Those 5 wins just feel hollow now. Let's just cut all our guys and recruit a dozen 18 year old development players and watch their progress over the next decade instead.

the only thing missing is a coach with 6 assistants and two chequebooks

They're allowed to "blow" the soft cap. It's professional sport. Every team should be trying to put together the best team they can.

What's tragic is the fact that you want to complain about it: "Oh no, the Sydney Kings are too good for me to handle!"

Are they good to watch? Yes. Then who gives a flying fuck?

Melbourne United have tried to buy a championship each year that they've been in the competition, but they've failed miserably because they insist on the wrong mix of players and a terrible coach. The Perth Wildcats have been buying championships since the early 10s, nabbing imports that the rest of the league couldn't even afford.

The soft cap exists so that teams can buy championships; quit being a little girl about it. Sydney didn't invent buying championships, and most teams who try to do it don't succeed anyway. It still takes cohesion, chemistry and coaching to win the chip.

That is the system of the NBL. 1 year deals and most of the best imports move on after that so it's spend big, win a ring and then off they go

I think Jerkoff underestimates the value an overpowered team has on the league. For instance, teams are already looking to find parity with the Kings,with an ax swinging over heads of Rotnei Clarke, Devin Williams and Michael Holyfield right now. If the competition wasn't so fierce, those players would have no issues. But right now they're being forced to put up or shut up. And that is because they're competing with Kings imports.

And then there is next year to think of. Sydney will have to pay into the league's fund for the underprivileged teams the amount they went over the cap, so will Perth and Melbourne. The uneven playing field of today will be somewhat equalized next year and the entire league will improve because of Sydney's decision to, as you say, "buy a ring".

I still laugh at the notion of "buying a ring". Do you think the teams are put together just to have a bit of fun? This isn't a social league.

I think AngusH's sarcasm says it best:


"Those 5 wins just feel hollow now. Let's just cut all our guys and recruit a dozen 18 year old development players and watch their progress over the next decade instead."

The Kings are yet to play the top teams, so I don't think they have the ring yet.

I don't see the problem. If a team wants to bring quality players into this league then I'm all for it. Spending big doesn't always result in a championship...just look at United.

I like the fact that Sydney are winning games, they have had a rough run since they re entered the league. As long as they aren't going to be getting into financial trouble as a result of spending big on players then I can't see a problem.

It's also good for the NBL as the luxury tax generated will benefit other teams.

They're also bringing talented players to other stadiums which doesn't hurt the league. A few people might show up in Adelaide to see Newley, Blake and Powell, for example.

Agree with Isaac, the potential for drawing fans of the NBA that might not have any interest in the NBL is also pretty big.

@Baller#3 - Agree but I think a big difference with the Kings this year is that they've spent up big on local talent for the long term...

So while it is very likely that we will lose all three of our imports, we still have Newls and Lisch for two more seasons, Cadee for one and a team option on Maric...

Success this season both in a winning games sense and team harmony and actually not being a basketcase team for a change, might actually help with next seasons recruitment as well, being able to add some younger depth in some spots, etc, so it's not all about doing whatever it takes for this season, hopefully that can be spun into future success as well... Which, if you take JvG and Drewie at their words, is what they are striving for...

Oh no ... a team with a big stadium to fill is doing their best to fill it. How dare they.

how would the kings be going if DD was the coach????????

There is more to being a winning team than just players names!!

How many of the Kings players are exceeding expectations?

Cadee having his best yr, Newly winding the clock back, Maric was bagged in the pre season. A happy team with no issues and playing for the coach brings success.

Hater's, pls give the whole team some credit!!!

Good on them for recruiting a really good team.

For all the talent, their early success is really built around their pressure defence. Let's see if they can keep having the same level of success with that as the year unfolds.

Lots of quality teams in the comp this year, I wouldn't be handing anyone the title just yet, even though the Kings have looked great so far.

The NBL is definitely on the up. The other day I got tickets for the Sydney game (nov 12) and its already looking packed.

But when it comes to working out the reasons why the NBL is on the up, we're all speculating really.

