It implies to me that he'll get out of each club. And it's worded to suggest that includes United? It might be that he sees the league as the more lucrative asset.

Thanks Isaac.
It does imply he will have no ownership stake in any NBL club.
But will he still be the owner of the NBL and still run the league? (Which doesn't make sense if he has no ownership of any of the clubs)

I read it was clear LK would continue to run the league, but have no club ownership.

It stated he has already sold his shares in Tassie and Melbourne United (wasn't aware he had sold all United shares)? Plus is finalising the sale of his only other club share, being Brisbane.

This suggests he has no ownership in any other club including Adelaide as rumoured?

No ownership, therefore conflict would be a big start, but assume the owners also want certainty what or how any income would flow from NBL to clubs

"Privately, the NBL is unfazed by claims of financial transparency issues, with a recent audit from PWC coming back clean.

The NBL has engaged its own administrator KordaMentha to conduct a review of the Hawks' financial operations given the team's long-standing financial struggles."

https://www.espn.com.au/nbl/story/_/id/44624163/nbl-larry-kestelman-verge-selling-clubs-amid-civil-war

Ruh-roh

"But despite this, only four of the NBL's teams - Perth, Melbourne United, Tasmania and Cairns - currently run at a profit.

The Hawks are the worst financial performers of the remaining six.

They are expected to post a seven-figure loss for the recent season despite an excellent campaign culminating in the club's second championship."

Sinking the slipper in nicely.

So this is what we want - LK not having ownership in teams.

PwC coming in unproblematic is probably another tick if you're the NBL.

I’m super confused at this repeated "no club has ever folded under LK" - I thought Townsville did?

Isn't there a saying that consultants only get brought in when you know the answers you want to get (so you get no surprises), and they tell you what you want to hear (otherwise they’ll soon go out of business)?

I think that would be ignoring the concept of an Audit Committee

Who does the Audit committee answer to though?

Definitely helps some of the transparency issues if LK is out of all club ownership, so thats positive. Though the "i didnt realise he'd sold the united shares" and the "influence" on Sixers ownership that some have mentioned (I dont know anything about this) might be further evidence that there's work still to do there.

Fewer than half the teams turning a profit (which is probably around the same ratio at any other point in NBL history) despite the nothing but positive media and constant praise I think shows that overall the "success" of the league is based on buzz over full transparency. Can't see that going away any time soon.

If LK continues to own 100% of NBL, and no ownership in any team, he can be impartial and should not have (actual or perceived) favouritism to any team.

The NBL needs to ensure ALL TEAMS are able to make a profit, as this is critical to still have a competition.

It's not reasonable for NBL to make big profits and clubs losses, so an adequate portion of NBL revenue needs to be distributed fairly to clubs.

I assume this needs to be based on teams spending salary caps and if they wish to increase cash spend, they need to make sure it makes business sense to do so.

The tricky part is each team has vastly different income streams, so how does the NBL pass revenue to Cairns versus Perth or Melbourne?

"Who does the Audit committee answer to though?"

An Audit Committee is made up of independent directors, so they aren't answering to LK.

Obviously there’s an element of working with the company to form the key scoping, but the Audit Committee and whatever big 4 wins the tender for the internal audit aren’t going to have the undue influence/pay an expert to say what you want them to say aspect which it sounds like you’re eluding to.

Firstly I'll always say that LK is a legend and saved the league.
Good to see he's going to have sold all his shares in teams.
Would like to know in the audit about, I'll say alleged, payment of Harrell by someone outside of Adelaide ownership. Or was it classified under something like a NBL player ambassador etc, so whilst it's there in black and white on the books and not in a miscellaneous column, but is it available to those outside the NBL and auditors. PWC are/were crooks anyway, watch the 4 corners story on them and other consultancy companies.
I imagine in the lawsuit that the Harrell payment may come up, then it can be questioned fully.
The neverending question and story is how to make the majority of teams profitable. Fine if clubs are owned by billionaires that are prepared to lose money, but what would happen if LK was to say stuff it and leave. There's a salary cap to attempt to stop the big clubs outspending the smaller ones so it's an even playing field, but there's always ways around that. The only way is to get a good TV deal, but that's always floated around but never comes to fruition. The landscape has changed with pay TV, streaming services etc. But with free to air would think there'd be enough of a market on a Monday night to replace something like Sam Pang tonight with Monday Night Basketball. It took a while for footy to get a foothold outside of weekends, now it's on multiple nights of the week.
As for the running of the league, maybe it's a question of "You can't handle the truth" or a bunch of rich alpha types bickering and holding the league back because looking after themselves, not the common good for the league. Back to the Harrell situation. He was good for the league, love him or hate him. Adelaide after spending big for no success decided to go with 2 imports, were able to get him for a short injury replacement then when Martin was healthy, let him go without paying for a premium player. Would GK have footed the bill, on top of releasing Starling? Unknown officially, but if as rumoured the NBL/LK wanted to keep a publicity goldmine, they paid for him themselves. Would a league run by the other owners allowed it, never.
It's like the NBA and all the conspiracy theories there, wanting Ewing in New York, fixing the Portland and Sacramento series so Kobe and Shaq would be in the finals. Even now they'd dream of a Lakers/Celtics final over an OKC/Cleveland one.
So it's finally good that LK doesn't have an at least perceived conflict of interest. But the NBL needs him to cover the costs until there is finally a day when that mythical tv deal comes and all teams at least break even. But with that comes a lack of transparency and the seemingly snake oil salesman of expansion when it's not a good investment.
To end with my daily Brian crack. Love how he laments that when he left in 09 he didn't think the league would survive, maybe bankrupting all the clubs he was up might have had something to do with it.

Kestelman sold out of the Tasmania JackJumpers in February before also getting out of Melbourne United around six weeks ago.

Only his shares in the Brisbane Bullets remain, and a deal to sell those is understood to be well into its latter stages.

If there is one positive from Novelly's fight its this:
Larry fire selling his shares in NBL clubs.

About time!

Also, Why the sudden rush to sell so quickly?

LK only held 15% of United and 10% in JJs before the recent sales.

Reported by Larry of course.

Don't worry, Jared's keeping his honest now.