Anonymous
Years ago

How much luxury tax are the Kings paying?

I'm no salary cap expert but I understand this season there are permitted ways to exceed the cap and in return you pay a luxury tax. The kings would appear to bed over - two ex NBA players, the reigning league MVP, two high profile returning European players.

Anyone know what the numbers work out at or is it not communicated in the public domain?

Topic #40170 | Report this topic


Hendo8888  
Years ago

Probably enough to keep Townsville in business.

Reply #604873 | Report this post


SC6017  
Years ago

It's meant to be communicated to the league but yet to see a thing. We'll find out next yr when the money gets distributed to the Hawks

Reply #604876 | Report this post


PeterJohn  
Years ago

Why doesn't someone just post the link to the Kings' players' salaries, which the NBL said would be published for every team?

Oh, that's right. The NBL hasn't met that commitment yet. I guess 4 weeks into the season is a bit soon for them to have that information in a publishable form.

Let's hope they can get it together in time to work out how much luxury tax has to be distributed next season, and to which teams.

Reply #604886 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

NBL fail still.

Reply #604896 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Nbl salary cap is over 1.1million now ? You're allowed 50% off the imports or marquee players for up to 4 players. 4 players must earn combined $500g .

Reply #604900 | Report this post


Smith  
Years ago

Information is released in the new year. NBL state so when the revised guidelines were released in August.

I support the Hawks but am still all for it. It's about creating a product that attracts new fans and that's what it's accomplishing. Sydney simply have the coin to capitalise on the rules.

Not sure how that's a fail.

Reply #604930 | Report this post


LV  
Years ago

I'm eagerly awaiting this in the new year then. Should be interesting.

Reply #604938 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I'm pretty sure the info that will be released are notional or "market rate" salaries as opposed to actual figures

Reply #604942 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

It's about creating a product that attracts new fans and that's what it's accomplishing.
Says who?
Spending more money on players will not generate new fans, except to the extent that buying success will encourage bandwagoners.
The major problem being that allowing Anschutz to buy a few rings for Sydney could have a disastrous effect on other teams. Many suggested the idea of increasing the amount that could be paid to one or two imports (on the basis that poorer clubs could remain competitive) but the NBL has simply gone nuts.
"Taxing" the overspending of rich teams and sending the money to the poorer ones sounds great in theory, but in practice? Townsville has already folded because they could not afford to continue under the new system, and other teams are doing it tough. When does the money start to flow?
No bloody point giving it to them after they've had their asses kicked all season, the damage will be done.

Also keep in mind that in addition to the increased salary cap, and the soft cap. The NBL allowed upto 4 "local marquee" players. So Maric, Newley, Lisch, and Khazzough, COULD all be treated concessionally.

The salary cap has always been contentious in the NBL, with significant periods where it essentially ceased to operate. That's the reason the points system was introduced, so that even if as often alleged) teams like Perth, NZ, and MU were exceeding (or at least circumventing) the cap, the points would keep some level of control.
The NBL promised to replace that with an independent committee assigning market value salaries, but so far have failed to deliver.
And I think the reason is obvious. HTF do you assign a MV to somebody that has come from playing in Europe or the NBA? If you looked at Sydney, and totted up what their guys were earning when they last played O/S, it would be substantially more than the cap.
At the other end, how do you value somebody that until recently was playing for pocket money in the D-League?

Reply #604960 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

Also keep in mind that in addition to the increased salary cap, and the soft cap. The NBL allowed upto 4 "local marquee" players. So Maric, Newley, Lisch, and Khazzough, COULD all be treated concessionally.
Except they can't, because Sydney have three imports.

Reply #604961 | Report this post


PeterJohn  
Years ago

"4 players must earn combined $500g"

It's 5 players must have a combined salary of $400,000.

koberulz and previous poster above are right - you can have up to 3 imports (max), while total imports plus marquee Australians must be no more than four. Sydney have 3 imports, so are allowed only 1 marquee Australian.

Smith - is there a link to the revised guidelines? I couldn't see it mentioned in the NBL news archives for August and am interested in knowing more about it.

Reply #604972 | Report this post


KET  
Years ago

I understand the importance of having strong talent in the NBL, particularly NBA border-line talent. It probably helps our national team to have the best Australians (the last couple of Boomers spots) who aren't in NBA/Euro to play against the best possible talent.