I don't have an issue with Sydney using the rules. We're a sub elite sporting code in the NBL. Question is. Are the rules sustainable and in the best long term interests of bball in this country? That I'm not really convinced of either way. I fear not, but not with a great deal of confidence either.

It will be sustainable if they can attract revenue. I guess one of their plans is to make the NBL viewed as a very high-level league in Chinese eyes in particular and capitalise on that. It's definitely worth a try, Chinese basketball fans love a bit of hero worship.

Problem is if they can't get Chines $$ or Aussie broadcasting $$$ the thing will eventually come crashing down, but let's be honest it was in a big hole before LK took over so this is definitely worth a shot.

We've currently got club owners with deep pockets and a league HQ that really puts effort into promoting its product. We've never had that before so touch wood it works out.

Personally, I think the next important step is for league HQ to direct how the game is called so players can show off their skills more. The scrappy nature of the NBL is not going to win over a large number of viewers.

love the above comment!!

Yes, what the OP says is true, but what's the alternative?
As a fan, I like to see the same players stick around, but that pre-supposes the team is competitive. And the simple reality is that the NBL works completely on free-agency, there are no drafts or development zones.
For last year, the Cats looked at what they needed, went out and hired Jawai, Prather (and Kenny) and won a ring. This year, despite coming off a 'ship, we have two new imports (and almost lost Prather.)
In effect every team goes out each season and looks to put the best team they can on the floor.

Have Sydney gone way over the top? Probably, but maybe they assumed a few other teams were going to push the boundaries in a similar manner.

There IS a chronic lack of transparency and accountability about the NBL's new system. At the moment it stinks. But you have to blame the NBL for that. Yes, I can't fathom how Sydney signed 4 Australian stars, PLUS 3 imports, within the rules and without incurring a MASSIVE penalty. And yes, I think it stinks, and should not have been allowed, and IMHO goes against the "spirit" of the new rules, BUT again blame the NBL.
These are the changes the NBL introduced, and its up to them to enforce them, and impose the appropriate penalty "tax".

Personally, I have severe doubts about the integrity of this new system, and I think allowing this stench to hang over the league is a bad move.
But at the end of the day, the NBL has put a system in place, the same for all teams, and to date all we really know for sure is that Sydney are making use of it.

The "advantage" that Perth have, is that they are NOW self-sustaining. So they have a budget and they try to work within that, but its still much higher than say a Cairns or Adelaide. Sydney NEEDED cash tipped in by their new owner, and where do you draw the line on that?
Should they purposely have only tipped in enough to be mildly competitive without being threatening????

Now don't get me wrong. Some people have their heads in the clouds with whole "oh people will come to watch their team get the shit kicked out of them by ex NBA players." There is simply no way this is of any direct benefit to any team but Sydney.
But why should it?
Sydney's owners are responsible for making their team as good as they possibly can, just as others have been doing.
And, I do come back to the point that for the NBL to get traction in Australia as a televised (or streamed) sport, it needs a strong following in our biggest city. So in that respect is does indirectly benefit other teams.

I agree with Paul. I think development of the NBL to a profitable product is a process, and I think this is a stage of the process and given the way LK is operating, I wouldn't judge it on the way the NBL has failed in the past.

If the NBL is operating like this in the medium/longer term future, then much like in the past, teams will fall under their own unsustainable weight and other teams might fall as a result of being noncompetitive.

However, if this is a stage which drives the medium/longer term future to greater capital investment (perhaps from Chinese or other investors), greater revenue and greater interest then it may well be incredibly beneficial and sustainable.

On the assumption that this is a stage of the process in achieving the above, I am fine with teams - particularly big city markets like Melbourne and Sydney increasing the talent in the league and paying the $$$ to do so (so long as they are capable of it).

What I won't be fine with, is if in the medium/long future, it's always rich v poor, rich far outspending the poor in rosters. That would defeat the purpose of the league and competitive sport generally and you might as well have a finals series between the two-four richest clubs. Clubs needs to do their best to be competitive, and each club needs to be capable of resourcing to match each other when it comes to paying players.

Agree KET. That would just be a repeat of the 2000s most likely. I think it's also important the league understands the difference between standard and spectacle.

