Agreed.

Boti's a perpetual genius in hindsight though, isn't he? Don't get me wrong, I love his work and am much appreciative of having a local writer who is so passionate and informed; however, is he on the record with substantial criticisms of Hemmerling before this week?

you beat me to it......suddenly he is on the Hemmerling hate bandwagon. I seem to recall initially and throughout the previous seasons he was reporting different views to this.

Maybe Boti is part of the consortium.

Maybe Boti was reporting different views to this in the past because the only thing he had to go on was the same information as the fans which was the "everything's sweet" routine that Mal's been giving everyone about the Sixers and the new league. I seem to remember Boti being in support of Mal at the very beginning and I think its fair to say the majority of fans were too.

However I don't think he's been an ardent admirer of Mal's record since he took over. He criticized management over the Chappell thing at the time. He changed his tune on the Hodge issue but wasn't afraid of criticizing management for their role in the debacle. I think Boti has approached Mal with a sense of "lets see how this turns out." Boti's hardly praised the Sixers oncourt performance during Mal's time at the top and I think the outcome of the whole Mal experiment is nearing closer and I don't disagree with Boti's summary of the saga.

Most of the points he made, he has raised before. He has been critical of Bauer's inexperience, of the delays over Chappell, and of some club responsibility for the Hodge situation. That leaves the comment about Mal's daughter (not really something that Boti would experience first hand, only hear from sponsors and it's not worth a story on its own), the guarantee thing (only recent covered), and the Groves-owns-the-36ers issue which everyone knows but is about as provable as a team breaking the cap.

hereschenes, isn't his job to cover the subject? And if the subject includes past issues, shouldn't those be mentioned? I don't think there's any requirement for a journalist to maintain a single position or make predictions.

Well said Issac, totally agree. If anything Boti has been more than reasonable with has assessment of current ownership

ah thats right. isnt it the role of a journalist to be nice when they need information, be nice when they get it but have a sook and bitch when they dont get fed the information.

i dont think the true ownership really matters, all that matters is finding a new owner to take the 36ers forward from here.

For sure, I'm not saying he shouldn't be allowed to change his mind or anything. I suppose I just assume that Boti always knows all the dirt behind the scenes, given his experience and familiarity with the machinations of the 36ers and Australian basketball in general. As such, it seemed a little strange to me that he would come out strongly against Mal all of a sudden, given that he hadn't really before now.

For example, to claim that Hemmerling's tenure has been "marked by absentia" is a pretty damning appraisal, which I don't remember reading from Boti before. It's not like he's one to pull any punches - if it really was a management tenure "marked" by absence (which I don't dispute), then why not make mention of that fact during 99% of said tenure in one of his many outspoken opinion pieces? Perhaps he has, and I just don't recall it.

Regardless, I agree that prior criticism of Bauer, Chappell etc. (which I do recall on several occasions) is really implicit criticism of Mal, in his capacity as the club owner. Whatever the case, I'm glad that he's calling it as he sees it at the moment. I guess the truth is that Boti never truly envisaged things ending for Mal on such a sour and seemingly-dispassionate note.

Boti knows what he can and can't say. This bucketing of Mal comes now because he knows Mal won't be around much longer.

He is in effect an employee of the Sixers. If they refuse to 'work' with him then he's out of a job. Also Boti's 'absentia' in exposing Smyth's role in the Hodge debacle shows that he has no interest in ruffling certain feathers.

Boti's style is a bit sarcastic, but the points he make are valid.

IMO, the Sixers need to develop a firm plan that ensures positive cash flow, and a strong direction forward.
* Costs need to be under control, but realistic. If an NBL club needs a budget of $4M/yr to be successful, then budget that amount, don't cut the cloth to fit the team to $2M/yr.
* sponsors need to be well managed (something many of them say is poorly done at this stage) to ensure maximum cash flow from them into the club. Sponsors must be guaranteed of exposure + some return.
* supporters need to be engaged as well so they feel part of the club. The supporters need to feel part of the club off season as well.
* basketball must be marketed better. The retirement of Brett means someone needs to step up to the plate to be the face of the club.
* the club won't find it within basketball, the club needs to develop this plan from other successful sports and clubs.

At the end of the day, the club needs a firm foundation and a plan that sees a strong house. Clubs that are houses of cards fall pretty quickly

Good view points Jack Toft. It is certainly true that you will not find a good example from within the Aust basketball league.

Hemmerlingus, as Boti emailed me earlier today, the burden of proof is on him in something like this. He of course knew Smyth had some involvement in the Hodge saga, but what are you going to write about it?

hereschenes, one absence isn't news, nor two or three. Then, maybe further instances aren't newsworthy at the time when there's other stuff going on and no real impact to tie it to. Now there is.

It is interesting that the full brunt of the blame for the Chappell, Hodge, Tindal saga's is being directed at Mal. What about the coaches? At the end of the day they are the ones who select the team so they should take a portion of the blame for the poor choices that they have made.

'He of course knew Smyth had some involvement in the Hodge saga, but what are you going to write about it?'


What is this Smyth's involvement in the Hodge saga all about? sorry if I have missed something here.

Why do we not concentrate on BA and its failing to proide a stable league?

Owners have done what they can with the product they have and the $ they have available.

I totally beleive we need to down size before we grow, cut costs etc , the only ones making real $ from the NBL has been the players, coaches, umpires ,fox, venues and BA.

We need to consolidate, not extend and take risks.

Adelaide were saved by Hem/Groves from the previous ownership, dont bag them for trying to keep it going.

We pay players too much for what tehy do and spending more just will send the league broke.

