Haven't heard anything from the NBL direct but the way Joey was talking during the "Randle" press conference it sounded like they were planning for 3 imports.

Why would they have to announce it to the public? As long as the clubs were aware, wouldn't that cover them for now? Wouldn't make sense to announce major changes while they wanted media focused on the finals either.

Three imports, larger travelling roster (11-12 players on the road), higher salary cap.

» 3 imports (basically certain at this point)
» 4 marquee players (Australian born) outside of the cap
» 1 Asian player that doesn't count as an import
» Expand to 11 player rosters
» Potential games against Asian teams in the off-season
» TV up for review - potentially less coverage next year (never been suggested legitimately, more opinion based by lay people in consideration of lacking viewing numbers)

@Isaac, well yeah, the main concern is that the teams are aware, as we've seen in the past tweaks come in after teams have started rebuilding when they might have gone a different path...

» 4 marquee players (Australian born) outside of the cap
What does that actually mean?

Each team can have 4 players outside the salary cap?
Why even have a cap then?

Does LK think teams will survive/thrive financially with those added costs?

What KET said (at least for his first 4 points).

Have heard no Points system anymore, if that hasn't been mentioned yet.

If they go with 3 import and 4 'marquee Aussies outside the cap' why even have a cap? The salary cap is meant to prevent a situation where you have one or two teams winning every single year. Clearly it doesn't now, but by making it even easier for the rich to get richer by just moving the goalposts back, all this does is move us closer to the European model with 1 or 2 contenders with a budget of 2 or 3 times the amount of the rest of the league, taking home the title each year. Fun.

Yes they have dominated by (probably) breaking the rules already (and yes, I know they aren't the only two teams that do), and all this does is make it easier (ie. don't even have to play pretend any more) to do.

Football and basketball are very different sports. Individual talent is of course important in both, but the impact of individual players is a lot more important in basketball. This is not exactly an uncommon example in Euro leagues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lietuvos_krep%C5%A1inio_lyga#Performance_by_club

Does LK think teams will survive/thrive financially with those added costs?

It's a bit pointless to have the marquee rule for 4 players. They would essentially get the same results having no marquee rule and having a soft cap. I would structure it something like this (not necessarily the same numbers but the method):

1.2 million cap, every $1 over is taxed at 15c, every $1 over 1.5 million is taxed at 30c.

Eg. Melbourne spends 2 million next year, they would have to pay $195,000 in tax.

This would then be shared between teams under the cap of 1.2 million.

Eg. 4 teams go over the cap, $400,000 is taxed in total. The 5 teams under the cap would then receive $80,000 each.

This would massively help the townsvilles of the world.

Success will still come down to these factors IMO.

Team balance
Team depth
Luck with injuries
Coaching a system to get the best from your roster
Most important of all, Team work and character

No matter the amount a club pays over any perceived cap, some teams will still get it wrong or just run out of shit arse luck...

We say teams try the three ball system and they died by it, we can teams fail because of a lack of cohesion or character, we also saw teams fail for many other reasons, but cash was not one of them!

I just hope that the NBL supports it's teams as much as the team's support the NBL.

It would, but we'd end up with the same result because teams wouldn't report how much they are over the tax so that they don't have to pay the tax. I remember someone explaining to me years ago why it's so hard to police the salary cap in Australia, but I'll be buggered if I can remember now - something about tax laws and/or privacy laws.

...we saw teams try the...

Following on from Aussiebballer's question, what criteria would a marquee player have to meet?

Some posts suggest marquee players will have to be Australian by birth. Which would exclude naturalised players.

Are there any other specific criteria to limit what kind of Australian (born?) players could be marquee players? e.g., must have played professionally in a top tier overseas league or for Boomers. If not, then salary cap is history.

If the points' cap continues, will there be a link to the marquee players? e.g., marquee player is automatically rated a 10 point player? That would ensure marquee player rule operates towards get ting the best overseas Australians back in the league.