A lot more money is being spent this season but the games aren't any better to watch. In fact, for a most part they've been scrappy. Money needs to be spent wisely, and that means either in promoting the league or making the league better to watch.

First thing in making it better to watch is 12 min q's plus refs need to be trained on allowing some fouls and travels to go uncalled ala NBA.

Calling all these cheap fouls on stars and basically sitting them on the bench. GTFO refs, you're drunk.

If the NBL actually made good on being transparent, it would clear a lot of things up... If the Kings (and Melbourne, let's not keep leaving them out of the conversation) are paying well over, then they get taxed... A lot of the hate is coming from the assumption that they're doing a dodgy, which considering what has gone on in the NBL in the past, it's actually a fair assumption, and the NBL's lack of communication and burying their head in the sand/ignoring it, is just making it look highly suspicious...

They need to set the contract review committee and be clear on how much tax will be distributed and when... No point in waiting until next season for teams that might suffer THIS season...

I don't know if 12min quarters are the way to go, because if it keeps being scrappy and soft useless fouls being called, then you're just going to have development players playing in the last 4-6 minutes, so the refs need guidance and consistently on how to call a fair, consistent and exciting game, that's the biggest thing holding the league back atm in my opinion...

"First thing in making it better to watch is 12 min q's plus refs need to be trained on allowing some fouls and travels to go uncalled ala NBA.

Calling all these cheap fouls on stars and basically sitting them on the bench. GTFO refs, you're drunk.
"

Why do people think 12 minute quarters are the answer? If a game is unwatchable, another 8 minutes - or half an hour TV time - of it wont make it any better.

I think they need to change the rulings to allow the offense to shine a bit more. It doesn't have to be big changes, but something that allows someone like Torrey Craig to soar through the air and feel like the rules protect him from being permanently injured or completely obstructed from it.

@Ricky, there's plenty not being called at the moment. Travels, three seconds, illegal screens galore. What needs to be done is to require a higher standard of refereeing across the board. There is too much inconsistency, which is what makes it most difficult for players to get going.
There are too many soft fouls being called.

It's wasy to suggest the players should adapt to the refereeing on a game by game (sometimes quarter by quarter) basis, but give them a break: a lot of the time, they're trying to adapt to a different game plan, or trying to stop being pushed around by Nate Jawai or AJ Ogilvy!

Allowing players to travel in the name of a spectacle is just silly. Great basketball can be (and is) played within the rules.

Referring to the topic of the OP, it's only tragic if the Kings are able to buy a ring by cheating. The only way I can see them to be cheating would be if they don't have five players whose total salaries are $400K or less. Hill, Garlepp, maybe Cadee... then who? Prewster isn't part of the roster, officially, is he? Wittington? He's a D-League guy, so could be on a lot less than Powell and Blake would be. How much is Khazzouh on? After that, you're starting to get into the guys everyone thinks are on the BIG money.

It's not about calling more fouls or less fouls, there's not a big difference in fouls per min from NBL to NBA (about 3/40 mins) it's about being more consistent about what is and isn't called.

You want players to know how what will be called each time they step on the floor, then they learn to defend a certain way, rather than just pushing the limits to see what will be called each night as many NBL teams do.

I agree with ME's last para, it's about allowing the offensive player space to use their skills by penalising defenders who get up-and-in, while allowing them to play positional D without being whistled for soft ones. Then you get a cleaner and more attractive game.

^ Well said, sir.

I think rules and reffing can deal with scrappy behaviour. Call the game in a way that keeps the defence honest, allows the offence that little bit of extra space and not have to deal with that extra bit of physicality impeding movement/ability to lead to the ball.

I support the 12 minute quarters though. To begin with,stats are a huge thing in sports, particularly basketball. Blahblah Westbrook triple doubles etc. It's good for building a narrative. I also don't think extra minutes = extra junk time, I actually have always considered it to be extra substance time.

