He's trying to sell his part of Melb Utd for this very reason.

Bullets ownership is a bit different in that the NBL are propping them up until a buyer can found. What other conflicts are there surrounding LK's ownership structures?

Those two you mentioned are massive issues together with who actually owns the league?

He's also has his finger in the pie in Adelaide does he not?

Yes but that's the reality of where the league is at right now. Lk owned Utd before he took over the league. Without his ownership you would be seeing a much poorer version of the NBL, where there would be no chance at all of any AFL interest.

Its not a perfect scenario to be in, but when you have no sponsors, no TV deal and poorly run clubs with small crowds then having LK come in and revamping the whole league the way he has, and now the AFL want a piece of it.

The governance surrounding this is to do with LK now on-selling Utd and Brisbane.

Bitching.

The NBL was on life support until LK entered - the fact that AFL clubs are even remotely interested is born out of LKs investment and management in the first place, it's not like it’s a lost opportunity.

If you’re going to invest into something, you’d have every right to have control to make sure it’s a success. He’s not here to chuck money in for another independent group of people to play around with as they feel like - it would be terrible business. LK dictatorship is to be expected.

Melbourne and Brisbane markets are important to have teams - he’s looking to sell - which is good - but to the right people ie those with a solid business proposition capable of keeping it going strong. This is also a right move to make.

I’m not sure how/if he does have a stake in Adelaide and Illawarra. I thought that Adelaide with Grant Kelly was in a more powerful financial position, I hope I’m not wrong in that. I know that 36ers major sponsors tend to me NBL or Melb Utd sponsors - it does appear that LK has been helping out in some way, I was hoping that was more in the absence of a major 36ers sponsor than out of weak/vulnerable finances.

I can’t imagine it’s not ideal for LK to be propping up Hawks and 36ers if that is the case, but it’s not good for my club or for him if he lets Adelaide struggle so it’s hard to make a complaint there.

Given these factors, the best thing LK can do is to have agreed set of rules in respect of on court and recruiting off court that’s agreed by all and enforced independently and he controls the rest through delegation to lift the NBL in a way that attracts investors to buy Melbourne, Brisbane etc so that the conflict of interest diminishes and his control becomes more about operations.

Calling the NBL a 'treehouse' and a 'dodgy venture' is unacceptable. The NBL's is as professional as its ever been and as business savvy as its ever been. Compare what we have with LK to what we had with the clubs running the NBL after the demerger. LK is the best thing that has happened to the NBL's ownership/governance/future.

And I'll give you a help, here are some things he doesn't get credit for:

Brisbane. Plans to bring back the bullets were already well down the track, including proposals that would not have required league ownership.

Prior to LK getting involved, Brisbane were never coming back. How many times did a consortium show interest in the Bullets before falling over at the final hurdle.

Fox Sports wanted a Brisbane team in the league and made that a requirement to continuing to give the NBL air time. LK made it happen. Call it a placeholder team if you like, but without them there would be no Fox coverage. Now he is after a buyer to take over. Good luck there, but dont discredit what LK has had to do to keep this league running - and running well.

Since iiNet koberulz

BA reportedly wanted a naming rights sponsor so desperately they essentially gave iiNet the rights for nothing. Post-BA the league has held out until someone was willing to actually provide sponsorship in return for the naming rights.

The word "proper" was in my original sentence for a reason.

The AFL governance comparison is totally different as the Owners/Shareholders of the league are actually the clubs rather than a single individual or person who then in turn owns clubs.

Also the clubs at anytime can vote to remove the commission in the AFL to hold them to account and in a private entity like the NBL that can't happen.

Haha Koberulz smashed down with the facts and goes with the reportedly line, should've just gone with sauces said mate, would've given you some credibility in that arguement

Sick of reading the ill-informed takes on the "governance issue".

He owned Melbourne United first, the league almost fell, he then props up the league but does not sell of Melbourne United because no one would buy it yet. He brings the league and the team to a level where people will actually buy it, he puts it up for sale, but then fans complain because fucking "waa waaa he owns the league and a team!"

