I know I'm a Kings fan and have a certain level of bias (not as strong as Dazz's clear hatred of anything that isn't Perth getting the upper hand, granted, but it's there) but I'm curious as well as to what the spending is, as I've had my team go bust before, had the league on the verge of going under so while 5-1 is great, I really hope that it's sustainable.
Obviously I'm a dedicated Perth fan, but I am not biased in this regard. Read my posts.
I'm the first to admit that Perth has benefited hugely from the indulgence of wealthy owners. Kerry Stokes during the first glory days, and Jack Bendat during the 2nd. Perth is NOW self sustaining, thanks to 12k crowds, close to 10k in memberships, regular finals appearances, etc, but we wouldn't even be here without Jack propping us up during the exiled years.
I'm also the first to admit that during the '90's the Salary Cap was a joke. And that in recent years teams like the Cats were only constrained by the points system.
I have also said (frequently) that success for Sydney should be a good thing for the league. Sydney is our largest city, so it has the most potential for viewers.
But what I have also said (again repeatedly) is that the league needs to be sustainable. If guys like LK and Anschutz spending big today helps set us up for the future, fantastic, but not if they raise the bar to unsustainable levels.
With that in mind, my concern with Sydney is twofold:
Firstly, whilst Anschutz obviously has cavernous pockets, does he have the same commitment that a local Sugar-Daddy would? Doesn't matter how much success he generates, if he gets sick of pouring money into our inconsequential little league after a few years, is he going to leave Sydney high & dry?
Secondly, (and this comes back to the NBL's policies) are they pushing the bar too high for some other teams?
Teams like Adelaide, Cairns, and the Hawks have done very well to stay competitive with the richer teams like Perth, NZ, and now MU. But Sydney (with the indulgence of the NBL) have now pushed things even further.
For the moment, I IMHO it is apparent that Perth, NZ, MU, and Brissy have adopted a "holding" stance. They'll stay competitive, but aren't trying to match Sydney.
In all honesty, I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing?
Does it mean they regard Sydney as unsustainable, and they are prepared to just wait out the next few years until the Kings crash & burn?
Or have they just conceded that they could never win a pissing contest with Anschutz, so its pointless trying.
I love the Wildcats, and I'm proud of our record. But that ceases to have meaning if the NBL folds. And lets face it, if it gets reduced to 4 or 5 teams, it might as well.
What REALLY pisses me off though, is that LK was supposed to usher in an era of sustainable expansion.
Whether its the Wellington team, the South Melbourne team, the Chinese-backed GC team, or whatever. The current levels of expenditure make it pretty much impossible for that to happen.
The exception would be if you find another Billionaire who's prepared to dump Sydney-like levels of cash, which would unfortunately simply make it harder still for the poorer clubs.
Tl;Dr;
In summary, my concern is not for teams like the Cats, it is that the NBL has widened the gap between rich and poor, and that the poorer teams will struggle to stay competitive.