To me, there is that aspect that 40 minutes is too short, I think 48 is ideal to be honest. I'd also like to see introduction of 20/30 second timeouts, maybe two at the expense of a full time out each. Full timeouts draw out a game and kills atmosphere on occasion, 20 second timeouts tend to enhance IMO.

haha, I expected nothing less here than misdirected anger and vitriol toward me for making that statement. No one is saying they shouldn't seek a championship, but when you blow the salary cap this much, you've got to question it. Also - Get a life, halfwits. it's just a comment, no need to wet your panties and run to daddies nipple because someone has a different opinion to you as this site is most famously good for, you're all just angry little children by the sounds of it.

you don't like it when people question the "system".

If the NBL actually made good on being transparent, it would clear a lot of things up... If the Kings (and Melbourne, let's not keep leaving them out of the conversation) are paying well over, then they get taxed... A lot of the hate is coming from the assumption that they're doing a dodgy, which considering what has gone on in the NBL in the past, it's actually a fair assumption, and the NBL's lack of communication and burying their head in the sand/ignoring it, is just making it look highly suspicious...

They need to set the contract review committee and be clear on how much tax will be distributed and when... No point in waiting until next season for teams that might suffer THIS season...

Exactly... They could be doing everything by the book but it's the perceived wrong doing and their lack of action that is causing the damage... If they even came out and gave a deadline for when it was going to happen that would be something...

I think they're shify and they're begging the NBL not to expose them... they're prob looking for ways to not pay as much as they should be in luxury tax.

We've never had club owners with deep pockets before?

Cairns, Sydney, Brisbane - just off the top of my head, at stages had club owners with deep pockets. But when the money dried up....

it will be funny to see King's when the money dries up. Hopefully they're buried for good. Maybe go back to the Razorbacks, who would be great to see back in the league Not this cocky, rubbish "We are kings" garbage. Terrible franchise.

In my reading of the rules you are allowed four players on either marquee or imports, so if the Kings are paying four players $300g each less 50% reduction that ends up $600g

"We've never had club owners with deep pockets before?"

I'd advise reading what I said again, Snooch.

"We've currently got club owners with deep pockets and a league HQ that really puts effort into promoting its product. We've never had that before so touch wood it works out."

I'm just waiting for the second Melbourne team, second NZ team to join and the Newcastle Falcons, Canberra Cannons and Tassie Devils to come back.

So it's the combination of both that is the point of difference? Fair enough, touch wood it does work.

Yeah exactly, we really need it to work this time.

Yes, we've had owners with deep pockets before, but that has not been matched by the league.
The Cowan Dragons fiasco being a case in point. He puts in the money, wins a ring, then cracks the shits and bails. Whether you blame him, the league, or both, its a bad look when your reigning champions don't bother coming back.

Things like TV deals are huge mutual commitments. No network (be it FTA, subscriber, or web) wants to effectively spend money advertising and promoting a show that may not be available next year. Hence LK's commitment to the league is important.

Suck it up. The cats and Breakers have DOMINATED the last 5 odd years with sprinkles from other team.

The Kings are now the BEASTS of the league. If this team stays healthy then they will easily take out the comp.

You cant compare them to United last year. The start United had was the biggest smoke and mirrors start i have ever seen. Landing 3s 2 feet behind the arc with a hand in your face was always going to dry up and everyone knew it.

Thats all United did, jack up 3 after 3 and won so many close games.

Sydney are completely different. We have EVERYTHING covered. Inside presence on offense in Powell and Maric, slashes in Newley and Lisch and deadly shooters in Cadee , Lisch and now Blake who is also a fantastic creator for his team mates.

This team has every base covered and most impressive is there D.

As i said, if they stay healthy, they win it easy.

In my reading of the rules you are allowed four players on either marquee or imports, so if the Kings are paying four players $300g each less 50% reduction that ends up $600g, leaving $500g left before they are over the cap for at present six other players. They might be over the cap but it ain't by much.

My understanding is that Marquess can now only be locals, which on its own I think is a good move.

IF a team had ZERO imports, they could have 4 local marquees. The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.
So straight up, that only helps if your 4th highest paid local player is worth significantly more than $300k.
But Sydney have 3 imports, so currently only one player is a marquee.