LK has literally put his money where his mouth is. He's propping up teams and he is not making a single dollar from any of this. He is not gaining anything. He's basically running the NBL as a charity. How anyone even dare speak ill of him is beyond me. Australian basketball fans should be building shrines to the guy, not bemoaning him because the transition hasn't been absolutely perfect in every minute little detail.

IF AFL teams wont buy in, bugger them. They had absolutely zero interest before LK took over so to pretend LK is the reason they wont do it now is absurd because his work is the reason they took an interest in the first place.

And now to mock some of your comments:

"For all those who love to prattle on about everything LK has supposedly done for the league,
explain to me what exactly we have now, that we wouldn't have without him?"

I'll begin - a league.


"Even assuming that without him the NBL made no changes.

And I'll give you a help, here are some things he doesn't get credit for:

Brisbane. Plans to bring back the bullets were already well down the track, including proposals that would not have required league ownership."

There were also plans to take man back to the moon. Plans don't mean a lot. LK put his money out there and did it. If he didn't, we'd still be talking about plans.


"Better quality" or any other subjective judgements.
There's no doubt that allowing Sydney to massively overspend, along with bigger spends from United, Perth, and Adelaide has attracted a better standard of import. So what? I don't love my team any greater because of that, its not something LK gets direct credit for anyway, except for the rule change, and we have yet to see if that's sustainable."

So he doesn't get credit for it despite bringing about the changes that made it happen? Wanna run that by me again champ?



"Saving Townsville. Well yeah, didn't take long to break that promise."

I'm gonna bet you're one of those ones who doesn't like LK owning teams, yet you think he should've saved Townsville, which basically would have meant he would have had to do what he did with Brisbane, and hence would have set off little whingers like yourself. NEWS FLASH - Townsville dropped the Crocs. It wasn't working. When a limb grows gangrene you eventually cut it off for the health of the rest of the body. Townsville was gangrene.


"Shared Services. Yep, never happened."

Not everything works as planned. And sometimes when you're actually in a leadership role you have to change decisions and prioritize some things over others.


"FTA coverage. Not sure what we would have got without LK, but considering he promised to get every game on FTA, he's fallen a long way short."

LK Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever promised every game on FTA. No one in their right mind would ever think that would be a possibility. AFL doesn't have it, we'll never have it. To think he promised it is dumb, and to think he fell short because he didn't deliver it is even dumber. THE AFL DOESN"T EVEN HAVE IT!

"Expansion. Well yeah, three years of him talking shit, and still nothing to show for it"

Except Brisbane coming back, Sydney shoring up, Melbourne building crowds, Adelaide building crowds, and all the major cities doing better with crowds, increased viewership, increased interest from businesses, increased sponsorship, AFL teams interested in buying in, and big consortiums buying teams like New Zealand. Yeah, nothing to show for it. And the fact that SE Melbourne is back next year is nothing to show for it too.

"The NBL has its biggest ever FTA presence"
Yep, finally confirmed, Koberrulz is smoking crack

I just feel like there are a lot of sore regional fans who just can't hack the fact that they haven't got money behind them. They'd rather watch the league devolve to SEABL level so that their teams can compete as opposed to it continuing to improve but possibly without them.

As for the problems of the NBL that still exist, we were never going to fix 20 years of problems in 3 years. But it is obvious to anyone who isn't still butt hurt about Townsville that the league has made ground and is now in a position where FTA stations will actually look at them - and they weren't before LK>

If and when a decent FTA deal is brokered the NBL will be well on its way to fixing the financial problems of sustainability. It has always been about TV revenue and the league was never going to be sustainable without it and the sponsorships that brings. You might want to wait until a deal is announced before you decide that LK has failed to make the league sustainable, because he may only be a few short steps from doing so.

But please, continue to cry that your bush team was unable to sign Bogut or can't get the big imports. Apparently your one team is more important than the whole league and the direction it is heading.

The other aspect of the TV situation is that the NBL controls the broadcast rights to the Boomers/Team USA games at Etihad next year, giving them the ability to package them with the NBL rights.