I may have been walking around with my head in the clouds for the last few weeks but I had nothing detrimental on my mind regarding Hemmerling. The news last Thursday that he wouldn't come up with the $1m guarantee came down like a lead balloon. One could only feel contempt that he would wait until this stage (the day before the new league's teams would be announced) that he would drop the bombshell. I could only think about Wollongong and how they busted their guts to find a last minute rescuer and still managed to do it in a timely manner. How bloody selfish can one person get. Not only jeopardize his own team whilst fooling around with the passion that fans have for this team but hijacking the whole league by creating delays in settling the details. All clubs are hanging out for the final word so they can go about business and start their recruiting process in preparation for the new season and now this one single person is putting a spanner in the works.

I can quite understand why Boti is now coming out against Hemmerling as with many others, myself included. I challenge anyone without inside knowledge who would have predicted this coming. It certainly took me by surprise. I also get the impression that he was deliberately manipulating his position by leaving it this late as it seemed unlikely that the NBL would have allowed a strong fan based club like Adelaide to bow out of the competition and at the very end had no time to insist on full compliance. Otherwise why did he not attend the summit and voiced his concerns then?

EC - I can assure you all owners have voiced their concerns the whole way along to BA regarding the guarantee. BA made a decision to ignore the owners as they thought they new best (based on a outsourced review). Then at the last minute they come up with the $50m criteria which was never raised the whole way along the process.
As for the summit. I dont believe all the owners were there. From the knowledge i have i dont believe attendance at the summit would change the fact that BA have ignored the owners gripes about the $1m guarantee.
I am sure up until the announcement a week or so ago, Hemmerling believed that he could secure the guarantee. I dont think people realise that a $1m bank guarantee costs real money which then needs to be covered by the funds generated within the business which are hard to come by in the basketball business.

NVS, Smyth was criticised for selecting Chappell - don't you remember? And Bauer copped it for Tyndale's no-cut.

EC, you are well off the mark. kmtw and NVS, you are MUCH closer to being on the money.
Interested parties were told by BA that "non-compliant bids from the existing clubs, especially Adelaide, were acceptable". The EOI even indicated that existing clubs would not have to put up the million dollar guarantee.
It looks like BA changed tack and demanded the million from Adelaide.
BA also promised to announce the new franchises in March, and in 25 hours it will be May. Would YOU commit a million bucks when BA STILL won't make the necessary decisions? Jack Toft - how do you develop a "firm business plan" when you don't even know if there will be a league? When you can't attract sponsors because BA won't give you the definition or tools to do so?
If the summit you refer to is the meeting where BA ran through the EOI process, Adelaide WAS represented, and if Mal is trying to put pressure on BA to make a decision he is only one of many VERY frustrated interested parties. Don't shoot the messenger!
Fingers crossed it gets sorted out and BA shows the leadership that the basketball community deserves.

Isaac i realise that was the case but are these referenced in the article you posted at the top of this thread. Unless i am blind i cant see these in the article. Maybe you could point them out to me.

P.S and by the way it was a more general comment about the coaches taking some of the blame for the team that they select not just the bill payer.

NVS, the article wasn't about Smyth's initial reluctance to cut Chappell, but about Mal's tenure overseeing the latter part where he continued to stall once Smyth wanted Chappell replaced, and it was about Mal's watch over the Tyndale contract and Hodge (where it took a third party investor to even bring Hodge in!).

The guarantee was never going to be popular but it's there for a reason. Wollongong and Cairns raised public funds to get their teams into the comp. Seems that Melbourne and NZ and most other teams have complied.

Yes, I'm sure most complained about something at some point, but why has Adelaide's inability to come up with the money only emerged now? The criticism has been that teams can't get sponsorship and plan for the new league, but the league (out of some necessity) is waiting on the teams before they can nail down things like composition, schedule, etc. If Mal was gambling on finding an investor/buyer rather than going to the fans for help, then I guess that was the risk he took, right?

Isaac - i believe that is where you are wrong. I dont think it is a case of Mal not being able to get the $1m guarantee, i think it is more a case of not being willing to due to the financial implications.

Personally i dont fully understand how the community footing the $1m guarantee would work. Wouldnt they then want some return on this investment (cheaper tickets, freebies, whatever). This would then in turn cause more cash issues. Maybe someone can shed some more light on how this would work.

NVS, I tend to agree with you. The whole guarantee thing is not so much about putting money up, it's about being in a position that the money can get accessed in case of collapse.

The NBL would be very naive if they expected $1M sitting in some fund somewhere and getting no return.

I would expect any funds set aside for this guarantee would be put in some investment somewhere with the MINIMUM balance being $1M. The guarantee would be invested in some form of scheme and the proceeds from the investment would either be re-invested, or a dividend paid.

The fund would be separate to the operating bank accounts.

The other very simple way to form a guarantee is to draw a loan against an asset and then have the loan sitting in an mortgage offset account so that the $ may be accessed quickly is required, but no interest is paid.

It seems to me that if you don't own something, you don't really want to guarantee it. Maybe a secret code to who actually owns the Sixers. Be that as it may, it doesn't really matter.

At the end of the day, the discussion on the guarantee is a distraction from the most important thing. That is, having a solid business plan that guarantees success. If that is in place, the $1M guarantee is a like a one armed dwarf - it sits on the bench and is not required!

If he can afford it but isn't willing, then a sale is a good idea. He's been trying to sell or get in multiple helps for a year. Maybe drop the price?

I agree that community ownership is a bit of a fantasy and that the community coming up with $1m just dodges the problem a bit (and I don't think Cairns and Wollongong will last long), but it's probably better than no team at all.