Oscar Forman for two year.

That wouldn't be a re-signing

I know KET, I am saying Perth will sign Oscar Forman, Go easy. KET, everybody knows Damian Martin would be the first play re-signing with Perth. He loves the club and knows he can win another title.

Any player taking loyalty over money needs better advisors

Champion$hips

Lawl, can't see it happening, however much I would flat-out love to have him making arsey shots for us rather than against us.

That's the thing about Damo though, one of the things that makes him such a solid commodity is his off court attitude as well and I don't think anyone would be surprised if he showed loyalty to the Cats and took a bit less for the greater good... he's in a great situation and is a constant contender for NBL Championships the last handful of seasons... Combine that with the fantastic resources and a management that is obvious switched on (compared to some other teams, especially) and taking a bit less to keep the band together sounds pretty reasonable...

That being said, I'd be happy for the Kings to do whatever it took to sign him long term, I just don't think it's going to happen.

I'm really curious to see what the difference in offers would be, though, as I'd imagine that there would be some considerable cash on offer to try to steal him away and he'd be mental to not try to set himself up financially (if he can still get a decent situation on a team, not just chase the $$$) as he's turning 30 and is in his prime now... Sign long term with the Cats at a discount now and who knows what the next contract will bring...

Plus if Oscar Forman leaves the Gong I will eat my virtual hat...

Also, I think there's only so much hate that one team can garner, so we probably shouldn't sign Oscar lest we engender a riot of some form.

Besides that position being overcrowded already, I agree... but I think Perth is at the max, so any more hate would just not be able to register :D

At least my Wildcat "hate" comes from a place of jealousy and respect, even though the bunch of you are all ferals ;)

Wildcats just announced Jesse Wagstaff has signed until 2016

2 seasons, with a player option 3rd season.

Apparently appealed his points rating from 8 down to 7, to which the loyalty discount is applied, so he has been signed as a 5pt player.

The Perth Wildcats are pleased to announce that Jesse Wagstaff has signed a new contract with the club, which will see him remain a Wildcat until at least 2016.

Wagstaff signed a two-year deal with a third-year player option, which if chosen, would see him play the 2016/17 season as a Wildcat.

The 28-year-old has played for Perth since his rookie season in 2009/10 and is the first player to be re-signed by the club in the 2014 off-season.

"After originally being ranked an eight under the NBL's Player Points System, Wagstaff appealed his points, had it reduced by one, and as it will be his sixth season with us he receives a loyalty discount which essentially brings him down to five points. “

great signing and a bargain to retain him as a 5,

So the loyalty discount is 1 point for every 3 years at the club?? if so that sounds fair enough to me, rewards loyalty for the club that took the original risk in signing him and the player by making it easier for the club to retain him.

5 years = 2pt
10 years = 4pt

Great signing, have to admit i thought he was the one that was going to leave (to kings) purley due to minutes.

Being a 5 point player now for the next 2 + option to sign again under same points, you would think he will be a one club player.

Damo is the one now, points are not a issue it will be $$

Signed:
Knight
Redhage
Hire
Muo
Wagstaff

To Sign:
Martin
Beal
Iliadis (WASBL)

Last two spots, Do they go a cheaper import big to back up knight or go an Aussie big?
With the sucsess of selling 10 thousand Ennis singlets they may go down the road of "show time" import again.

With Bairstow being a 3 point player i assume, and the Cats having plenty of $$ would they go after him to split the minutes with Knight and let say Jervis go to say the Crocs??? Not saying its fair, and Bairstow would likely be far more expensive, but points wise it could be done. I personally would rather see Bairstow join a team like the Crocs as there franchise aussie, or as a biased 36ers fan would love to have him, especially if DJ goes, but if i was the cats i would go for a move like this, given they also have the $$, even if it means bending the cap, which lets face it has happened many times before.

Ok, thanks, the loyalty discounts for 5 - 10 years of service to the club sound fair enough to me.

Just shows how well the Cats have been going over the last few years, to be able to retain core guys, make the most of these discounts, win titles/make GFs and make a profit!

