Advertising spot currently available.
Minimum three month period (1.5+ million page views, 92% Australian).
Email [email protected] for rates and options.

Dunk Basketball Uniforms

AD: Office space available in Adelaide CBD @ 313 Halifax St;
Suit creatives; freelance desks or space for 2-4 person business. More info

Wookiee
Last year

#39127

Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Ok, so I really only heard about the proposed changes through random posts on here and haven't seen anything concrete from the NBL, so thought I'd make a dedicated thread if people can post any articles quoting this from LK or JL, as you'd think that if the NBL is going to implement three imports and/or 4 local marquee players(?), they'd want to either announce or deny it pretty much ASAP so teams can re-sign or recruit their players accordingly?

Report this topic


 

Dave
Last year
10:44 7 Mar 16

Reply #582102

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
10:58 7 Mar 16

Reply #582106

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



KET
Last year
10:58 7 Mar 16

Reply #582107

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

» 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)


Report this post



Wookiee
Last year
11:03 7 Mar 16

Reply #582109

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

@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...


Report this post



Aussiebballer
Last year
11:39 7 Mar 16

Reply #582115

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17


» 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?


Report this post



LV
Last year
12:39 7 Mar 16

Reply #582123

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Wilson Sting
Last year
12:44 7 Mar 16

Reply #582124

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
12:50 7 Mar 16

Reply #582126

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Aussiebballer, yes by having 4 marquee players you are potentially making a mockery of the salary cap. However, I guess what that rule is telling us is its a big focus to get our best players playing back in our domestic competition. It's essentially saying we're trying to compete with the bigger dollars in Europe for our best local talent?

As for how clubs are going to finance that, well that remains to be seen...


Report this post



Anonomouse
Last year
13:13 7 Mar 16

Reply #582134

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



AngusH
Last year
13:25 7 Mar 16

Reply #582136

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
13:28 7 Mar 16

Reply #582137

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

AngusH, as you say, Perth and New Zealand have dominated this league in the points cap era so maybe it isn't that special. Also, I advise you to check out Leicester City if you think Europe is all about 1 or 2 teams dominating.


Report this post



AngusH
Last year
13:42 7 Mar 16

Reply #582144

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
14:05 7 Mar 16

Reply #582146

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Does LK think teams will survive/thrive financially with those added costs?
I doubt it's come about without some agreement from clubs.

Three imports isn't an added cost. It should help clubs find more value for money. Marquee stuff is option.

Not sure overall it will do anything for parity, but strong teams visiting should make for better game sales.


Report this post



Baller#3
Last year
14:27 7 Mar 16

Reply #582152

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Bear
Last year
14:35 7 Mar 16

Reply #582155

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



AngusH
Last year
14:36 7 Mar 16

Reply #582156

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Bear
Last year
14:39 7 Mar 16

Reply #582157

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

...we saw teams try the...


Report this post



PeterJohn
Last year
14:47 7 Mar 16

Reply #582158

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



???
Last year
14:51 7 Mar 16

Reply #582159

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
14:56 7 Mar 16

Reply #582160

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



LV
Last year
15:05 7 Mar 16

Reply #582163

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



ME
Last year
15:16 7 Mar 16

Reply #582166

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



paul
Last year
15:28 7 Mar 16

Reply #582169

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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?


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
15:30 7 Mar 16

Reply #582171

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
15:32 7 Mar 16

Reply #582172

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Wasn't it originally on that Aussie Hoop La blog?


Report this post



LV
Last year
15:37 7 Mar 16

Reply #582175

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



LV
Last year
15:38 7 Mar 16

Reply #582176

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

(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).


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
15:57 7 Mar 16

Reply #582182

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Spectators won't turn up if there teams are not competitive, the Townsville, Sydney, cairns, Brisbane will be out the back door, even Adelaide won't keep up financially.
It's been a great season, small steps are required.
I'd stick with two imports and perhaps one Australian marquee and see how that goes, the build on that in following seasons.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
19:31 7 Mar 16

Reply #582197

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
19:39 7 Mar 16

Reply #582198

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
21:20 7 Mar 16

Reply #582209

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Brad Rosen said on the Gem broadcast last night that they're bringing in the 3 import rule because of Brisbane in that they're worried the aussie talent would be spread too thin otherwise.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
21:24 7 Mar 16

Reply #582212

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

3 imports funded by the LKG is a joke. Now all the clubs on the brink and there are a few of them have to each find another import each.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
21:30 7 Mar 16

Reply #582215

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

You can get imports relatively cheap Joey Wright alluded to this in his press conference about the Randle re-signing


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
22:15 7 Mar 16

Reply #582220

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
00:24 8 Mar 16

Reply #582240

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Dazz, maybe read the article you linked to.

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


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
00:41 8 Mar 16

Reply #582244

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
03:04 8 Mar 16

Reply #582263

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.
The points cap was around in those days, too. And there are plenty of people who are of the opinion we're already back in those days, and the points cap is still around.

