If they want to save money, maybe they should consider competing in NBL1 next season and leave the NBL for the big money guys

Which would leave the NBL with a five team competition. If you think Adelaide, Carins and even NZ to an extent now that they're not backed by the NZ government, aren't in the same position you're not paying attention.

I say let the Hawks pay the Hawks' tax.

I pay the homer tax!

Crying poor when they are getting one of the highest profile players ever payed for by the league is a bit much.

Despite that, the actual amount United claims they are paying V the tax they pay should be public knowledge.

How much is he getting Bees Wax?

The tax was the quid-pro-quo for teams being able to spend up big. I have no problem with it.

I don't know how you strike a fair balance, in terms of the amount that the poorer teams receive.

Maybe what they should do, is use the tax to subsidise certain items and activities? eg, we'll pay you $X for very hour of community development you do, $Y for every season member you sign, and $Z for each school-kids that gets a free seat.
(all based on pre-agreed targets)
ie Make sure those teams are doing their utmost to actually grow the game and supporter base, rather than just sticking out their hands for welfare.

FM, don't those rich teams need teams to play against? What good is a league with less teams? What time of excitement would a 6 team league create?

Maybe Brisbane should pull out too, they are still league owned right? What about Tasmania next year?

The NBA have a luxury tax to help the smaller market teams.

NBA also has an amazing TV and Apparel revenue share, but there's a way to go for NBL to get there.

Fact is, there will always be rich and poor teams in sport. If those rich teams want a league to play in, they need teams to compete against. If there's not enough revenue generated by the league from TV etc flowing to the teams, then Luxury tax is the next option.

Teams like Cairns, Wollongong, Adelaide will never be able to compete on the corporate front.

NBL1 or perhaps the NZBL might be the solution for the Hawks

Along with Cairns, Adelaide and NZ Reality?

Almost every other team has to make efforts to improve themselves financially.

The Wildcats moved from Challenge to their new Arena (Perth Arena?), a big risk. They have also done the necessary marketing and community engagement to bring their membership to 10k.

The Sixers have moved to a bigger and better situated stadium, also a big risk. And are now striving to fill the stadium.

Sydney Kings have gambled their own equity to bring in something to bring the crowds in.

Yet Campbell somehow feels he doesn't need to take even incremental steps to improve the Hawks and just ask for more money from the NBL? The Hawks games are far from full, perhaps he should look at that as an alternative source of income?

Heck...even Cairns have the wherewithall to go begging the government and leveraging Nate's heritage to pay his wages.

Furthermore, the equalisation payments were always structured to lift a team up to the floor NOT the Cap itself.

I think it's time to rethink the equalisation payments when teams feel this entitled to hand outs.

FWIW I agree with Campbell.
The salary floor is tied to the salary cap, and the cap is tied directly to how much money clubs spent the previous season. So rich clubs spending extra basically forces poorer clubs to spend extra as well.
It's all very well to say that poorer clubs must take control of their financial stability, but when others keep changing where the bar is set how are they supposed to keep up?
That's the whole point of the tax revenues being redistributed, right?
It's not like receiving tax money somehow disincentivises anyone from generating their own revenue as well.

The kings have gambled? On a foreign ownership group? That must boil your blood dickhead, a foreigner buying up our sporting teams!!! Alert the ring of steel!

I pretty much agree with Campbell, too. I'm OK with rich owners (even ones that also own the league) spending their money on big names, but this whole "luxury tax" thing seems to be getting treated about the same as the Next Stars program - changed on a whim to suit whoever. Gives off a bush league vibe that I don't like, given how well the rest of the league is going in comparison.

I'll have you know AngusH....THIS IS NOT A CUPCAKE LEAGUE!

The salary floor is tied to the salary cap, and the cap is tied directly to how much money clubs spent the previous season. So rich clubs spending extra basically forces poorer clubs to spend extra as well. /blockquote>

This would be all well and good if Campbell was begging for money for reach the floor, he isn't, he has his hands reached out so Hawks can spend the Cap.

but when others keep changing where the bar is set how are they supposed to keep up?

The Cap and Floor was introduced as a floating bar, nothing has changed.

Hawks complaining about the cap going up is tantamount to complaining about inflation.

Tantamount.

but this whole "luxury tax" thing seems to be getting treated about the same as the Next Stars program - changed on a whim to suit whoever. Gives off a bush league vibe that I don't like, given how well the rest of the league is going in comparison.

Geez well done to some posters on here, some great points made here for sure...

So what I'm not understanding about this is Illawarra look absolutely stacked and they will have a fun team to watch so they should be well attended this season BUT is Campbell basically surmising that he's got a team that meets the salary floor but can't pay his players without league assurance because that is a scary way of doing things if he is.

One one hand I'd prefer clubs back themselves by getting good quality players like Illawarra has instead of what Cairns has done but it doesn't sounds sustainable.

Hawks complaining about the cap going up is tantamount to complaining about inflation.