You're actually advocating a team, that has made playoffs the last 28 seasons, had so many GF appearances as well as winning the last one, to actually bend the cap? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that's ridiculous... They would have the $$$ technically, but they wouldn't have the cap room... Not by a LONG shot... So many top level players already taking discounts no doubt to stay in probably the best situation in the NBL...

ok, so Wagstaff got re-rated down from a 9 to an 8 which seems fairly reasonable, and the Wildcats get the benefit of 2pt loyalty bonus which again, is fair enough... I don't like seeing them with so many bonus points, especially next season(?) when Redhage gets 2pts off, but it all goes in cycles, most teams wouldn't have a huge block of players starting with the team within 1 or 2 seasons that would get them this much discount, let alone another 10yr player getting a further 2pts off, just sucks that it's the Wildcats ;)

Wookiee,

I'm not advocating it at all, would prefer it didnt happen aswell, just saying it wouldnt be the first time it has happened, so wouldnt shock me if they do. I was putting myself in their shoes and meaning that in their position with plenty of $$ id be tempted to go for it.

They could always say swap out Jervis and Ennis for Bairstow and a cheaper import, makes it more believable but probably wouldnt be under the cap.

Not saying i want them to do it, or i agree with it, but wouldnt be shocked if a move like that was done and can see why they would want to go for it.

Also not a knock on Jervis, i am a fan and would love to have him as a 36er.

Bairstow is also obviously a stud, who i hope the 36ers are targeting, especially if DJ goes,and would try to get him either way, but would likely struggle to fit him in cap/$$ wise if DJ stays.

Wookiee, Wagstaff was an 8, got reduced to 7 on appeal and 5 after loyalty discount. Schenscher is an 8, for reference.

Yeah, I initially thought he was an 8 as well, but re-read that article and then checked his 13/14 pts raiting (a 9), so I assume that all the appeals were the delay in getting the final ratings out in a timely fashion... I'm yet to compare all the ratings from last season to this new one, but aim to have something up on my tracker on "the other forum" in the next day or so, which will clear up some questions maybe...

I used to like it when they listed that they appealed and whether they were successful or not in the comments section... Yet another move by the NBL to have less transparency...

I think the 8 rating is more fair to Wagstaff, despite wanting Perth to have even more points to play with... He could no doubt be a 9 on another team with more responsiblity, but he's playing as an 8 (at least in my opinion) for the Wildcats...

The NBL released player points on 29 April. In that list Wagstaff was rated 8 points.

Did clubs and players get to look at the ratings and appeal them before the list was released? That might explain the conflict between the Wildcats' statement and the article that was the source of the quote in Isaac's post. Either The latter may have assumed the 8 was the rating before review. Alternatively, the Wildcats media person may have done the converse.

just checked the list released by the NBL Wagstaff is a 6 (8 -2 loyalty points).

So yea obviously some confusion in the media release, assuming the pdf list on their website is correct.

off topic, but looking at the points list, which i dont think is too bad overall, but wouldnt guys like Morrison, Pace, Tiggs, McCamey be better rated somewhere from 7 to 9?? If you consider say Ennis, Young, etc as 10s these guys should be 9s max imo.

Yeah, the original member email said 8->5, but the article online says 9->6.

Bit odd, but the article is more likely to be right, I guess.

A massive LOL to those who think Bairstow will play NBL next year. You guys are dreaming, I told you the same thing last year with delly.

I'd be more inclined to try stick with the same team balance as last season. Keep Jervis and replace ennis with a similar type swing man that can shoot the three. Points and salary cap wouldn't be an issue and Bairstow would be unlikely to play here anyway

That's more reasonable. 9 is high, 7 probably low so 8 for a very effective, key bench player in a championship team is about right. Sounds like Marvin's original comment (or a transcription of it) was off by a point.

I think anon's point about the Cats being due for a 12 point loyalty discount is very important. Makes the points cap less useful if the best team has very little pressure in assembling their team.

So what about U'u and Burdon?

^^^^
We have apparently found a mop in one of the cleaning cupboards so this will cover their loss

Would the Wildcats get 12 points discount next year?

