I'm willing to bet Larry needs the Bullets and Melbourne off his personal books before any of these AFL clubs are willing to talk. Didn’t Jeff Kennett make a mention of the NBL’s current governance problems?

What do those on here think they should be evaluated at? The range quoted seems a bit high but I have no idea what their books look like or what a club of that nature would be valued at in the open market.

Free isn't a fair market evaluation just because it is making a loss. It seems that some here scoff at the suggested figure from LK without much awareness as to what an actual fair figure would be.

"Nobody wanted to start a team in Brisbane, so we started it ourselves, and despite the fact they've been a mess on and off the court, we reckon five million dollars is a bargain" - LK in a fever state, apparently.

I think you could enter AFL-club discussions on governance saying "I've sold down Melbourne but with Brisbane we think it's wise to give the fledgling club another year to build the fanbase and get off the bottom of the ladder before hitting the market."

Lemanis can then surely have a bit better luck next season around and put them in a nicer sales position.

Perhaps LK fears the increases of the last 12 months (NBL crowds, TV, etc) will be hard to replicate again this coming season.

Brisbane is slightly different as it's NBL run, isn't it, not a personal stake of Larry's?

I agree that if you can get something for it, great, but I think any statements along the lines of bias and dodgy dealings should be waived easily away

On the one hand you understand wanting to recover some of the money invested, but if your primary goal is the strength of the league and a lot that comes down to clubs having a sustainable wealth/investment, isn't a 5-10million transaction effectively $5-10mil less any consortium has to run Brisbane? And in that sense, might cut out a level of potential investors who simply don't have that figure + the cash needed to run the club.

That's a fair amount of dosh.

Unsure of the difference, but don't the AFL have controlling stakes in the two newer clubs ? (Gold Coast & GWS).
If the NBL/LK run the Bullets only, as LK will sell Melbourne, how is it different to the AFL running those 2 clubs ? Why would the new AFL/NBL teams be so concerned with that, when their current league is already doing it ?

Good point anon re Durant making reference to Brisbane.

He was actually given this response by business partner/manager Rich though, which would lend more weight to the possibility of an ownership stake being offered.

I heard that too it was so random I was shocked for a minute hahaha.

The AFL having a stake in Gold Coast and GWS is not the same as LK owning 2 teams.

1. I think LK has majority or outright control of the 2 teams.
2. The AFL is not owned by 1 wealthy business operator. The AFL is somewhat owned by/ responsible to all clubs.
3. The AFL distributes funds to its clubs. From tv deal, Telstra, NAB and other big ticket sponsors. Don't think the NBL has the revenue to do this.

Until the NBL can get a first rate/ big spending sponsor and an income- generating tv deal, the clubs really have to rely on themselves for their financial viability.

If anything the NBL ownership situation is more like the NRL, in that the NRL want to divest themselves of/ ditch their Gold Coast team.

The NBL needs to stay away from the AFL...

It's not like selling a house.
In reality the NBL might accept comparatively little in actual cash, but at the same time they need to make sure that any potential buyer has deep pockets.