Isaac, you have said a couple of times that the 3rd import is not an added cost for clubs.
I'm assuming that you are thinking that clubs will go for a bargain basement import as their 3rd import?
I'm also not sure that things such as accomodation, vehicle etc are included in the salary cap.
We probably won't know until it is implemented but the 3rd import has the potential to create a bigger gap between the top teams and the lower teams.
Imagine if Perth spend big and are able to get Ennis back in town.
Martin/Kenny
Beal/Hire
Prather/Wagstaff
Ennis/Knight
Jawai/Jervis

or Hawks (assuming Lisch is unrestricted) and they have the funding
Lisch/Martin
Import/White
Penney/Coenrad
Import/Foreman
Ogilvy/Import

then compare these teams to a Townsville or the new Bullets

Clubs being allowed to spend big certainly does not guarantee all of them success. What it does do, though, is all but guarantee the poor clubs failure, and that's not good.

I'm worried about how far these proposed changes are going to go.
I love clubs having the ability to bring a marquee player into the league if they can afford it, because that benefits not only the club but also the highlight reels, and therefore the whole league.
4 marquee players? Just for starters, they've then thrown away the definition of "marquee", but what it also does is allow several clubs to throw huge dollars at their rosters. There's still only one club that's going to win the title. Does the financial compensation really help the poorer clubs? Maybe it offsets some of the attendance loss from having an inferior roster that fans know is going to struggle, but I would question whether it's going to make a significant difference in them putting a top-notch roster on the floor.
I don't want to see a bunch of noughties-era situations like Kings/Bullets/Dragons killing themselves in arms races.

Seems like LK sees a serious problem and is going all-in with his response. I admire that. I respect him for putting his money where his mouth is, and I think the 15/16 season was a success in getting the NBL back on the map. I just hope this next step has been thought through and isn't too large of a leap.

Isaac, marquee to 4 and roster ext to 11 are both added costs.

If we end up with say, Perth, Melbourne and NZ getting 2 or 3 marquee players each and dominating the competition, leaving clubs like Townsville and Cairns in their wake, is that really what we want for the competition?

On the one hand we'd have more chance of getting to see players like Goulding, Newley, David Andersen, Broekhoff, Jawai, etc. (Or, could a club sign say, Randle and then add one of their average Aussies as a "marquee"? If so perhaps a better standard of imports)

But on the other hand, it'd be boring watching the best teams killing the bottom ones. This season was great. Look at how Townsville got the season series over Perth, for example.

People talk bout added costs, LK is actually behind funding ALL of it because he gets a piece of all the profits.

Where is the talk of four marquee locals per team coming from? There are only 6-7 quality Aussies and one quality Kiwi playing in Europe this season. It doesn't add up, has anyone actually seen this reported somewhere reputable?

Are you doubting the reputation of hoops.com.au anons?? :O

You're right paul and this is why I asked the question about what marquee means.

Is a marquee player

- Someone who is paid a certain amount (eg: Over 200k)

Or is it

- Simply an Aussie who doesnt count towards the cap?

If the latter, then what stops Kestleman from getting 3 superstar imports for top dollar- say 250k each- and then deciding to label his 4 highest paid Australians as Marquee. We could have Blanchfield, Kickert, Goulding and Majok all "marquee" players running around with 3 superstar imports. So in that scenario it wouldn't necessarily have to mean guys like Newley or Motum.

(It would simply become a mechanism to get around the salary cap. Which, I suppose, once you get to 4 marquee guys and 3 imports almost defeats the purpose of having a salary cap at all).

The "4 Marquee Locals" story as far as I can tell comes from one article on hoopla:
http://www.aussiehoopla.com/aussie-nbl-players-will-forced-get-better-according-boomers-icon-andrew-gaze/

For the record, it does say "Australian Born" which makes sense, as the rationale would be to attract Aussie talent back to the league. (Although it would naturally have to include NZ.)

Frankly, it makes no sense.
Not only would it make a complete joke of the cap,
WHO exactly are all these locals we expect to attract back? We're never going to get current NBA players back, and how many Aussies are playing in Europe, that would be interested in returning and we could reasonably afford?

I can only think that either:
The "4" is a typo. or
Its only 4 for the entire league (weird) or
Since it says "up to" perhaps the number of imports reduces it, so if you have 3 imports you can only have 1 Marquee local.

From what I have read, the "11 player" rule is to allow 1 DP to travel to away games. (Teams can already have 2 at home.)
Teams already have the option of signing upto 12 regular players, and apparently in the past a few have had maybe 11. The advantage of this is minimal, as you can still only play 10 player, you can play 2 DPs at home, and in the event of injury you have 3 nominated DPs.
The advantage to an 11th REGULAR player (as is already allowed) might come down to age. Next season Corbon Wroe will be too old to be a DP. It the Cats want to keep him around they could do so as a "training player" as they have done in the past, but then he can only ever play as replacement for a LTI.

