Obviously we all know it's not a level playing field, look at United's roster especially their bench it would be better than some starting lineups but it's a bit rich that Lemanis is saying this given the Breakers spending when he was the coach there.

I'd like to know what the Breakers spent during Lemanis' time there between 2005 to 2013.

This is excuse making at its finest. I've generally been supportive of Lemanis but he's underperformed as Bullets coach. He's made poor decisions with imports and overpaid and overvalued extremely average Australian players. He tried to make Sobey a point guard, which basically nullified his strengths as a player. Everyone knows the NBL isn't an even playing field, neither is the NBA or any other league. Deal with it.

I don't know that it’s necessarily excuse making - seems to be him pushing the Bullets to spend more to compete.

You can always nit pick and say "should have covered your bases by doing this instead of that" but would those moves have made them genuinely competitive with the top clubs?

I don’t think it necessarily would.

Hawks have shown what a good coach can do with Goorj and Bevo in the past - but not sure Hawks today and Hawks of Bevo yesteryear are competitive to full strength United or Wildcats etc. Maybe Goorj will prove that wrong this year.

We have trekked through the competitiveness aspect of the difference in finances between big clubs and smaller clubs - this year financially stronger clubs brought in/kept guys like cotton, Magnay, Broekhoff, Landale etc.

I’d rather have those players be in the NBL then priced out of the NBL.

So that needs to be kept in mind when striking that balance of similar expenditure for competition sake and bringing in big talent which some can’t afford.

Than*

Most of us here would be very interested in this information but it won't ever be revealed.

Realistically, Perth, United and Sydney have been the big spending clubs in recent years, with SEM and NZ dabbling with some big money too. Is it any wonder these are the teams competing for the title? No it's not.

But it's not realistic to expect a comp like the NBL to be totally equal as far as finances etc.

My question is, what would Lemanis want: For the big spending clubs to be forced to spend less to give the lower spending clubs a chance? Yeah, that'd be great for the league. Let's keep talent OUT of the league.

Or conversely, let everyone know what team spend is? Well they can lead to people just assuming their team cant compete, even though Cairns last year, Illawarra this year, and many other teams have proven that budget is not the only factor in making a successful team.

Let's call it what it is - Lemanis shirking responsibility for underperforming as Bullets coach. He may not have had the biggest budget but he's made eyebrow raising decisions with his player choices, rotations, and how he's used the talent he has.

A hard cap could make for a more level playing field but a lower overall standard of the league. No thanks to that. The model of a luxury tax to help prop up the less financially strong clubs to compete with the big boys is a good one. I'd like more transparency as to where and how much of this is being dispersed to clubs.

Even if you view it as excuses, there still are legitimate points there.

Problem is, there isn't an obvious solution.

You want the best talent but you also want similarish spending for competitiveness. For now, they do contradict.

Trying to ensure comparative resource spend doesn’t mean teams won’t have cultural advantages or chemistry advantages that they’ve built or getting the right person whilst others may miss the mark on talent. They’re all in built factors that should exist and should differentiate clubs.

I do think the NBL is getting closer to it - Adelaide reportedly spent a fair bit, Hawks are more cashed up. Leaves Cairns/Brissy probably needing to find ways to get greater investment. Cairns that may mean restructure and get that private investment.

Not sure of what exact rules with marquee locals is but if the kings can field 5 players on court of which four are American (including K Lisch) and Didi last year then not only are they likely over spending but are also taking advantage of loopholes. Closing these loopholes is a better idea to keep talent in the NBL rather than enforcing the cap.

If a marquee Aussie is recruited I believe teams should be limited to two imports and guys like Didi need to be considered an import in their second year.

I'm a Cairns supporter and I know each season we cant win it but just hope we are competitive. We get a good young player come through and the big city clubs say thanks very much.

Lemanis raises some great points. Transparency has always been a problem for this NBL management group in everything they do.

"but it's a bit rich that Lemanis is saying this given the Breakers spending when he was the coach there."

Exactly - the owners during his tenure (the Blackwells) openly said they didn't seek to make a penny from the Breakers and were running it a breakeven or a small lost (as winning/the non-financial aspects were more important for them).

I certainly think Lemanis didn't have the most financial freedom throughout his tenure - I remember that 19-20 season, they had some absolutely b-grade imports.

However, the simple point to that is that when Lemanis took the reigns at Brisbane, he must have known that was a possibility for a re-entering team, and he would have known the potential financial limitations. Bit rich.

Also, the team he had in 2016/17 in their first year wasn't that bad - and he totally bottled it. They won like 10 of 30 games or something?

I love how Lemanis is saying the exact thing everyone on here has said for the past five years, but suddenly it's unreasonable just because it's Lemanis saying it.