Importantly, I think it does draw extra attention and a potential to translate that into additional crowd, sponsors & money to the NBL.

Quite a few sports fans who like NBA and plenty of other sports don't follow the NBL because they see it as relatively boring and talentless. When you're busy watching the NBA and then you're introduced to an NBL game from a few years ago, even as a massive NBL and 36ers fan, I can see why.

This year the spike in talent and NBA experienced presentation is significant and it is starting to get that NBA/sports lover attention. I've made the point that the NBL needs to improve the narrative and personalities in its marketing, and even moving back to 12 points is a great idea given everyone's penchant for nice sounding stats.

So these are the benefits of loaded Kings, MU outfits. That's not bad for a few years but there does need to be a medium term plan for every team in the NBL to have the ability to spend around about the same figure. You can't have one team spending $2 million on a team while another spends $900k-$1mil. People stop supporting clubs when they realise it's a rigged system and their team never has a chance of genuinely competing save for a ridiculous Leicester City situation.

The current system is a very much short term system, it could be incredibly beneficial now but something needs to be done to ensure a competitive talent spread across the NBL in the medium term.

Reply #604973 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Plus its the bottom 5 players which is simply dumb.

Reply #604974 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Super teams are good for sport. The most popular leagues in the world like nba and European football area based on big spending

Reply #604977 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

They would probably pay the same as Brisbane, Perth and United.

Reply #604989 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

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... As a fan I'd really like to know who our local marquee is, and know it's not really any of my business, but am very curious to know what we've shelled out for Newls and Maric (the latter might be less than expected if there weren't many options OS, he played on how many teams just last season, 5?)

Also curious to know what Jules is being paid from his last contract as I think when people are doing the maths, they're including his salary, but no doubt he'd be on injury waivers and his salary won't (yet) be counting towards the cap...

Combine that with Bryson being a bargain basement price coming out of college undrafted (before being cut), Whittington playing well above his probable salary, coming out of the D-League where even a lower end salary here would be considerably more, and it might be the drama that it's being pointed out to be...

Powell and Blake are two flags that I'd like explained though... I don't know if anyone knows this, but Powell is an ex-NBA star who won two championships with the Lakers! This of course is usual NBL hype, which occured 6-8yrs ago where he was a bit player... Since his last stint in the NBA (2014) he's been on the coaching staff of the Rockets, then played in Argentina, Puerto Rico and most recently the second division of the CBA? He wouldn't be pulling in $200k like some have suggested... That's just madness...

Blake though, I would have no idea as I don't follow the NBA these days and even though he didn't get a call up this season and from the articles out there was pondering unofficial retirement, what's that worth? Were the Kings desperate for another ex-NBA player and paid more than they should? Or was Steve thinking "Ok, might as well put this other training to use and become a Real Estate agent" because no decent Euro teams wanted to pay a 36yr old PG and extending his career for another season in a beautiful country/city was a better option?

Until someone puts the numbers out there, we won't really know...

And let's not just lump the Kings with all this as well, don't forget that both Bubbles and Andersen were brought in from overseas as well... Andersen had signed with a French team already, hadn't he? No way he's coming back here for chump change, same as Bubbles and Blanchfield was on big $$$ as well, wasn't he? No doubt Barlow would have taken a pay cut this season as it was a shock that he got brought back at all, surely, but Cedric Jackson would NOT have been cheap either and he's not subject to any marquee discount either...

Reply #604992 | Report this post


Nonanon  
Years ago

tl;dr estimates on the low side, and also but what about other teams???

Reply #604997 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

re: Brisbane... Jervis obviously got a bunch more cash than was on offer at Perth, but Kickert would be far from cheap, Bairstow obviously their local marquee which is good use, I can't see them over the cap, though...

Reply #605003 | Report this post


lawsy  
Years ago

Yeh, salaries is an interesting topic, who bloody knows. Powell, to me, like any decent American player, will want his US 30,000 per month plus accommodation and car covered, I think you believe in Santa If you think guys like Blake and Powell come to Australia and play for anything less than $180k for a season.

Whittington, that's a different story. Most a d league guy gets is like $40k per season, so you might get him here for $100k, knowing he won't be here next year as he will go get paid in Europe or NBA.