The 11 player roster (DP) would have been good for him this year, and will benefit somebody like Rhys Vague next season.

If the plan is to expand the league (Brissy next season, then maybe a Wellington team in a season or two, and/or another Melbourne team, etc.) Then 3 imports can ease that.
If you look at the available pool of new Aussie talent each season (ex DPs, ex college, ex Europe) it is a drop in the bucket compared to the field of imports.
And yes, imports nolonger means extra quality and/or big money.
Put simply, lets just look at one source, players coming out of college who are not good enough to get a Euro or D-League contract (or who want a bit more coin than the D-League is offering.)
You've got a huge pool of players who would be prepared to come and play here for modest money. (Not as good as when the AUD had parity, but still.)
Ok, so narrow that pool down to those at the top (of the remaining) who might be NBL quality.
Now, you can scratch around at the few Australians on that list, or you can pick and choose from the majority who would be classified as imports.

Personally, in a stable league, I would advocate keeping the limit at 2. But as a way to ease the impact of expansion it had merit.
It's one less local that Brissy has to poach, and makes replacing those poached easier.

Keep in mind that as far as we know there will still be the salary cap, and the PPR cap, so its not like Perth can just add Ennis to their existing squad.
Personally, I would like to see the PPR system tweaked, so that imports and ex-Euroleague players start at say 12, and the cap is raised to say 75.

Dazz, maybe read the article you linked to.

With the salary cap changes, and expectations that the points system will be abolished,

It's one article, and hardly from an authoritative source. That's why I'm dubious about the "4 Marquee" proposition.
Only the "3 import rule" seems to be widely reported.

I think there are issues with the PPR system, but its total abolition leaves us relying on the Salary Cap, which the NBL has never been properly able to enforce.
We'll end up back in bad ole days, when many teams exceeded the cap, the NBL did nothing, everyone knew it, and it was like a bluffing game to see who could get away with what.

Had the Giants not crumbled in game 3, there would have been hell to pay back in '95 after the salary-cap fiasco.

If they are going to do that, they should replace the cap with a taxed soft-cap:
Pay the players what you like. Exceed the cap by upto $250k, pay 25%,
on the next $250k, 50%, then 75%, etc

We'll end up back in bad ole days, when many teams exceeded the cap, the NBL did nothing, everyone knew it, and it was like a bluffing game to see who could get away with what.

If they are going to do that, they should replace the cap with a taxed soft-cap:
Pay the players what you like. Exceed the cap by upto $250k, pay 25%,
on the next $250k, 50%, then 75%, etc

Nothing wrong with cheap imports. Given the D-league pays what around $25k salary, and the minimum wage in NBL is around $40k, it's not hard to do the maths.

Only difference with the D-League is the risk/reward for the lower income.

I can see imports working, especially if the third import is cheaper and a state league level import.

But even in the D-league, surely there's only 2 or 3 players on each team who realistically have a chance of making NBA long term so it would be a worthwhile risk? I'm sure the other players on the roster are much better than the current minimum wage NBL players and should be targets for cheap imports that don't need to be superstars.

"I'm sure the other players on the roster are much better than the current minimum wage NBL players and should be targets for cheap imports"

If you have a short-term view, yes. If you take a wider view and realise Chris Goulding, Tom Abercrombie, Corey Webster, Adam Gibson, Rhys Martin, Oscar Forman, Mika Vukona, Anthony Petrie, Tom Jervis, Tom Garlepp etc etc were once low-paid players, you realise you could be robbing the future for a pretty dubious return now.

Tom Jervis seems out of place on that list.

Having said that, if the NBL is seriously looking to add a number of new teams over the next few years I don't have any problem with the three import idea. But if we are going to keep dancing around 8 or 9 teams it would just hurt the future of the league.

"Tom Jervis seems out of place on that list."

I reckon almost every Australian NBL team would sign him if they had the chance, he's someone who has gone from unwanted to a valuable contributor on two championship teams.

Had Perth had the option of three imports in 2013/14 they may have signed Will Hudson or someone similar in that spot and Tom might not have ever played NBL.

Right, but he started his first ever NBL game, and played decent minutes over the course of the season, and was 26. Whereas everyone else on your list started at 18/19, most or all as DPs, and worked their way up through the NBL.