I have just read this thread [and others where BASKETBALL FANS derride LK]. Honestly, some of these comments and well written express what might be genuine concerns. Seemdto have been written by those with something, other than muscle, between their ears.

IF YOU HATE AS BAD AS YOU SEEM TO, HOW COME YOU HAVE ALL THIS "INSIDER" KNOWLEDGE OF THE NBL? Why do you stress so much over what you hate. Just leave it alone.
I am not a huge fan of brussells sprouts but I do not spend my time searching for forums so that I can tell the world how they are ruining the world we live in. If I did, and you read one of my posts re sprouts and how I hate them [and their owner, prob that awful LK character, the one who ruined the NBL] you would no doubt would think, "What a tosser". Guess what we all think of you.
The truth is that you all should be watching AFL, NRL, RU, volleyball... F*** off and let the rest of us enjoy. Sure, there are improvements that can still be made. There will always be improvements that can still be made. I see that they are being made. and will continue to be made.
Please, just go away!
Now how's that for a mad rant????

I have just read this thread [and others where BASKETBALL FANS deride LK]. Honestly, some of these comments are well written & express what might be genuine concerns. Seem to have been written by those with something, other than muscle, between their ears.

BUT.....

IF YOU HATE AS BAD AS YOU SEEM TO, HOW COME YOU HAVE ALL THIS "INSIDER" KNOWLEDGE OF THE NBL? Why do you stress so much over what you hate. Just leave it alone.
I am not a huge fan of brussells sprouts but I do not spend my time searching for forums so that I can tell the world how they are ruining the world we live in. If I did, and you read one of my posts, re sprouts and how I hate them, [and their owner, prob that awful LK character, the one who ruined the NBL] you would no doubt think, "What a tosser". Guess what we all think of you.
The truth is that you all should be watching AFL, NRL, RU, volleyball... F*** off and let the rest of us enjoy. Sure, there are improvements that can still be made. There will always be improvements that can still be made. I see that they ARE being made. and will continue to be made.
Please, just go away!
Now how's that for a mad rant????

That's an absurd argument.

Nobody is criticising the way the NBL is run because they hate basketball and think it should die, they're criticising it because they love basketball, want to see the league thrive, and are concerned that its current leadership will at best prevent that, and at worst result in the league collapsing.

Regardless of which side of the LK argument people in this thread fall on, I'm entirely sure everyone wants the league to succeed.

Kobe, I think they want the league to succeed under certain specific conditions and they are blinded to the many ways the league has built success recently. I also think some people have a different picture of what success is. Some, like me, think big crowds in big cities, increased revenue and TV presence is a measure of success, while others seem to gauge success on how quick we can add teams and whether we can keep regional teams afloat. Fact of the matter is LK cannot please everyone and some measures of success are going to wane in the preference of others.

There also seems to be some cutting noses to spite faces going on. Yes, no one wants to see the league die, but then again they do not support the one person who has kept the league alive. I think there's an element of jealousy to that as well, and it's because the success they crave is not coming specifically to their team. How quickly the demographics of who is complaining and who isn't would change if, say, LK were the part owner of Cairns or Wollongong as opposed to Melbourne. Suddenly I bet the big money spending wouldn't be seen as so reckless I'm sure.

There have been winners and losers in the LK deal, to be sure, but the losers are doing much better now than they would be if not for him - in a state of non existence.

Once again, all comes down to what people deem "success". And if someone model's their success not on either of those paradigms, but on the one that they want to see the league financially viable, that was always going to take time. You will have to wait and see what the TV deal is before you make judgment on where that is going, and that has always and will always rest of the FTA TV deal.

I empathize with those who want their regional teams to survive, but LK has to do what is best for the entire league to continue to push forward. It will be survival of the fittest and if you don't want your team to keep being the one overlooked, maybe, I don't know, turn up to some games sometimes? Buy some merch? Support your team financially and not just with your mouth.

Okay that;s the first Ive heard. Can you cite a source?

@ME: Sure, and that's why there's a disagreement in this thread. But it's not, as robt suggests, coming from people who want the NBL to fail.

