Previous topic and discussion on this

sorry didn't see that :(

36ers aren't paying him anywhere near $500k lol. As has been said many many times, he has deals with Under Armor and some undies company. UA would be giving him a significant $$$ portion

Actually, this COULD be a huge problem for the 6's.
The Soft Cap calculations are supposed to be based on deemed salary. If he is making all that money from endorsements, what are the NBL going to deem his salary to be?

Whilst I don't know enough to say whether this is the right move for Ferguson, it does occur to me that a lot of potentially talented young guys are wasting the start of their careers playing college ball.
The irony is, that if they are going to make it to the NBA, and get big $ endorsements, its not such a big deal. But if you are going to spend what's left of your career playing in secondary leagues, for a lot less money, then those 4 years could have been worth a decent amount.

He should see if there are any options in SEABL , to match his ability

Actually, this COULD be a huge problem for the 6's.

If Ferguson's $500K counts against the cap clearly they would be well over it. It shouldn't make any difference if the Sixers are only paying a portion of it the lot should count against the cap.

$800K+ on Randle & Ferguson right there, the only question is how much luxury tax they should have to pay.

Just another big question mark. We have to wait and see how the NBL actually implements this. It's a freakin minefield, and I really have no idea.
If one of the stars of the league was getting say a salary package of $100k, and $400k in endorsements from a team sponsor, we'd have no problem saying that should be assessed at $500k. But is that fair for an under-performing kid like Ferguson?

This is new territory, because I don't think NBL players have any genuine endorsement deals like this?

A player receiving a contribution from a sponsor or entity generally with an interest to assist a club pay for a player, that should be part of the cap.

For example: Let's say Vilis decides to help 36ers pay for some of Randle's pay packet (he might do some adverts on TV for Vilis), but if he joined another club instead - Vilis wouldn't pay him.

In contrast....

A player having an endorsement deal which is independent of the club should not go towards the salary cap.

For example, if Ferguson went to Melbourne or Sydney or wherever, he would still have his paypacket from UA regardless.

Last word is redundant...

I take your point KET, but where do you draw the line?
And besides, what it is supposed to come down to, is an independent assessment. How does that even work?

IMO players commercial deals shouldn't count against the cap if it can be shown the deal is independent from the club or the business in question is genuinely engaging the player to promote their brand.

If you do it otherwise, you are putting a restriction on players' ability to sign independent commercial deals, which probably isn't legal, and is a deterrent to NBL clubs signing quality talent, which the league wouldn't want to hinder.

He may have signed his endorsement deal prior to signing with the 36ers.

He wouldn't have an endorsement deal if he wasn't playing somewhere. I think it's pretty obvious the endorsement deal is tied up with the 36ers to some degree as we're taking a huge risk in signing a high school kid which is why we're only paying a portion of his contract.

Not too many teams out there would take the risk the 36ers just have especially assuming a no cut clause in the contract too.

It was always a bad idea for any team that is meant to care about winning games he was never going to produce regular import numbers and the 36ers should've spent their money more wisely but this looks more like Joey doing favours for a mate or two.

I don't think it's obvious at all. The deal is about this kid's future more than the now, companies are getting in early. Whether he was playing in Adelaide or elsewhere is unlikely to be relevant to them.

Taking a huge risk in signing a high school kid which is why we're only paying a portion of his contract.

To begin with, we're not paying a "portion" of his contract, we're paying his full contract.

The salary cap may see his value differently - but until we have a clue how the NBL will work it, we need to stop putting all the figures together pretending the 36ers are paying $500k to Ferguson. They're not. They may be overpaying, but not to that extent.

Zodiac, I'd imagine the UA deal had more to do with him entering the NBA next year as a first round pick after one year abroad - having generated some exposure for the brand internationally - than it did with anything the fourth(?) most popular sports team in a city of just over a million people, playing in a league with relatively poor media exposure, are doing

Unless it could be proven that the Sixers somehow orchestrated the deal and that no other team in the NBL or Europe (or China) could possibly have done the same, then the only thing that should count towards the cap is the amount that's on his Sixers contract. And seeing as though Under Armour themselves have sponsored both Brandon Jennings and Emmanuel Mudiay during similar sojourns, I'd imagine that would be a pretty tough thing to prove.

I don't really get why this is so hard to understand? Paul, Isaac, help me out with explaining it?

If we're paying his full contract it means Under Armour's sponsorship is with the 36ers and thus proves my point.

So now the 36ers aren't paying his contract? You've been getting very defensive about this point but the facts are he's being paid $500K to play for us this season and it should fully count against the cap.

twenty four,

Of course but at the same time no way UA would be paying him a cent this year if he decided not to play anywhere this season and just took a year off. Even if they had to pay overs the following year when he gets drafted so be it but I have no doubt his UA money is conditional on him playing somewhere not Adelaide specifically.