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
How is that any different from the marquee rule, other than the marquee rule making somewhat more of an attempt at making sure the over-the-cap players are marketable names who are worth the money, rather than allowing teams to stockpile talent that doesn't help the league in terms of promotion?

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, regardless of the number of teams or the existence of the points cap. The league only seems closer now because there are no teams below those eight.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
08:21 8 Mar 16

Reply #582268

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Yes you can get imports relatively cheap. The NBL doesnt need cheap imports, it needs more quality imports that dont come cheaply.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
08:40 8 Mar 16

Reply #582269

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Guys like Chris Williams,Kevin Lisch, Rotnei Clarke, Scottie Wilbekin, Ty Mckee, Willie Farley, etc

Would not have been on huge money in their first seasons, all were very good.

So you can get some really good imports without spending big.


Report this post



Wilson Sting
Last year
08:45 8 Mar 16

Reply #582270

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



RMQ
Last year
11:39 8 Mar 16

Reply #582284

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Wilson Sting
Last year
14:29 8 Mar 16

Reply #582313

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



paul
Last year
15:04 8 Mar 16

Reply #582318

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

"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.


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
15:08 8 Mar 16

Reply #582319

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Tom Jervis seems out of place on that list.


Report this post



paul
Last year
15:09 8 Mar 16

Reply #582320

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



paul
Last year
15:19 8 Mar 16

Reply #582324

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

"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.


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
15:24 8 Mar 16

Reply #582326

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
16:45 8 Mar 16

Reply #582342

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Isaac, you have said a couple of times that the 3rd import is not an added cost for clubs.
How would it be otherwise? The import would replace an existing player. Teams could get an expensive player or a cheap player, just like they do now. It would help poorer teams in that there are more capable import players available for $70k than there are capable local players for the same price.
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.
Of course, I'm just saying it's not all horrible for weaker teams - that flexibility would help them. I've previously suggested that the third import be available to weaker clubs somehow, e.g. if they don't use the soft-cap provided by a marquee player.

Keep in mind that there is already a big gap. The most expensive team in 2015/16 supposedly spent double what the cheapest team did. That's with two imports and two caps in place.

I imagine part of the thinking with taking these risks is that more drawcard players could be a boost for crowds and TV and they'll come with stronger spending, more imports, etc.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
16:52 8 Mar 16

Reply #582346

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Let's not forget all the add ons, rent, car, Health Insurance. Soon adds up for the cheapies and seriously if you think Chris Williams came here cheaply think again.
Please take JJett or the other Terrible dreadded player and thats what cheap gets you.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
17:02 8 Mar 16

Reply #582352

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Paul,

8 Teams having 2 imports is 64 aussie jobs

9 teams having 3 imports is 63 aussie jobs

so no real impact on the guys you listed at all

It will be more like the MacMillan, Joyce, Daly, types who may miss oportunities, but not really as the amount of aussie jobs hasnt really changed, so my bet is the next guys at these guys level will still get a look in

and whilst these guys get a gig, guys like the guys you mentioned like Garlepp, R MArten, Vukona, will still get a gig

as talent prevails, even if a few of them have to be a little more patient

With the points cap being abolished it will be one less hurdle for teams to keep these fringe starter types on there roster, meaning they may not have to move around the league as much as they do currently

LEts face it, a min salary import who lasts in the NBL will be atleast as good as say Lance Hurdle, and lets be honest he is a better player and more entertaining than a min salary Aussie he would be replacing, so i have no problem with it.

I like the fact it makes Aussies compete harder for their jobs too, makes them keep getting better and playing upto and above their contract, which doesnt always happen now imo.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
19:21 8 Mar 16

Reply #582378

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
19:49 8 Mar 16

Reply #582383

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
20:03 8 Mar 16

Reply #582386

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

"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.


Report this post



Green34
Last year
21:06 8 Mar 16

Reply #582402

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
21:32 8 Mar 16

Reply #582407

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

So if 2 of the current players per team is the norm and generally only 7 -8 of the total number of players play, do the maths.
2 of 8 is now 3 of 8. Far different isnt it.


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
22:26 8 Mar 16

Reply #582415

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

"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


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
22:34 8 Mar 16

Reply #582417

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
23:06 8 Mar 16

Reply #582423

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

I am not sure how Anonymous gets 8 teams = 2 imports = 64 jobs and 9 teams = 3 imports = 63 jobs.
Because each team has ten players?

Two are imports, so 10-2=8.
There are eight teams, so 8x8 = 64.

Alternatively, if there are three imports, 10-3=7.
Nine teams, 7x9=63.

Simple primary school maths.



LK may have done well to get NBL reinvigorated but strip it all back it was same product.
If your problem with the NBL is that it's a basketball league, look elsewhere. I hear there's some "AFL" thing that's pretty popular.





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.
Two possibilities:
1. The NBL, for whatever reason, doesn't want to punish cap breaches. In which case they're not going to punish non-compliance with a luxury tax either. So nothing would change under your proposal.