LK has put money into 36ers , whether that is a loan or for ownership who knows. I heard similar things were done in Wollongong to help out the last owner.

The AFL can't get involved with someone that flips and flops on a regular basis with one person in charge. Himself. Hardly good corporate governance in any way shape or form. If you want to expand the league there needs to be some independent oversight of the NBL.
You can't cite a source when LK just does what he wants to to keep the NBL afloat. Strange isn't it that Adel has a new owner and the Hawks too.
It seems that most of the new players involved in the NBL now are mates of Kestleman's. If want to cite a source go read the Financial Review. They certainly are keeping and eye on it and doing a great job of it too.
With expansion looming it's really irresponsible having no accountability of the boss.
Oh "when we signed on" these were the terms at the time. Oh well I have changed my mind. Move on and suck it up.
4 imports, 3 teams in Melb, 2 teams in Melb, Crocs, NO teams in Melb. Asia, another Kiwi team, how many times does he change his mind?

The statement that the TV audience has increased is
Incorrect. The One/ Channel 10 deal had more eyeballs than any Fox deal thus far.

The sheer nature of the way eyeballs are calculated says FTA is weighted to an advantage

The only real growth in attanedance is in Melbourne where they are finally back playing in the city. However the Tigers would break even playing at The Cage. So this brings up the question of success.

Is playing in front of 8000 and losing money better than playing in from of 4500 and NOT losing money

If teams are losing more money than ever then the league can't be deemed to be successful.

There is plenty of pump in the LK story. Take it for what it is but I don’t see him as the messiah like some do

I disagree. It kept teams on an even keel and dispersed talent about the league. It made a good balanced competition where any team could beat anyone on any night. It also stopped the over spending that we are now seeing. 2 bit role players getting 150k per annum in the NBL is absolutely ridiculous. That is almost double per game what an NBA 2 way player gets paid. D League players earn $26,000 per annum. And that is for a 6/7th man let alone what starters are getting now.

Mostly in response to KB3s post - Aren't the TV ratings roughly the same or better now on Fox compared to the coverage on Ten?

Also, only 1 live game per week on Ten with the other delayed by at least 6 hours is no where near as good as all games live on Fox with SBS supplementing 2x live games each week. Even if the ratings are similar.

Getting TV ratings up is something LK and the league need to keep working on, but the coverage is there.

Also, the Tigers could only get a max of 3500 (not 4500), and United were averaging 8500 with many games over 10,000. So the numbers are much bigger.

Where is it said that teams are losing 'more money than ever?' Im not disputing it, I just havent seen that statement before.

BTW i do agree about the weighing of eyeballs is better on FTA than on Fox. Its just the NBL has never had a significant number of eyeballs watching on FTA and its veiwership on Fox is similar to its FTA efforts.

The ratings are down on total people comparison. I believe the NBL quotes 29-40 figures only as this is typically what Foxtel use. They then extrapolate that to give a total people figure which is misleading.

The original ONE HD deal had 3 games a week live to grow to all games live until Murdoch started to defend his Foxtel position with the Ten share holdings. It also paid money for the rights which doesn't currently happen.

My comment about anyone beating anyone is fair I think. In the past it was a 50/50 for most games now its an utter surprise if a low ranked team knocks off a top two.

Has the attendance numbers may be much bigger bit that doesn't mean they are making money. Its fairy dust to assume attendance equals profit. As stated above many AFL teams lose money despite drawing 10,000's of thousands. Most AFL teams dont make money from their team they make it from ancillary investments. NBL teams haven't reached that level of maturity as yet.

Oh i absolutely agree that you cant soley rely on crowds to bring in profits. But, bigger attendances leads to a trickle down effect on things like greater merch sales, more intetest from the media, better sponsorhip opportunities and generally speaking, more respect as a strong professional sports league.

Of course, bigger arenas lead to higher costs and game nights are more expensive - thats the offset to this recent success, and clubs can fall in a hole much quicker if the success isnt maintained than if they were playing in smaller lower cost venues.

great discussion