I can't see this kings roster coming in at under $1.5M

Reply #605006 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

Blake maybe, what's the vet min that he would have been on in the NBA? But Powell, how many other teams do you think were banging down his door? Not suggesting we'd get him for peanuts, but why spend that when you could get a top D-league prospect with a bit more research?

Kings management aren't the basketcase they were in previous seasons, but it's still tough to figure when it comes to throwing cash around... They'd have cracked $1.5mil for sure...

Reply #605019 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

Except they can't, because Sydney have three imports.
That's my point.
My understanding was that it was an "either/ or"
I thought that right up until Sydney signed 3 imports.

Reply #605022 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

It IS an either/or situation... Either you have 1 local marquee and up to three imports, or you swap out an import for an additional local marquee but with +$50k on their capped salary amount...

Teams CAN however choose to not have additional local marquee players and just pay the tax...

Without the obligation for teams to make their local marquee players public, and until the NBL releases the player salaries or whatever bullshit ratings thing they are using now instead of the points cap, we won't know for certain...

Reply #605029 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

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.

Reply #605034 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

How long have you been playing attention to the NBL dazz? Not long I'm guessing if you believe that Kings success leads to NBL success.

Reply #605046 | Report this post


Freethrows  
Years ago

The key to all of this is the NBL, itself. They put a whole lot of measures in place that were intended to make the new "soft" salary cap fair to all teams, yet we've seen absolutely no action, or even comment, from them about putting these things in place.

The March 30 NBL press release (http://www.nbl.com.au/featured-news/nbl-announces-changes-to-player-contract-salary-rules/)actually states that it is the "independent Contract Review Committee" which will interpret "an independent measure of each player's market value - which will be counted towards the salary cap – not the dollar amount, or the value of other benefits, which the team has contracted to pay to the player."

AFAIK there is still no Contract Review Committee.

The release also goes on to mention the rule about five players' combined salaries under $400K, so it's reasonable to assume it is the deemed market value of the players that must be under that. It leaves plenty of scope for the CRC to arbitrarily assign figures to various players that make them fit under the cap. They have never mentioned a penalty for teams not complying with this rule.

The only mention of how any payments above the soft cap will be distributed is "to teams which may otherwise find it difficult to meet the salary cap."

I really think the NBL has let everyone down with the lack of professionalism they have shown regarding all of this. It has left them way open to suggestions of impropriety, and it could very well end up being a total farce.

Reply #605047 | Report this post


Duke Fan  
Years ago

Not 1005 sure on all the details on Powell's salary but he definitely got a car.....and it's still sitting in the carpark at Homebush. He refuses to drive in Sydney traffic on the "wrong" side of the road haha

Reply #605060 | Report this post


AngusH  
Years ago

Just because we haven't seen anything, doesn't mean its not in place. If Kestelman is trying to improve the professionalism of the league on the business-end as he says, I doubt very much he's just making stuff up on the fly.

Reply #605063 | Report this post


Freethrows  
Years ago

Really, AngusH? Have you been drinking Larry's CoolAid?

If you read the March 30 release, in all its detail, you'd have been concerned about it's lack of detail. A lot of astute people were, at the time. I think we all just assumed there would be a follow-up, with more details. @Smith claims to have seen this. I douldn't find it on the NBL website.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Jeremy Loeliger was quoted: "It's really important in terms of enforcing the salary cap," Loeliger said.

"Under the old system if you had a player who was paid X but his team was only disclosing that they were paying Y - you still had the player getting that additional money and there is any way imaginable to do that.

"That was always agreeable to the player because he got the same amount in his pocket.

"But what if that player had to disclose the lesser amount they were being officially paid in a bona-fide way publicly?

"That would then be devaluing them in the market and the next time they negotiated with another club or were looking to go overseas it would then be a matter going to the public record and saying "hang on you were only getting Y, why are you now asking for some much more money?

"It's a question of transparency. We just want to ensure the league, the club, the player and the agent are all comfortable with the amount the player is getting paid."

In downtownball.net's April 20 post, they state: "NBL player salaries will be publicly accessible next season, but with a notable limitation for fans: names will be withheld from the information available to the public.