2. The NBL is unable to prove cap breaches. In which case they're going to be unable to prove that teams ought to be paying tax, or how much tax they ought to be paying. So nothing would change under your proposal.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
23:20 8 Mar 16

Reply #582425

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Green35, the mathematics is simple


Current season

8 teams x 8 local players (ie. 10 players less 2 imports) becomes 8x8 = 64 local jobs (assuming all teams use 2 imports, if teams go with 1 import ala hawks, extra aussie jobs), so it is 8 x 8 = 64 aussie jobs

Next season

9 teams x 7 local players (ie 10 players less 3 imports per team)

9 x 7 = 63 aussie jobs


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
23:24 8 Mar 16

Reply #582426

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Thank you Koberulz, im glad you are also able to do basic maths,


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
02:29 9 Mar 16

Reply #582432

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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 ;-))


Report this post



koberulz
Last year
05:23 9 Mar 16

Reply #582434

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Some teams exceeded the cap. Everyone knew it, and that was every team's excuse.
Knowing it and being able to prove it are different things.

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.
No choice but to pay up? Really? What happens if they don't? Now we're right back where we would have been with a hard cap.

Plus, that gives teams a huge incentive to cheat. If they get caught, the only thing that happens is what would have happened had they played fair anyway. If they don't get caught, they save a bunch of money.

And who the hell is this "Kober" guy?


Report this post



Wookiee
Last year
10:08 9 Mar 16

Reply #582452

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

And who the hell is this "Kober" guy?

I think he's mates with Wookie and Damien Martin


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
10:08 9 Mar 16

Reply #582453

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Please take JJett or the other Terrible dreadded player and thats what cheap gets you.
Wasn't Jett Crocs MVP or close to it? Having another player of that calibre would be handy to a team otherwise taking on guys released/limited at other teams (Young, Steindl, Maynard, Djeric, Schenscher, etc). Charles Jackson was fairly handy and played on a grand final team.

The imagine the league would be overlooking spending because the majority owner's team is one of those supposedly spending up. Further, that lax approach would be OKed by the powerful clubs who are a pretty big part of the league and its public brand. As I've said before, the league is probably not going to win loads of new fans by going lean. They've spent up on social media (and it looks good) and teams have brought in solid players that might otherwise play OS (Penney, Jawai, Warrick, Childress, etc). Let's say they are loose with the cap and teams bring back Randle, Ennis, Harrington and someone else on top of what we have.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
10:48 9 Mar 16

Reply #582459

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

The assumption is of course there will be 9 teams and that is simple yet unproved logic that everyone has already factored in.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
10:56 9 Mar 16

Reply #582462

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

If they bring in an extra import should have eleven man rosters.

Nz should not be counted in the number of local players as they don't take Australian players, so if all stays as is plus Brisbane you get 8x8=64 players. With three imports you get 8x7=56 players, not many Australia wide.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
11:18 9 Mar 16

Reply #582467

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Nothing stopping nz signing aussies or aussie clubs signing nz players.

But lets not knit pick this stuff.

Lets say with either 2 or 3 imports there will be around 60 aussie jobs, could be more with teams likely to adding an 11th player.

The point being with brisbane coming in as team 9. Crocs have re-signed dennis and are recruiting players so id say they are continuing along with all the other clubs. The impact to local jobs with going to 3 imports is basically nil.

U can look at it this way too 9 extra imports coming into the league across 9 teams, offset by brisbane coming in which adds 10 or 11 roster spots for players.

Remember its a max of 3 imports, not all clubs will use it.

Hawks this year only had 1


Report this post



paul
Last year
11:19 9 Mar 16

Reply #582468

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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.


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
12:08 9 Mar 16

Reply #582471

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Nz should not be counted in the number of local players as they don't take Australian players
They can and have. They have just made a decision to focus on local players in recent years. Rhys Carter played there as recently as last year.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
14:24 9 Mar 16

Reply #582485

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

NOt all clubs will use it simply because some last season couldn't afford to spend to the cap let alone cheat it. The strong clubs will get stronger and the weaker clubs will fall away.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
08:51 10 Mar 16

Reply #582529

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
09:30 10 Mar 16

Reply #582531

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

Jett was MVP for a team that was marginally better than the basketcase of the Kings. Garlepp won MVP for the Kings. That's how bad Jett is.
Nothing wrong with Garlepps hard work all season but he shouldn't be "as good" IMO as an import.
Thornton was a bust and Cotter didn't want him early on and that's equally as disappointing.
Please forget this there are plenty available and cheap notion. Clearly the SEABL isn't littered with them.


Report this post



Wookiee
Last year
12:18 10 Mar 16

Reply #582548

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

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

The coming weeks, according to the article pushing back the free agency period...

http://www.nbl.com.au/nbl-press-release-archive/31122/


Report this post



paul
Last year
07:15 11 Mar 16

Reply #582595

re: Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

BA has confirmed the announcement in imminent.


Report this post





 

Reply to this topic

Name Email

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Hogwash 51

Title
Rules: You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets
Message

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.
 


Liam Flynn - basketball coaching and consulting

Recent Posts

.

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 6:18 pm, Thu 25 May 2017 | Posts: 655,271 | Last 7 days: 693