One thing I don't know, is whether they will keep all 4 when Khazza returns? I assume he would be on injury waiver at the moment, so I assume his salary doesn't count?
SO maybe when he comes back they drop Powell? That would allow them to move a 2nd local into Marquee status.

But it still all comes back to the point that we are waiting on this "committee" to do its job and announce the numbers.

oh, that looks great :-(
btw, I meant to say "keep all 3?"

The Sydney fans are getting cocky, the Perth fans frustrated and the 36ers fans confident enough to take on the world one minute, pissed off the next.

People just hate to see a team they don't barrack for winning ;). Perth has copped it for ages. Kings fans finally have something to brag about and are letting us all know about it lol

IF a team had ZERO imports, they could have 4 local marquees. The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.
So straight up, that only helps if your 4th highest paid local player is worth significantly more than $300k.

SO maybe when he comes back they drop Powell? That would allow them to move a 2nd local into Marquee status.

Can you do that mid-season?

Tempo, you don't win anything easy you muffin top.

Does it? Is there any rule that says the 300k marquee player can't be the highest-paid, and the 150k player the lowest-paid?

Can you do that mid-season?

Those numbers don't even go close to matching the ones in your earlier post.

@koberulz, how it works is: (for example) marquee players A, B and C are given deemed market values (DMV) of $400K, $200K and $500K.

In this case, the first marquee player's salary is deemed to be $150K. It doesn't matter whose salary it is. The second marquee player's salary is deemed to be $200K, irrespective of who it is. The third marquee player's salary is deemed to be $250K, irrespective of who it is. If a club wished to nominate a fourth marquee player, that player's salary would be $300K.

So, the total salary of the three players (as counted toward the soft salary cap) would be $600K, irrespective of whether player A, B, or C was marquee player 1, 2 or 3.

So, the club may be paying them that $1.1M, or somewhat less than what their deemed values are (and a private sponsor paying them hundreds of thousands to lick stamps, or something), but if the NBL's Contract Review Committee has deemed their values to be those I've mentioned, they are worth $600K to the salary cap.

This is what @Dazz was trying to present in his most recent post, he just did it inelegantly.

There are two salient points here, in regards to the Kings, and also in respect to another of the salary cap rules.

The first is that the Kings can only nominate one player's salary as a marquee player, as they have three imports (restricted players.) Teams can have a total of four imports and marquee players, for salary cap purposes.

The second is a question, rather than a point, which is: can a team claim a marquee player's DMV in their calculations of five players whose salaries must be no more than $400K? This would leave $250K between four players, and may be the only way Sydney could come close to fitting those five player salaries under $400K.

Yeah, well that's another thing, isn't it. The Kings are definitely flouting that one. Is Prewster on their roster? There's nothing on their website to say that he is (yes, Wookie, I know you can't trust a team's website for all your information, but they're up to date with everything else that's going on in Kingsville.) They haven't released a statement saying he is, either. And they'ver released statements about everything else they've done.

Those numbers don't even go close to matching the ones in your earlier post.

The first counts at $150k, the 2nd at $200k, 3rd @ $250k, and the 4th @ $300k.

So for 1 marquee its $150k, 2 its $350k, 3 its $600k.

The other thing we just don't know, if and when it happens, is how these "deemed" salaries will be assessed.
One of the problems with the points system, was that an American straight out of College, a guy who's been playing D-League for 10 years, an NBA veteran, or an import who's been playing in the SBL, were all 10 points. Then the best local NBL players were all 10 points, but a Brock Motum coming out of Europe was only 9.
So are they going to do something similar with these "salaries"? All imports are worth $X, etc?
How do you value somebody who's last gig was $1M+ in the NBA?

^^^ +1

If any rich dude gave a shit about the 6ers, and they had a loaded roster, most the clowns on here would be singing a very different tune.

This has become a virtual replica of the Gaze thread. I think if that's referred to, you can see what's actually indicative of the view by hoopsters.

This is the NBL we are talking about, because of the usual dire circumstances over the last decade and a half, most of us have an interest in the NBL doing well. Not just our own club of choice.

Exactly. If you really love your club, you'll have the best interests of the league at heart as well because your club ain't winning too many games without it!