A team-by-team listing of what each player is paid will be disclosed, but player names won't appear next to the dollar figures. Everyone’s assigned player value, determined by a committee, will also be shown. That player value is what counts towards the soft salary cap of $1.1 million."

So we won't find out what the players ae actually being paid, we'll have to intuit that for ourselves.

They also stated that "If the player value is anything more than 15 percent greater than the player’s contract value—if he seems significantly underpaid, in other words—then that player’s name will be publicly disclosed..." so there may be some transparency after all.

Finally, downtown.net wrote "The salary information will be available on a website just prior to or upon the beginning of the 2016-17 season."

Either that website is deeply buried, or downtown.net got it wrong, because, as AngusH has stated, "I doubt very much he's just making stuff up on the fly."

Reply #605073 | Report this post


Freethrows  
Years ago

By the way, the Sydney Kings website still only shows ten listed players in their Profiles page. Those NBL salary cap rules stipulate a team has to have eleven rostered players. I wonder when that's going to happen.

Reply #605074 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

Freethrows, you should know better than to rely on a teams website for facts, let alone updated content other than news items... I think most teams don't have a full team updated... the two I clicked on, 36ers and Bullets are both missing players too, Doyle and Bear respectively...

However, at least in the case of the Kings, there's been no announcement and I think everyone is just assuming #11 is Prewster... Kings doing so much right but just dropping the ball on some key issues and making them look not so professional...

Reply #605160 | Report this post


Shazz  
Years ago

Dazz you were dropped as a baby for sure. Tiddle off out of here because your opinions are out of whack.

Kings are rorting the cap for sure. i mean, come on. they know they can only win by cheating.

Lets get an estimate of the truth numbers, Kings management will claim they are only a little over the cap and will try to get that through the NBL watchdogs but here is what they are really doing...

Brad Newley (Marquee): paid 150,000 against the cap + another 200,000 outside the cap.

Kevin Lisch (Another Marquee): 150,000 against the cap and a lovely sum of another 150,000 outside the cap.

Josh Powell: flat rate of 150,000 + another 200,000 outside the cap thanks to "sponsors"

Steve Blake: 60,000 - 70,000 per month. Certainly receiving a little more from other places...

Julian Khazzouh (Marquee): 150,000 toward cap and another 100,000 from good ol' AEG Ogden.

They should owe the NBL quite a bit, but they will weasel their way out of it for sure somehow. In true Sydney fashion. as for the "Sydney success is good for the league" - that comment is laughable. Is Manchester Uniteds success good for the EPL? Or just a reflection of rich owners paying the big bucks for high profile players and beating out all the little clubs who can't match them financially.

They can barely string together consistent crowd numbers in the largest city in Australia. 6,000 is a joke. What can you do though? Nothing. The NBL licks the shoes of the eastern states and begs for money. Yet good ol' Perth just chugs along with the best and most passionate fanbase in the league a true fanbase. Not a fabricated one with a cheesy and pathetic hastag #wearekings cringe worthy.

Reply #605165 | Report this post


Shazz  
Years ago

Wookie, no mate, Jervis got offered the same cash (maybe a little more) but they promised him a starting spot. Perth had to pay up bigtime for Prather, so it was either break the bank for Jawai and Jervis or go with retaining Prather and getting 2 good imports to go along with him. Jawai probably wanted a longer deal at Perth but they offered him a one year one. Cairns swooped and got him locked into a 3 year deal on probably less money but atleast it was for more than one year. At that point it was too late to retain Jervis as Brisbane already had him.

I reckon Perth did try for Brock Motum at some point. I Think though Knight would have wanted more money aswell, the Sixers were hoping to steal him from under them but that was shutoff when Perth obviously paid up and we all know the Sixers can't generally outbid anyone but Cairns.

Reply #605166 | Report this post


Shazz  
Years ago

Oh btw I was being sarcastic about having more than one Marquee, just to prove my point they are defs rorting the system to have a list like they do. The only Marquee is Brad Newley. The other lads get paie outside the cap. Sponsors defs making sure they are well and truly paid...

Reply #605167 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Khazzouhs money cant possibly be against the cap until he plays.

Reply #605173 | Report this post


AngusH  
Years ago

Brisbane might be kicking themselves about that promise with Bairstow working his way back into form. Surely he needs to start sooner rather than later.