Redhage got 2 points off this time for being within the 5 year band.

Would he only get a further 2 more points off end of next year when fall into the 10 year band?

I read it as 2 points off (total) for 5 years of service, and 4 points off (total) for 10 years of service.

When seeing the Wildcats discount rate, please lets all keep in mind that the Hawks (also a playoff team) have benefited from the point discount by far this year. This will put them in a great position to bring in additional talent to their playoff team now.

Marcus, the Hawks were under the points cap last season as well, they could have a further 10pts discount and still would need to be able to pay for them... I'd be more concerned about the discount points that the Breakers are getting... Much better position for them to improve and do some damage...

Camby, yes, 12 total. Not another 12.

As has already been said a few times, the Hawks can't afford to capitalise on any points advantage. As it was, they didn't have budget approved and thus couldn't even renew contracts (and player options and so on) before all of their players and coaches went into free agency.

Marcus Camby - the key thing about a team such as Perth having a large cumulative points discount is the their available budget and the marquee player rule then allow them to overpay significantly for young players in the middle points' range. They just have to use the rule as a salary cap management tool rather than necessarily to get a single, highly paid player. In the same way Breakers have talked about doing for the coming year.

An effective 82 point cap allows them to have a team of 4x10 point players, 3x8 point players, 2x7 point players and a 4 on the end of the bench. The marquee rule allows them to manage their salary cap to pay those 7/8 point players enough to hold on to them as they develop into 10 point players and replace the ageing 10-pointers on salary cap discount (like Redhage). Then, in a few years, those players themselves are eligible for discounts and the cycle continues.

A club operating a community model - Hawks, Townsville, Cairns etc. - is unlikely ever to be able to engineer that situation.

The marquee rule doesn't actually allow them to pay that; remember, the salary cap exemption only applies to marquee wages once they go past $150k, so they still have to fit 9 players into the same $850k they were probably already using.

Nathan - my point is that a club like Perth can create a situation where it has the full salary cap available to buy 9 players worth a collective 72 points (undiscounted). That assumes they use the marquee player rule and use it to get a 10 point player.

In comparison, it's likely there'll be one or more teams at the other end of the spectrum (no loyalty discounts and low budgets), trying to buy 10 players worth a collective 70 points for the same salary cap or less.

I don't say this is a bad thing per se. I just find it an interesting case study for how the new rules could be used. I'm sure clubs are thinking about these possibilities. That said, I know nothing about running an NBL club and negotiating with players. A club in Perth's situation might prefer not to go down the path I described. It may not be useful for some good reason.

BTW - not targeting Perth for any reason other than they make a good case study for thinking about the interaction of the new rules.

the loyalty points system got scrapped for a reason last time when the owners lost control of the league. now the owners have one hand back on league management it will be back and the same controversy will forever reign. what happens when clubs fold or a license transferred? are players loyalty points transferable? are you eligible for loyalty points if you are a development player? its policy making on the fly posters. simple answer to all this is do away with the pts system and start fresh. pay what the market place can afford. you can't spend money you don't have. some very poor clubs out there next year who will be paying lowest dollar. get used to it till the crowds and appeal to the nbl game return.

"Nathan - my point is that a club like Perth can create a situation where it has the full salary cap available to buy 9 players worth a collective 72 points (undiscounted)."
Except that as Nathan pointed out, that isn't true.

Nathan, where's that $150k+ thing come from? The NBL's announcement doesn't mention it:

As part of the NBL's push to strengthen its on-court product, each team will be able to nominate one Marquee Player on its active roster.

Clubs will be entitled to pay its Marquee Player any amount, which may take them above the current $1 million salary cap. A 25% Marquee Player levy will be applied to any payment made above the salary cap.

I remember reading somewhere that teams that use the marquee exemption could only pay the rest of their squad $850K. Can't remember if that was somewhere reputable or not though.