He is not wrong at all. I honestly think all the players salaries should be made available to the public like the NBA, if it is legal? About 5-6 years ago when the NBL was being revamped there was talk of this. Once clubs like United see a player do well in a small market they just grab them right away. Sobey and McCarron were developed in Cairns then go off right away. The NBL definitely needs to be more transparent with this. Even the points capping System was more transparent.

Yeah, moving forward, it would be nice to see more transparency. But I guess they have to be careful. I'd love them to publish how much each club spends, how much tax they pay, and how that tax is used.
But the problem is the Marquees.
If they publish that say MU's "taxable salary" spend was $X, people will rightly point out that it counts only $150k(?) of Landale's money, and continue to speculate about how much he's getting.
But if they publish actual spend AND tax paid, we'll be able to calculate backwards to see how much their Marquee(s) received.

So, I would like to see them publish:
> Total Player Salary spend by team.
> Top 5 Player Salary spend by team.
> TOTAL Salary tax paid across the league.
> Distribution of said tax.

What we've got..

Top level: Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, NZ

Midrange: SEM, Brisbane, Adelaide

Low End: Illawarra, Cairns

What you need..

Top Level: Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, NZ, Brisbane, Adelaide
Midrange: SEM
Low End: Illawarra, Cairns

If the other top level/midrange organisations could draw the kind of support Perth does - and they should, each being a capital city team with a large potential market.. they'd have the funds to support high calibre teams, and could afford greater financial transfers to Illawarra, Cairns and SEM. (With the idea of weaning SEM from such transfers).

So IMO the blame is on any of those teams with large markets that have failed to capture the hearts of their cities. Perhaps Sydney and Brisbane have too many options beyond Perth (i.e. +rugby) - but then again, they have higher populations, much larger in the case of Sydney.

We don't need individual player salaries, except, perhaps for marquees at the most.

Total player spend (including any amounts covered by the league) and the amount of luxury tax paid by each team (and how that tax is distributed) would be sufficient.

I doubt this ever happens though. The NBL likes to keep things deliberately vague, for example the rules on eligibility and payments for next stars, that way it can change said rules without notice to suit their narrative.

Let's look at some of the players Lemanis have chosen in the past few years.

Dolla Beal
Jeremy Kendle.
Stephen Holt.
Alonzo Gee
Spudee
AJ Davis
Nanna Egwu
EJ Singler
Taylor Braun
BJ Johnson
Harry Froling
Patterson (even fatter 2.0)

Its not just the league disparity, its also his choice of bad players.

You don't need BIG money to be competitive in the NBL.

A few seasons ago, both Melbourne and Sydney (the top 2 spenders) missed the playoffs, in their place were the bottom 2 spenders in Cairns (2nd place) and Illawarra (4th). First place was Adelaide who were not big spenders either. The Hawks actually made the grand final.

Last season Cairns finished 3rd and United 4th.

This season the Hawks are 3rd and likely going to the Grand Final without even a Marquee player.

On the balance of probabilities, money helps but it is no guarantee of success, see Gaze's Kings and Demopolous' United.

Yes, money spent is only one issue, and you can find individual seasons to show low spending teams performing well and vice versa. Over time though, you see the only champions in the last 10 years being Perth, NZ and United, who probably spent the most money over that time.

If team salaries were revealed each season it would simply mean the richest teams would be hated a bit more by opposition fans, it wouldn't actually change the inequality. Points system was pretty good while the NBL was in a serious rebuilding phase but may not suit today's climate.

Apparently in some Euro leagues there's a 3 import rule but only 2 can be on court at once.

Over time though, you see the only champions in the last 10 years being Perth, NZ and United, who probably spent the most money over that time.

This is excuse making at its finest. I've generally been supportive of Lemanis but he's underperformed as Bullets coach. He's made poor decisions with imports and overpaid and overvalued extremely average Australian players. He tried to make Sobey a point guard, which basically nullified his strengths as a player. Everyone knows the NBL isn't an even playing field, neither is the NBA or any other league. Deal with it.

Cairns almost made the GF last year and you still shat on them Spudbroker. You're allergic to common folk and that’s ok...

Hoops is consistent though as we've been discussing parity on here for forever and
day including during the Breakers three-peat run when the league was dominated by NZ and Perth.

On the other hand there wasn't a word of criticism coming from Lemanis back then as it was all good as he was winning, not a peep was said. He's the hypocrite.

Hoops is consistent though as we've been discussing parity on here for forever and a day including during the Breakers three-peat run when the league was dominated by NZ and Perth.

On the other hand there wasn't a word of criticism coming from Lemanis back then as it was all good as he was winning, not a peep was said. He's the hypocrite.

When we talk of parity, isn't there a strong element of parity this year in that the bottom 2 teams on the ladder last season are in the playoffs this season.

Sydney who are big spenders are not in the playoffs at all.

Yes, the NBL is uneven.

But I thought the Bullets brought in American ownership (to be specific, NBA player ownership) to increase spending for the purpose of winning.

I would've thought Lemanis could've gotten extra dollars from Kevin Martin?