It's just 'good fortune' on the 36ers part that they're only paying a portion of his contract but whatever they're paying is too much really.

On your last point I don't think that needs to be proved at all. It's irrelevant. What if say Melbourne United are only paying a portion of David Andersen's big money deal and a sponsor (his or the teams should be irrelevant) is paying the vast majority of it? What if MU were able to lure another big sponsor to look after Goulding's contract? $1 million worth of talent they might only be paying say $300K of it. That should be against the rules. I know it goes on it always has but doesn't mean it's right.

Why even bother having a salary cap a big city team like Melb or Sydney is always going to be able to attract infinite more possibilities for big money sponsors than an Adelaide or even a Cairns or Illawarra. If you allow all that to go on (which it does and always has to some degree) it debases the whole concept of trying to create an even playing field.

KET,

This will be my last post on the subject otherwise it will continue going around in circles.

Ferguson would be getting $x figure from the 36ers. That's his full contract.

Ferguson would also be getting $x figure from other endorsements, that's an entirely different contract which has absolutely nothing to do with the 36ers.

UA aren't paying the 36ers. UA aren't paying Ferguson on behalf of the 36ers. UA aren't sponsorsing the 36ers.

UA and the 36ers have nothing to do with each other.

The UA deal for Ferguson pre existed any contract Ferguson had with the 36ers

Ferguson was signed to UA just as Nike signs athletes

Lebron's Nike contract doesn't count towards the Cavs salary as its not salary it is personal sponsorship

Elvis Presley made millions of dollars last year from record sales and he is dead. So it is possible to have income despite not doing anything to earn it. UA would be banking Ferguson for the future and a few 000k to them on that punt isnt a big deal

Remember Exum had a shoe deal before declaring as well and he "could'nt " play anywhere

so you have seen the contracts and know his agent?

I look forward to you giving us the date of when UA contacted Ferguson and the date that he signed to the 36ers

Zodiac, are you saying UA are paying for some of his contract with the 36ers? If that is the case you are correct, it would count under the cap.

However, if he has a playing contract with the 36ers, and a separate endorsement contract with UA that wasn't brokered by the 36ers then it won't count under the cap.

I don't have to prove anything, you are the one calling me out so back your position up

On another note , google is your friend

I am waiting for you to provide your proof. You seem to know a lot more than other people.

17 mins pg, 5 ppg

Are they not running enough plays for this guy or what. 5 shot attempts a game. Been pretty underwhelming.

Wright is a flog.

They are playing him like that on purpose go look at Brandon Jennings stats in Italy when he played there for a year not great doesn't matter he is in the NBA and this kid is a lottery pick he will be in the league laughing at all of you in due time. NBL is shit why risk injury or exposing yourself in an NBL game when you will be making millions next year yea no thanks.

Basically been invisible in the games I've seen.

Zodiac, I don't think you're very familiar with the concept of contracts. That, combined with adding some ideas bordering on absurdity isn't helping your cause either.

So if he told UA "You know what I think I'm just going to take a year off this year" I would bet that contract would be torn up quick smart so it would have something to do with the 36ers (or whatever team it was) and I'd go further to suggest there would've been direct contact between UA and the 36ers over the finer details i.e. no cut clause.

The problem is, you think Paul's scenario #1 is occurring because you think UA are endorsing Ferguson on the basis of him playing for the 36ers. As i've addressed, without a doubt that's not the basis for UA endorsing him.

Now, if scenario #1 was occurring, that would be an absolute screw up by the 36ers. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot of the highest order.

I'm not ruling out the 36ers being that stupid, but it would really be absurd and i'm not the kind of person who naturally assumes the absurd possibility has taken place over the rational possibility.

Paul's scenario #2 is how any rational minded lawyers would have done it particularly given the intentions of UA. Ferguson would have had a playing contract with the 36ers of $x, a UA endorsement of $x in a different contract and an undies company endorsement of $x in a different contract. They are reported to be around $500k combined. Combined in the context was reported as multiple contracts not one.

Ofcourse there's also the obvious reasons why UA has a separate contract with him: ie, it's a multi-year deal, the 36ers contract is a single year deal.

Seems unlikely you can have UA sponsorship at highschool or college , so unlikely it came prior to signing with 36ers

And yet again, so many people arguing in circles and missing the point.

The soft cap is meant to be assessed against the deemed salaries, as determined by an independent committee. So a team that thinks they've got a bargain, may still find itself over the cap.
Debates about whether endorsements or other stuff should be included, and presumably why the players will be independently valued. It all comes down to how these salaries are assessed.

What are you talking about Dazz? Most of us have addressed that point.

Infact I made the point that it might actually go hand in hand

Thought he was signed with Arizona , later, signed with UA while taking the overseas route to the NBA...