Isaac, you have said a couple of times that the 3rd import is not an added cost for clubs.

We probably won't know until it is implemented but the 3rd import has the potential to create a bigger gap between the top teams and the lower teams.

Kober,
Yes, in essence a taxed soft cap would be similar to Marquee rule (although I am proposing an escalating tax scale, but you could also apply that to Marquees.)
The real difference I would expect to see is the tax actually being enforced, as opposed to the hard cap which is simply ignored.

I am no big fan of the PPR system, I think some of the points are nonsense. When you can have someone like Nevill rated an 8, or pickup Motum/ Jawai / Ogilvy for 9, it doesn't really stop teams with more money shopping for talent.

Furthermore, whilst I love to see loyalty rewarded, the loyalty bonuses have given Perth a huge advantage.

How is a soft cap any more enforceable than...well, the soft cap we already have?

"I did a little digging a couple of years ago, and found that the distance between first and eighth has been pretty consistent over the course of the league's history"

That seems like a finding that is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from once you consider that the league has had anything from 8 to 15 teams participating, and the number of games played has ranged from 18 up to 33.

Agree with Dazz about targeting a huge segment of players like those straight out of college is where the next generation of overseas talent should be coming from for our Aussie leagues. NBL gets washed up or older D-League players.

I am not sure how Anonymous gets 8 teams = 2 imports = 64 jobs and 9 teams = 3 imports = 63 jobs.

Anyway, the expansion or resurrection of clubs like SEQ Stars in WNBL and then bringing the Brisbane Bulletts back is fraught with danger if you are asking the weaker clubs to prop up more money!

The global Champions League phenomenon that's sweeping Europe and the USA is a different IPL / Big Bash concept that will attract crowds and talent for short sharper seasons. It's proven in all other sports so will work next year when it hits Australia. New leagues would create more jobs for Aussies - and not just in basketball.

I also reckon that the 3x3 league in NZ has some seriously good players that are playing for cash and the love of the game who could make it here. That Burger King 3x3 Comp is starting to boom, and they get to be international players on the world stage too.

LK may have done well to get NBL reinvigorated but strip it all back it was same product.

"Far different isnt it."

I wouldn't say it's that far different.

2015/16: 6 locals x 8 teams = 48 locals
2016/17: 5 locals x 9 teams = 45 locals

Because at the moment, with the NBL apparently reluctant to take action, teams are allegedly exceeding the cap without any penalty. At least with a taxed system, those teams would contribute something back.

I am not sure how Anonymous gets 8 teams = 2 imports = 64 jobs and 9 teams = 3 imports = 63 jobs.

LK may have done well to get NBL reinvigorated but strip it all back it was same product.

Because at the moment, with the NBL apparently reluctant to take action, teams are allegedly exceeding the cap without any penalty. At least with a taxed system, those teams would contribute something back.

Kober,
You're certainly correct that an inability to monitor the cap will not be fixed by changing the rules.
Nor do I actually have any direct knowledge of how or if clubs are in fact breaching the cap.

I can only refer back to how things once were. Some teams exceeded the cap. Everyone knew it, and that was every team's excuse. The NBL had limited options to penalise clubs, especially without everyone pointing fingers.

But back to your first point, half the problem could be because the NBL doesn't want to look too closely. Let's say they now audited the accounts of very team, and concluded that 3 finalists had exceeded the cap. WTF would they do?
At least with a taxed system, they can simple say, no problem, you owe us extra tax, and most of the teams in question would have no choice but to pay up. (Hawks of course would just change their name again ;-))

Some teams exceeded the cap. Everyone knew it, and that was every team's excuse.

At least with a taxed system, they can simple say, no problem, you owe us extra tax, and most of the teams in question would have no choice but to pay up.

And who the hell is this "Kober" guy?

Please take JJett or the other Terrible dreadded player and thats what cheap gets you.

http://www.crocodiles.com.au/blog/featured-news/crocs-waiting-on-nbl-decisions-before-settling-on-personnel/

Article from Crocs on waiting on NBL confirmation of roster rules before signing players. Shawn Dennis also talks about wanting to bring most of the roster back, including imports.

Nz should not be counted in the number of local players as they don't take Australian players

Anyone know when confirmation of any of the suposed new changes will be confirmed?

BA has confirmed the announcement in imminent.