that the money would be there to assist clubs that had not spent to the salary cap in the previous year. So, if the smaller spending clubs, nominally Adelaide, Cairns and Illawarra, actually find the money to spend to the cap, or are even close to it, there will be very little money in the kitty for them.

Clubs like Melbourne and Sydney (almost definitely), Perth and New Zealand (seemingly likely) may be able to spend well over the soft salary cap, potentially even doubling or tripling the soft cap in their player salaries, without being taxed, if the other clubs all spend to the salary tax limit.

There's no parity in that situation, it's only going to squeeze the smaller market teams out of the NBL, eventually.

Exactly anon, it's the same old argument with regards to teams splashing the cash, (although all under the proviso that the smaller clubs DO get the tax money from the larger clubs spending over the soft cap) and also, will have to bring up the just as painful rebuttal to the "rich teams will buy huge teams and smaller teams won't be able to compete" blah blah, is that the two teams who would have spent the most cash did not even make the playoffs and the two teams that would have spent the least did...

What's bringing the points cap going to do? Cotton would have been the same points value as Jacobsen, how does that fix anything?

As for Joey's coaching, it's going back over many many many discussions already... Yes he ticks all those boxes, but when it comes to Win, is he getting them based on a method that is workable the entire season, or is he just letting top quality players play and hit big shots? Is the way he gets wins just Randle and/or Sobey going on scoring blitzes? What happens when they don't put up huge amounts of points?

Tying this all into making a relevant point about the OT, Randle is a great player, but as others have said, he's a much better player under Joey and that's where most of his value comes. Is he worth that stupid amount of cash to other teams who will probably require him to play a different style? Certainly not and if it's my team that's throwing that sort of money at him, I will be really disappointed!

Randle is coming back, it is all but done. there is a 5 year plan in place for the sixers and was sealed behind closed doors weeks ago.

No fake. Watch this space.

He didn't say it was a 5 year deal just that there is a 5 year plan in place.

Smith I really hope you're correct, but it's fully contradictzing Fundingslands thread and he was right about Sobey.

5 year plan for the club, didnt say he was signing for 5 years..

i said watch this space.

You heard from RANDLE"s mouth? or someone who cleans the toilets at the arena?

smith, you can't go calling other people's sources in to question, when you don't give any information about your own sources. It doesn't make you sound any more credible.

I am just here to tell people to kick rocks at this point

Anon: "Freethrow's I definitely agree that right now the system isn't perfect, but personally I think eventually the big spending by some teams can be a huge positive for building the league up.

IMO the challenge is for the league to embrace the big spending by some clubs, but find a way to harness that to improve the league overall. It comes down largely to if the tax is large enough and if the money from it is actually making it to where it needs to be."

Firstly, please don't apostrophise my psuedonym, it's Freethrows. ;D

You make a very good point. My fear is that the tax is not only not large enough (if you read the statements put out by the league, as vague as they were, they did stipulate the tax rates, and they start quite low, at only a little over the salary cap, and don't get large until teams spend really big), but also that it might not ever get shared to any other teams.

Picture this scenario: Cairns (for example) spend $1 million dollars out of the $1.1 million soft cap. They are under the cap by $100K. For argument's sake, let's say that Adelaide and Illawarra do the same. That's three teams $300K below the salary cap.

Now let's imagine that Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane all exceed the salary cap. Sydney and Melbourne spend $3 million, and Perth and Brisbane each spend $2 million. New Zealand spends exactly to the cap. This is all for argument's sake, not my opinion of what's actually happened, or likely to happen!

According to the NBL's rules, the salary cap taxes payable by Sydney and Melbourne would be a whopping $2,368,750.00 each. The tax payable by Perth and Brisbane would be $868,750 each.

That's a total of $6,475,000 in taxes. Wow! Now, there's only three teams under the cap, and only by a combined total of $300K. According to the NBL's statement on March 30, 2016: "The subsidy will be distributed to teams which may otherwise find it difficult to meet the salary cap."

Does that mean that Cairns, Adelaide and Illawarra would, in this scenario, get $2,158,333.33 each to spend the next year? What about poor old NZ, who spent exactly to the cap? They would miss out. Or does it mean that Cairns, Adelaide and Illawarra would each get the $100K that would bring them to the salary cap? That's equitable!!! Not.

I think this example shows how feeble an attempt at maintaining "the long-term competitiveness of all teams in the league" the soft salary cap really is.

Smith and findings locked in a fight for credibility here. Whoever loses will leave the forum with their tail between their legs, only to return with a new username.

"I always had the notion that all teams were required to spend the full cap."

The original press release stated "Salary Floor implemented - Clubs must spend at least 90% of the Salary Cap." so each club had to spend at least $990,000 in 2016-17.

Oh, and the salary cap for next year is supposed to be the average of what was paid across all teams, this year. So in Freethrows' scenario posted above, the cap would move to $1,750,000 and the salary floor would go to $1,575,000.

