If you read the full article, it says that a lot of the players who didn't "opt out" have simply renegotiated their contracts.

Johnson was, I think, the first to be publicly announced, but most are doing the same thing.


Perth were obviously going to do what they can to keep him. As Trev admitted, he has built a team around Cotton.

And end of the day, Cotton will possibly (again) accept slightly less than he could have received elsewhere, to stay in Perth with his family.
Just remains to be seen how well their new offer stacks up against International.

What do you think we would get in Europe, for a full season?

Essentially the stars are still likely to stay in the league and get paid through renegotiation, the other tiers of players who are less likely to get a spot overseas and more risk adverse carry the burden of salary cuts in order to deliver reduction in expenditure to help meet the reduction in revenue anticipated.

Money does not buy you a Championship.

Examples :

- Sydney Kings 3 years under Gaze and last year.
- Melbourne United 2 years under Demopolous and the last 2 seasons.
- Adelaide 36'ers spending the 4th most, doesn't even make the playoffs.

Conversely, having little money doesn't guarantee you failure.

Examples :
- Illawarra Hawks 2016/17, Cairns Taipans finished SECOND that year. Neither Melbourne nor Sydney made the playoffs.
- Cairns Taipans this past season.
- to a letter extent, Brisbane Bullets season before last.

People can accuse them of buying championships all they want but there is proof that simply pumping money into a team like the Kings did does not net results by itself.

Perth spends more than everyone

When was the last time Ulgon was actually right about something?
He seems to be the Damien Barrett of the NBL.

Spain and Israel signing lots of players, they are obviously confident about their leagues going ahead.

Israel season is finished but they are signing for the 2020-21 season at great pace.

So far there is really 'not much' news.

The Wildcats have made it clear they will try hard to keep Cotton, that together with his family, familiarity with the Wildcats and standing in the league would normally make staying one of the more attractive options, barring huge disparity in money.

I think Joey Wright used to get his full season's money at the start of the season too in case the Sixers folded mid-season.

@339

imports get 92c per 100c USD-AUD conversion.

Israel season is finished but they are signing for the 2020-21 season at great pace.

As expected, players have just used the opt-out to get even more leverage and $ from their teams I'm sure;

Whilst I know its the player's right to opt out and explore and yes it may make business sense; the sad part is that they are essence being rewarded for managing to extract more from the team and putting them in a more risky financial position (versus those that took it on the chin and accepted the pay cut to help the team);

(versus those that took it on the chin and accepted the pay cut to help the team);

This is expected

Anticipated decrease in revenue has meant a necessary decrease in expenditure to ensure viability for clubs league-wide.

I think people assumed that everyone would end up taking a pay cut in line with the agreement, and that would drive stars out.

What has actually occurred is the majority have taken the pay cut, while the stars have renegotiated to still receive their payday. So those with less leverage have taken the hit, those with more leverage who could have possibly played elsewhere, may still play in the NBL receiving their $$$.

From an NBL perspective this works well, less expenditure, but stars for the most part are kept.

Well yeah, nobody goes "we'll perform better with instability and a budget roster"

Everyone knows the competitive edge a strong stable club with the finances to compete with any other club will have.

It's for us to pray that each club has financial viability to contend properly, it's up for the NBL to work as hard as they can to strike that balance between getting good talent in, and ensuring the mechanics/league rules are setup to maximise a competitive and relatively even league.

EPL nonsense won't work here.

Absolutely. That tells you the state of the NBL the last 20 years - bad administration, lots of clubs folding etc.

The NBL has represented that in a sense, it has not done well at all up until 3 years ago or so.

Now, there's a real level of good competition, Perth aren't on their own in investing heavily.

However, it will take some time for other teams to get to the kind of stability and well run organisation that is Perth, that won't happen at the click of the fingers.

Bendat's long-term ownership created stability, and allowed him and the Cats to hire the right people, and recruit (mostly) the right players. And yes, "success breeds success."
30 years of play-offs gives you a strong & deep supporter base. That justifies a premium venue, then fills it. Together that gives you a strong budget baseline.
Finals appearances make you more money, especially grand finals.
And yes, having a strong, successful, and professional organisation, helps attract and retain the right players. And yes, it does mean that they have something other than cash to offer.

As expected, players have just used the opt-out to get even more leverage and $ from their teams

Israel league is signing players for the 2020-21 season, there is nothing untrue about it. Oliver for a start, they are going ahead full steam

"his is completely untrue." yes that's already been cleared up. No need to do it again.

I'd say Perth would represent an EPL side, always on top

There spend on players and staff over the last 10 seasons would be far greater than any other team

which insures success

The rules expressly forbid that.

Can you tell us more about how having potentially the best player in the league in those years 'always kept them on top'?

It has been made clear that some players have re-negotiated contracts. Whether they opt in or opt out and back in, there is nothing preventing this.