On one hand I'd prefer clubs back themselves by getting good quality players like Illawarra has instead of what Cairns has done but it doesn't sounds sustainable.

Handout? Not at all, that would imply that they've done nothing to warrant the payment. When in fact, it's a condition agreed to in contract - you let us increase the salary cap to a level that is largely out of reach for your club/demographic, we provide you with a payment to maintain competitiveness. Except the latter isn't happening due to the league moving the goal posts how they see fit.

Dickhead.

Citation on the league moving the goalposts? It's been alleged a couple of times in this thread but AFAICT it's working exactly as it was originally supposed to work.

We're talking about teams trying to reach the floor, having money to spend comes down to the budget not the cap. Having the league only count $92k towards the salary floor when you spend $100k means more money is coming out of your budget to make the same amount of progress towards the floor.

@ 121 it means that if you pay and import $500k for example then you pay $40k that's not going towards the salary cap so that is money that each club has to come up with.

So yes it's more difficult for a club to not make the salary cap floor if they can't attract quality locals

Citation on the league moving the goalposts? It's been alleged a couple of times in this thread but AFAICT it's working exactly as it was originally supposed to work.

There's a bit of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't about all this.

If you consider the external factors of the past vs now: there's a glut of sports with A-League a hell of a lot more popular than the failed NSL, the rise of AFLW and Big Bash League (men & women).

That is a substantial increase in market competition for your average Joe's hip pocket money, sponsorship dollar and the crucial government dime (read: infrastructure and grass roots funding).

Then there's the globalisation aspect of competing to keep talent on shore v richer Euro clubs - Australia's 26 million population and general GDP is a drop in the ocean compared to greater Europe.

One key advantage the NBL has at the moment is that it is operating more like a business, it is more flexible, nimble and transactional. This allows it to make decisions with huge upside.

The obvious disadvantage occurs if you are a stakeholder (club), you are subject to changing goal posts, conflict of interest and the like.

How this all relates to the Hawks and the cap situation is the question for the moment while we are in that "be nimble phase" probably should be less of "is this what the structure was meant to be" and more of "is this the structure that is right for the league?"

I think LK has done a fair bit for the Hawks, Adelaide etc. Adelaide have had good squads in the recent years under LK, Hawks have a damn good one this year IMO.

However, I do have to agree, a system where half the teams who are the "haves" force the "have nots" to delve into their finances to meet the league requirements is a problem. The tax distribution probably needs to be less of a "pool" for general use/approval and straight into the poorer clubs as matter of system. That might make for a more stable player cap system.

The issue with saying "clubs need to get it together themselves", is #1 If you want to be brutal about it, then Hawks/36ers etc can die and there will be a 4 team league that would lose credibility very quickly; #2 the market in Melbourne is substantially different to the market in Cairns, Illawarra etc.

In respect of that, consider factors:

- Infrastructure in place (You can't move into better digs/better located spots if they don't exist - they did for Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide - none of these clubs paid for a stadium themselves)
- Population (Larger market potentially for members)
- Competition in city with other sports clubs/leagues
- Business driven city (Mel/Syd more business driven than Adelaide for instance, Perth while not broadly a business driven city, have the major resource firms spending up big in Perth including to the local sports sides)
- Government funding (This is determined based on local gov policy/gov of the day, influence of local politicians federally, interaction between local and federal govs etc)

In a simplified formula, i'd argue if we want to spend the amount we are on the talent that is in the league either you can 1) have a 4 team league, or 2) spend a fair bit of $$$ to lift up the other 4 teams. At the end of the day, those factors at the moment present an environment where "getting their shit together" won't assist the bottom 4 clubs in reaching a competitive financial & infrastructure level of the top 4 to be sustainable/survive.

I don't presume to know but 90% of a cap spend that changes via the average spend from the previous year, does appear to be moving goalposts.

We can all speculate that teams are getting the tax equilisation payments, but we will never know how much they might receive as it doesn't appear to be transparent and things keep changing. It was mentioned elsewhere that teams had to apply and it wasn't a given that they would receive. Again, everything is speculation.

The NBL just needs to keep all the teams and support them all, otherwise it disappears or becomes a 4-5 team comp. Not much fun either way.

Spot on Craig. It's not that difficult for some.

It's not so much Moving Goalposts, as it is Shifting Sands.

The floor is set at 90% of teh soft ca, which is set to the average of the PREVIOUS season. So in these rapidly growing years, there has always been a lag.

It's also a bit of mess trying to substantiate your eligibility for the subsidy: Teams must pay the floor, but must be below the floor to qualify. So how does that work? They contract players for less, with the promise they'll get more when the subsidy comes in? Or do they just have to prove to the NBL that they can't afford to budget for the full floor? And if so, what's to stop them inflating other costs to show that?

What Campbell SEEMS to be saying is that the gap between the floor and the average is growing, and they need to lifted closer to the average.
Not sure how much scope for that? By definition, some other teams are also paying less than the average, so they'd have to be lifted also. Not sure there would be enough tax to get everyone up to the (pre-subsidy) average?