If money is tight at the Hawks, why not let the put their spare points on the market as a tradable commodity?

a) They aren't using it.
b) They can get some coin out of it.
c) Even if a powerhouse club like the Breakers were to buy that extra point :

c i) The Breakers are still confined by the Salary Cap.
c ii) The Hawks could 'control' the Breaker luxury by selling them only 1 point for 1 year. So NA would not necessarily be able to build a Dynasty with one point for one year.

Regardless, the points still benefit the Hawks, the fact that the Hawks have limited funds does not invalidate the points discounting.

Koberulz - the NBL release says a club can nominate a marquee player, it can pay that player whatever it wants, that player's salary can take the club over the salary cap and it pays 25% of the excess above the salary cap as a "marquee player levy".

Based on that, a club is allowed to (choose to) pay 9 players the cap and the marquee player whatever it likes. There must be other parameters to the rule but they're not telling us what those will be.

Personally, I find it a fascinating exercise in rule design:

Does the marquee player have to be most expensive player on the roster or the $40,000 a year rookie? The release suggests it can be the rookie but it's not explicit.
If the proceeds from the levy are disbursed to clubs under the salary cap, is it done based on how far under the cap or just based on number of clubs? i.e., if on club is $100,000 under the cap and another is $50,000 under, does the former get twice as much from the levy's proceeds as the latter?
When would they get the proceeds of a season's levy? Do they get it to use this season or next season?

Can a club use proceeds from the levy for general club running costs or must it be spent on player payments?

What happens if a club cuts or loses its marquee player mid season (think the infamous Julius Hodge mid-season departure from the 36ers some years back (club decision), Patrick Mills at Melbourne a couple of seasons ago (player decision))? If that ends with the club falling back below the cap, do they get their levy refunded? How does that affect timing of levy disbursement?

Can a club bring a marquee player in mid season (think Sam Young at Sydney last season)? If so, how does that interact with timing of disbursement of levies?

And so forth.

@Isaac,

Media article, but I can't for the life of me remember if it was Shayne Hope or Nagy...

"Koberulz - the NBL release says a club can nominate a marquee player, it can pay that player whatever it wants, that player's salary can take the club over the salary cap and it pays 25% of the excess above the salary cap as a "marquee player levy"."
It's previously been mentioned that the salary cap for the nine non-marquee players is $850k.

The article on the NBL website says essentially nothing; it'd be silly to assume all the details are there.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/sport/basketball/a/22830729/wildcats-confident-of-keeping-key-players/

This is article Nathan and Kobe are referencing.

Hopey it is then.

The article on the NBL website says essentially nothing; it'd be silly to assume all the details are there.

"I don't know, I'd like to think that the NBL is capable of giving us the details we should get without having to rely on journalists asking deeper questions."
I think it's safe to assume, given the utter lack of any sort of detail whatsoever, that that's not the case at least for that article.

Other details may come out later, or may be seen as not particularly relevant/interesting to fans, and therefore not worth including.

Beal is staying with Perth for another year, that what I am hearing around the club. Looks like another title next season.

I think it's safe to assume, given the utter lack of any sort of detail whatsoever, that that's not the case at least for that article.

Matthew....it would be very presumptuous to state having Beal back means auto-Championship.

There are many factors to come.

Can the new Wildcats Import play along side Beal?

Will the Cats lose Jervis? If so who is to cover Knight?

Will the Breakers bring back Cedric and Penney?

Will the Tigers keep Goulding and bring back Dennis?

What other gems will Gordie dig up?

Marcus, Perth has signed nearly every player from last year championship team. They can play only with one import, that's how far ahead of every team.

It's taking forever for Perth to resign anyone else. Getting a bit bored with the waiting

Jervis taking Morrisons spot, allowing the Tigers to get Dennis at pg and a import sf???

If they also get Barlow and/or keep Goulding they look really good

Jervis/McMillan
Wortho/Ballinger
Barlow/Cheap import (if cant get Barlow get better import)
Goulding/Odigie
Dennis/Tomlinson

It's taking forever for Perth to resign anyone else. Getting a bit bored with the waiting

I think its the starting role that is probably the most important part. He's reached the big-time rather late on in his career, doesn't have time to wait on the bench.

Yea that makes sense, import or Goulding at sg, good insurance imo.