So exactly what I said is exactly the case - star players leverage the ability to pursue options overseas to renegotiate a better contract and those who don't have the overseas opportunities or are more risk-adversed in respected of travel are the ones that bear the cuts.

I don't know the EXACT wording or the finer details of the rules.

I recall the gist of it was that if the player returns, he must remain on the same terms as per the contract.

There can be several interpretations of this.

1) You must come back to your existing contract no changes.

2) You can tear up you contract but for this season you must still be paid the exact same as per torn contract what other back ended deals you do is none of our concern.

3) The rule is a guide only and is disregarded if both parties agree to tear up contract, and player can now be paid anything divided by 2.

Essentially, the mechanics is aimed at not giving players a right to vitiate their contract and head to some other NBL club (sorry no Cotton to Kings!). However, a mechanism was put in place to allow players to pursue overseas opportunities.

That doesn't affect ability to renegotiate/extend a contract or mutually terminate a contract. That's still in place.

That effectively gives a player like Cotton or Johnson the ability, or leverage, to go "i'll look elsewhere for a better payday" using the opt-out mechanic, and force the NBL club to use the renegotiation/extension mechanism to get the player better terms.

Johnson was able to leverage that without utilising the opt-out, he probably used the situation to get that long term stability, while Cotton may well come back with a better payment situation.

If you're not a star you probably 1) don't have overseas opportunities in this climate and 2) less likely to strong arm your NBL club into paying you more, so you will likely take that pay cut on the chin.

In essence, stars have leverage to still get their payday or better terms, the rest take the heat of the pay cuts.

That's how I view the situation at least.

Of course, if all teams lose their stars they end up in the same place anyway, it's somewhat of a prisoner's dilemma in that regard.

The additional marquee player spot adds to the ability of local players to renegotiate without really costing their teams anything, too.

Makes sense KET thanks.

Precisely - interestingly, aside from Perth - Melbourne and Adelaide would be the most stable spenders and clubs during that 7 year period aside from NZ who could be said underperformed perhaps but they had a damn good period before that.

Cairns, Hawks budget aides, Sydney and Brisbane were "reintroduced" during this 7 year period. SEM didn't exist until this year.

The point is pretty emphatically made

Always on top means 100% of the time.

You have just outlined how they are not always on top.

Perth spent the most, they just buy championships. I looked at their memberships prices and they are by far the dearest by all teams.

Supply and demand is a thing.

Ewww Liverpool, no. I doubt we have to wait 30+ years for a title. Unlike them we don't let it slip, it's not in our club culture.

We prefer to mix it up so we can destroy the hopes of each team's fans year after year.

We give credit where credit is due - NZB were a great side with a shorter dynasty than ours but at least made a worthy opponent. The rest of the league has been trash of late. Year after year of turn-takers making GF appearances and bringing the weak sauce. Yawn.

Year after year?

But Perth brought an equal amount of weaksauce in 2011,2012,2013,2015,2018.

Amend "year after year" to "year then year off then year then year off"

Perth wanting to literally be the last team standing, what are you on about?

Not having read and not able to read are two different things, obviously

The post Nazi over here demanding everyone read every post!

" I also find it really interesting that players are negotiating contracts that are competitive with Euro deals; there's been at least a dozen renegotiations since the salary-cutting measures were agreed on. Makes you question how cash-strapped these big teams actually are."

From Olgun

There's an extra marquee spot, so you can pay locals more while spending less.

That said, richer teams renegotiating doesn't say anything about poorer teams.

You just sound like a Perth troll, they are as regular as the corona these days

Kings: Three titles and five grand finals in six years, then out of the league.
Breakers: Four titles and five grand finals in six years, then missed the playoffs two out of three years and were swept in their only appearance.
Wildcats: Five titles in seven years, haven't missed the top four in over a decade.

Breakers and wildcats count as dynasties

Similar to spurs in nba

Just imagine what Sydney might have achieved (recently) if they hadn't saddled themselves with Muppet coaches.
It's weird. Nobody in Australia thought Gaze could coach, and despite this being proven, they persisted with him for three years.
Then overlooked local talent, to appoint another muppet.

This virus has certainly thrown a spanner into everything, but other teams need to get their shit together, and start building some consistency.

Ewww Liverpool, no. I doubt we have to wait 30+ years for a title. Unlike them we don't let it slip, it's not in our club culture.

Turn it up....every team has had a decent drought including Perth.

In KET's mind, making outlandish statements about Perth wanting to literally be the last team standing is ok but if you respond with something facetiously then it needs to be scrutinised and torn apart immediately!

Kings: Three titles and five grand finals in six years, then out of the league.
Breakers: Four titles and five grand finals in six years, then missed the playoffs two out of three years and were swept in their only appearance.
Wildcats: Five titles in seven years, haven't missed the top four in over a decade.