Reply #605177 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

Anyone declaring that players are "defs" being paid outside the cap with such certainty is just begging to be ignored and written off due to the knobhead exception...

On the other side of the country, but sure, you know exactly what's going on *yawns* It's about as predictable as the Kings bandwagoners and woofers on here spoiling it for all the rational people...

Reply #605179 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

Anyone who posts an exact number can be pretty safely ignored.

I'm still confused as to why people keep referring to a salary cap when there isn't one.

Reply #605182 | Report this post


Jerkin' Gherkin  
Years ago

Wookie you're an absolute tit - of course they're being paid outside the fucking cap?! you're so high off Gaze's delicious anal glands that you can't see past your King's. "Don't insult my Kings, we are all of a sudden a respectful franchise, so we must be following all the rules..."

back to Star Wars mate.

Reply #605251 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

^hahahahahaha

Reply #605254 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

"Anyone who posts an exact number can be pretty safely ignored."

I'd disagree with that. I've heard specific figures about all sorts of things many times over the years and from very good sources. Word gets out in any number of ways.

Reply #605257 | Report this post


Wildcat  
Years ago

Issac is the only person on here worth reading, he makes the most sense and doesn't post as an egotistical wank and aggressive fan.

Reply #605266 | Report this post


Wookiee  
Years ago

lol... again with the absolute statements... There's over the soft cap and then there's outside the cap... If you're suggesting the latter, which is just Trump level of ridiculous, you might as well suggest that Perth have paid Damo and other players outside the cap the last three seasons to keep him there when he's apparently taken paycuts to fit other players in under the cap...

If you had half a brain, you would have seen that I've been one of the more critical ones of the Kings in the past and still not getting ahead of things this season as there's a lot of work to do still, but if you want to go off half-cocked and look stupid, by all means go for it... But if you can't even spell the name of the person you're insulting right, then no-one is really going to take you seriously, even if you compliment me, comparing me to a boob...

@Isaac - I agree that there would be people out there that know numbers, but come on, what are the odds that someone posting such round numbers and declaring conspiracies that players are being paid illegally would be that type of person?

Reply #605267 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

@ Shazz, what an unmitigated pile of horseshit. Do you even bother to consult reality before you make crap up?

For starters, there's no such thing as a "guaranteed starting spot," and even if there were, nobody is going to cross the country for it. Maybe for "minutes," but even then there is no guarantee.

Jervis was a victim of the 5 under $400k rule. He had already agreed to exercise the option in his contract, but the Cats were limited in what they could pay him. Brisbane offered him a step-up, and as part of that, significantly more money.
Jawai actually had nothing to do with it. The Cats had determined very early on if Jawai didn't return he would be replaced by an import centre.

You keep splatting on about players being paid outside the cap. Do you understand that is a non sequitur?
The salary in question is to be determined by the league's independent committee. So it actually doesn't matter how much cash (or other) the player receives. That's between him and the ATO.
Whether the NBL actually gets of its arse and does this, well thats the $64M question.

Reply #605271 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Yes, players would be offered a starting spot. And they'd move country if they felt the opportunity was right. Starting spot might not be locked in forever, but coaches would certainly indicate that sort of thing to win a recruit.

Reply #605412 | Report this post


ROFLcopter  
Years ago

Lol at this thread.

Loving it

Reply #605416 | Report this post


Ricky  
Years ago

I'm just still salty McKay and JJ weren't what I was expecting..

I was expecting:



and



Reply #605418 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

Yes, players would be offered a starting spot. And they'd move country if they felt the opportunity was right. Starting spot might not be locked in forever, but coaches would certainly indicate that sort of thing to win a recruit.
All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a GUARANTEE.
And even if you wrote it into a player's contract, that they would "start" every game, nobody would be stupid enough to move based purely on some technicality.
Particularly in Jervis' case, where he was already contracted, he would never have moved for some vague notion of "better opportunity."

