They need someone to give them a $1 million dollar (dr evil voice) bank guarantee

Same story also in today's Herald-Sun in Melbourne.

Here is the newspaper "In Brief" in full verbatim:

"Boomers star Andrew Bogut has offered his support and fellow NBA player Nathan Jawai, a former Taipan, has pledged thousands of dollars to help keep the Cairns Taipans alive in the NBL. Backed by almost 150 pledges of $5000 to the 'Save the Taipans' bid, Cairns Basketball has made an offer for the club's licence. CB President Denis Donaghy met liquidator KPMG on Monday and expects a response within days. Donaghy hoped Saturday night's regular-season finale at home against South Dragons would not draw the curtain on the club's 10-year existence."

Saw an interesting note by someone on OzHoops suggesting that the NZ Breakers are looking to appease the new league's requirement of a $1m bank guarantee by offering their training facility. Quite smart - gives the NBL the surety they need, but doesn't tie up $1m that could be used for something else.

Doubt many clubs would have significant assets like that though.

The 36ers might have some old clipsal clappers they could put up for security.

Isaac - What happens then if they fall into finacial difficulty? The NBL can then sell their trining facilty to pay the playrs their wages?

Isaac, how would that work/ be accepted by the NBL?
In that case, couldn't the majority of clubs do the same and dramatically reduce the amount of collateral they need to come up with- everyone using their stadiums as the bank guarantee?
And how would the stadiums themselves fit into that- what sort of permission/ involvement do they have in that decision- sounds like a big risk?

You can only put something up for security if you own it outright or have some equity in it left after a mortgage. So I assume the league would take a 1st or 2nd Mortgage over the stadium or put a caveat on it showing their interest. Most of the teams in the league wouldn't own anything, they lease stadiums & practice courts.

Nutwork I'm not even going to begin with how wrong your last statement was

Ok so please give us your take then rather than leaving it hanging!

Sorry I didn't really want to sound condescending, but basically..

You can mortgage a lease. A lot of commercial leases have value so lender's will take security over a leasehold interest that someone holds. So, many of the leasehold's currently held by NBL clubs could potentially be used as security instead of or with a guarantee.

The second point I had was the statement "I assume the league would take a 1st or 2nd Mortgage over the stadium or put a caveat on it showing their interest". In that line there can be no "or" - you wouldn't put a caveat on the title unless you had an interest, with such interest being the mortgage. And presumably in that case you would simply register the mortgage (unless of course the lease or the mortgage is not in "registrable form", in which case you would protect your interest by caveat).

OK, so enough of the boring crap. Carry on

The Breakers are one of the most financially viable franchises in the league with alot of backing from the local community and businesses , I would worry about all of the Australian clubs coming up with their cash before worrying about what the Breakers are up to lol.

Skip, you'd assume so.

HAHA, Breakers own their training facility (two courts, many rings, offices, living area, games room (table tennis and the like), kitchen, etc - it's pretty cool - has a mounted camera that records trainings and shoot arounds so you can rewind and review your play, etc). I doubt clubs would get much for their stadium deals.

Lockstock, a Mortgage on a Lease at the Dome wouldn't be worth writing.

With the utmost respect I dont think anyone on this feed has any real idea of the status of any of the clubs. The breakers are successful because they pay over the salary cap, have lots of money behind them that is not raised by basketball.

If you look at their crowds and do the maths on the fact that it would be costing them over 3 million to run the team then they would be losing money.

It is only because they have ownership that puts money into the team ala perth that they stay afloat.

The sixers model would not work on anything less than 6000 members and solid sponsorship dollars

No one's claiming to know exactly what's going on, but you can't dispute that the Breakers appear to have one reasonable physical asset where most other clubs are unlikely to have anything similar, right? And that using a facility as surety is a good way to address the league's requirements.

The team costs them money and they're probably not making a profit - that'd be true of pretty much every club.

i respect your view and agree that using the facility is good business. I have seen that one club is making a profit using a very prudent and astute business model. I beleive that if clubs can't make a profit then at some point the backer is going to pull the pin

that is my concern.

im also concerned that the new nbl board is not being run by people with basketball in their heart

my only concern is the future of the game at all levels and while their is a lot of talk i think in my humble opinion it is time to employ people with passion who will take action,

paul bauer is the only one in admin in adelaide with that heart

Sure, but you can't deny a backer with ability/longevity their dream to own a team. e.g., if the Mavs didn't make money, would you turn down Cuban? (Emailed him once and his advice was "Don't buy a basketball team.")

And something making a profit today might not be tomorrow. Take away the supposed profit of McPeake and you might not have anything better than Groves or Bendat.

The new NBL plans are for basketball itself in the broader sense than just the NBL (grassroots and international focus from BA) which is lovely, but it's a lot of pressure on owners to fund it with few opportunities for reward. From what I can tell, there's little risk for BA, but loads for owners. That would concern me as a potential owner if I was trying to build a profitable basketball enterprise in Adelaide. You can get 4-5k fans to games without outrageous effort and you will get those whether it's a $1.5m per team league, or an $800k per team league; and whether there is a Fox deal or not, or whether there is pooled marketing or a guarantee or you're supplementing an NBL-run team in Sydney or whatever.

Great response. Thanks for the informed feedback Issac. Its always good to get another point of view. I'm always open to other peoples thoughts.

I have carefully read all that is written above.
Therefore maybe it is best for the 36ers to put in a non compliant bid.

It that you, Sol?

Nutwork - you're probably right! Whilst the zoning remains the same at least...

In today's paper (Herald-Sun Melbourne):

"Taipans still alive"

"A 'Save the Taipans' bid took the first step towards doing just that by buying the Cairns NBL licence.
Backed by almost 150 pledges of $5000 each fro its bid, Cairns Basketball successfully made an offer to Taipans liquidator KPMG.
The sale is conditional on the Taipans being accepted in next season's new-look NBL.
CB President Denis Donaghy said the bid team would work hard to meet all of Basketball Australia's conditions for entry in the new league.
To qualify, the Taipans bid must have a $1 million unconditional bank guarantee, $500,000 in paid-up and available working capital and a three-year commitment from naming rights and other sponsors."