Then again, that press release also stated "Salaries publicly disclosed." so maybe these salary shenanigans all ended up in the same too hard basket as public disclosure.

It's worth noting that earlier in the 2016-17 season, people were bandying about figures of $1.8 and $2 million for a couple of teams' salaries. When you add the supposed luxury tax, that'd cost them $2.37 and 2.87 million respectively. Phew!

Oh, and the salary cap for next year is supposed to be the average of what was paid across all teams, this year. So in Freethrows' scenario posted above, the cap would move to $1,750,000 and the salary floor would go to $1,575,000.

Arms race is not viable whatsoever in the long term. I appreciate the short term aspect to drag talent and increase revenue base.

Firstly, please don't apostrophise my psuedonym, it's Freethrows. ;D

Boti keeps saying that Randle remains a priority for the Sixers so I'd be likely to stick with that until we hear differently.

I will not change my handle ha ha.
If i am wrong, it is not because the information i was handed was incorrect, it would be because Rome has made a last minute decision contrary to the one he has agreed to off paper for now.

New Boti article suggests that Sixers are still in talks with Randle but that no imports have been signed or confirmed yet, and they're unlikely to be signed or confirmed until July.

http://bit.ly/2nKbMhT

Randle is gunning for a summer league spot. He ain't signing anywhere until after then. So Smith could be correct, maybe JR has verbally committed to Adelaide if he didn't crack NBA

I'm not really a fan of back and forth speculation and being drawn into agressive exchanges. I said what I know, I'm sorry this doesn't quell your immediate anxieties.

Patience is a virtue fellas.

Not sure what the point of steering me back to focus on my junior was? Does my being a parent of a player diminish my knowledge of the matter somehow?

Randle is a modern day Homicide. Over paying him wont make him any better. Bevridge sorted him out with a 5.2 season.

It seems that the 3 poorest clubs Cairns, Adelaide (minor Premiers) and Illawarra (grand finalists) clearly showed that big money doesn't guarantee a winning result.

I agree the plan to offset over cap spending seems to have simply disappeared.

Last but not least in the USA failing to get a gig in the NBA earns a listing of failed American ball players. In the "nineties" the Kings had success with Bruce Bolden as their 1st import. He was kept company by no less than 9 other imports hired and fired throughout just 1 season

"Pointybits, Perth won with cotton who they paid the earth for. So big money does win.."

We don't know what Cotton was paid nor how much the Wildcats salary bill was. So far its all speculation.

So since we in the speculation mood, 2 of the lowest spending teams in the NBL made the playoffs with one going all the way to the GF.

Two of the highest spending teams in Sydney and Melbourne both missed the playoffs, neither even came 5th. NZ was probably a big spender and also missed the playoffs.

Thats 5 of out 8 teams that seem to buck the trend of their spending. This suggests to me that spending big does not guarantee winning, nor does spending low guarantee losing.

"LOL at using one season as a sample size to disprove $$$ = win, especially since the one big spender out of the four finalists ended up winning the title anyway."

There has only been one season with a soft cap. Therefore I can only speak tot hat one season.

Sure one big spender won it all, but 3 out of 4 big spenders didn't even make the playoffs. My assertion that big spending doesn't guarantee success still holds true. You can spend big but that money has to be translated to something that works on the court, this clearly did not happen for United and Kings.

Teams can spend lots of money on players, but without a high quality coach the chances of success diminish. As much as I dislike Gleeson, I reckon he would have done pretty well with Uniteds squad and probably Kings as well.

"Teams can spend lots of money on players, but without a high quality coach the chances of success diminish. As much as I dislike Gleeson, I reckon he would have done pretty well with Uniteds squad and probably Kings as well."

There are many things that come into it.

Injuries were huge last season.

Adelaide - Creek but you could argue that the Sixers were not as badly impacted by injuries and in fact Creek's injury allowed Sobey more playing time hence growth.
Brisbane - Bairstow and Peach
Cairns - Nate, Loughton and Wortho playing with bad shoulder
Illawarra - Norton.
Melbourne - Goulding, Blanchfield, Andersen, Moore and did Barlow come in late?
NZ - Mitchell, Stockton, Abercrombie
Perth - Knight, Martin, Kenney, Ingram (Mental wellbeing).
Sydney - Kazzouh.

Mistakes at the organisational level.

Brisbane - 2 imports.
Sydney - Bryson ---> Blake ---> Jackson. Running the Shuffle.
Adelaide - Ferguson, can we afford an import slot to produce and play so little?
Melbourne - Sticking with Williams for so long, replacing Moore with Kromar.
Perth - Johnson ---> Ingram ---> Johnson.

Too many things come into play to blame it on just the coach or injuries or a player.

"There has only been one season with a soft cap."

Only officially, but not in practice.

But it would not be right to include in our consideration seasons where one team was breaking the rules where all others were abiding by them. This was the first season where it was understood all teams have the option to exceed the cap.