But put simply, in his case, "better opportunity" and "more money" (and indeed "starting") go hand in hand. At Perth he was the 7th or 8th man. In terms of playing the 5 spot, he was always going to be behind Jawai(/Import) and potentially even Knight. Even with Jawai on moderate minutes, Jervis's time went down last season.
Sure the future plan was probably for him to replace Jawai, and replace Knight with an import PF, but when would that be? Another year, 2, 3?
At brissy he would be at worst 6th in the pecking order, with a consequently decent salary. And with their intention to start him and Kickett, better opportunity went along with that.
Whether he "starts" every game, his minutes would be reduced by the arrival of Bairstow.
You can never predict how much opportunity a player will really get, but you can assess their value to a team and where they sit in order of importance. And worst case, he's still getting more money.

Reply #605427 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Thanks Dazz for stating the obvious

Reply #605434 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

The original statement was made in the context of Jervis moving and his motivation. At best, you're making an irrelevant nit-pick

Players know it's not a contractual guarantee but it's certainly something that coaches use to recruit and it's a strong factor in a player's decision making. Players would look at competition at their position, future targets for their position and so on.

All I'm saying is that there is no such thing as a GUARANTEE.
Which is such pedantry that there is no point posting it.

Jervis would absolute have moved for a better opportunity and chance to start rather than be behind Knight. Lemanis would have absolutely used Jervis' Knight situation and the opportunities in Brisbane to sell him on the move.

Reply #605458 | Report this post


Dazz  
Years ago

The original statement was made in the context of Jervis moving and his motivation. At best, you're making an irrelevant nit-pick
No, the original statement was made in the context of a claim that Jervis was not getting more money.
As I said, Perth was limited in what they could pay Jervis by the "5 under $400k" rule.
If Brisbane had told him "you will still be the '7th man' and you will actually get LESS money here because we have a different spread of players, but hey I promise to 'start' you" he would not have moved.
Even if he WAS some kind of retard, I doubt Perth would have released him.
Which is such pedantry that there is no point posting it
I'd agree accept you seem to need the obvious pointed out.
Obviously anybody trying to recruit anyone is going to claim the grass is greener, but you're claiming basketballers are gullible fools who are easily sucked in by such nonsense.

The only reason I need to "nit pick" is because you keep claiming I'm wrong then basically re-stating what I've already said. If anyone is being a nit-picking pedant, you need to look in the mirror.

As I said, OBVIOUSLY players move for better opportunity, and OBVIOUSLY the new team will claim to offer greener pastures (and just as obviously the existing club would try to counter that) and OBVIOUSLY the player has to use their best judgement.
What I have said from the start, and stand by, is that Jervis would not have requested to be released and moved across the country for the same (or in fact less) money and some vague promises.

Reply #605473 | Report this post


Southern Joe  
Years ago

I don't see why any player's salary should be made public. I can't go into a public domain site and see anyone's salary here.

I'd say let the NBL work out what each club paid out in salaries by years' end and publish the tax findings ala an annual report type of scenario.

Reply #605617 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

I don't see why any player's salary should be made public.
I don't see why putting the ball through the basket should increase teams' scores.

Reply #605622 | Report this post


Southern Joe  
Years ago

Are you serious?

You want to compare a private matter like what someone earns to a score that people witness for themselves?

Reply #605632 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

I want to compare things that are in the rules to things that are in the rules.

Reply #605633 | Report this post


Nonanon  
Years ago

I think Dazz talks in code and you need to only read the words in CAPS. Let me translate...

"LESS WAS OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY"

Reply #605634 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Jervis would not have requested to be released and moved across the country for the same (or in fact less) money and some vague promises.
I'm saying that it's certainly possible and that "You are our projected starter" is far, far from a vague promise to a player. Roles, minutes and opportunities are serious factors for players. Those plus playing environment will often outweigh payrises.

Reply #605638 | Report this post


Southern Joe  
Years ago

@koberulz

You can draw the strawman all you want. I'm talking about a private matter like a person's earnings.

This isn't a playstation game where we know "made up" salaries for the benefit of swapping players around. Its a matter for the club involved, NBL, & any independent regulatory body the NBL wants to impose. (& the ATO , of course).

If the NBL proves that ANY team is cheating, or needs to pay luxury tax, let them sort it out & we enjoy the game.

Reply #605643 | Report this post


koberulz  
Years ago

You can draw the strawman all you want.
That's not even what a strawman is.

Reply #605645 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Serio: Tourism photography and videography
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 7:59 pm, Thu 28 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754