Aussie Basketball Travellers Dunk Basketball Uniforms

Advertising spot currently available.
Minimum three month period (1.2+ million page views, 92% Australian).
Email [email protected] for rates and options.

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

Anonymous
Last year

#40202

Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It's not against the rules to pay players whatever you want,'" Gaze said.

"But I don't think we're in that extreme category where we might be facing some prospects of, depending on the end numbers, being involved in having to pay some taxes.

"But I dare say that a few other clubs either are, or they are not telling the truth."

https://au.sports.yahoo.com/basketball/a/33098252/gaze-finds-nbl-spending-rumours-comical/#page1

Report this topic


 

Isaac
Last year
10:13 4 Nov 16

Reply #605555

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Surely he didn't say those bits about likely avoiding luxury tax while casting aspersions instead at other teams with a straight face.


Report this post



KET
Last year
10:20 4 Nov 16

Reply #605557

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

If the Kings don't have to pay luxury tax then the system is a joke.

It would be nice to see those "independent contract values" released.

Even without knowing any figures, lets be honest here, it's not drawing a long bow to say a Kings side with Blake, Powell, Lisch, Newley, Kazzouh among 5 others are paying above $1.1 million. It's a fairly intuitive assumption.


Whatever the complex system is, surely it must be setup in a way to ensure a team like the Kings with a roster of highly paid stars pay luxury tax to equalise for the budget teams like the 36ers.


Report this post



alexkrad
Last year
10:41 4 Nov 16

Reply #605560

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Lisch + locals would be close to the cap


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
10:47 4 Nov 16

Reply #605562

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Turn it up, Andrew!!


Report this post



Studio audience
Last year
10:58 4 Nov 16

Reply #605565

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

TURN IT UP!!!!


Report this post



Southern Joe
Last year
11:08 4 Nov 16

Reply #605567

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Ever think that maybe even though they were paid multi millions by their NBA clubs.. they may NOT need to look for another HUGE payday, but still be paid a 6 figure sum?

There's all this hysteria about the Kings simply because we're top of the table and "seem" unstoppable.

We've recruited well & we're getting lambasted for it. You lot can't have it both ways.

Give me concrete proof that we're cheating & I'll put an asterisk next to our title for this year...


Report this post



Nonanon
Last year
11:14 4 Nov 16

Reply #605568

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Gaze tip-toed around the issue as well as he did when he was on DWTS!


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
11:16 4 Nov 16

Reply #605570

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

To put things in context Southern Joe also thinks pro wrestling is real.


Report this post



Studio audience
Last year
11:18 4 Nov 16

Reply #605571

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It's unfortunate to hear this sort of talk publicly, it is reminiscent of the NBL in the 2000s when some clubs just weren't credible with their public statements.

Gaze is well known for talking gibberish, but it's a shame after making such a good impression early in his first coaching stint that he has made these comments that don't really appear credible.

The Kings should just be open and honest, and so should the league. There is a soft cap, no reason to deny you're paying players what they're worth, it's encouraged under league rules.


Report this post



paul
Last year
11:19 4 Nov 16

Reply #605572

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Oops, that was me ^^^. Got back from the studio and forget to change my moniker!


Report this post



LV
Last year
11:23 4 Nov 16

Reply #605576

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It makes sense. Kings shouldn't pay luxury tax. Why should they? They only have two guys who have played 1,200 odd NBA games between them, a 2 time NBL MVP, two former Boomers from relatively recently, a 2 time all NBL first teamer and MVP runner up, a highly rated import who starred for the D League champions last year.....

(And then a couple of other bench scrubs named Jason Cadee and Tom Garlepp, as well. Hacks...).

In other headline news today, it's been reported that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are upstanding, principled, ethical, truthful, sincere and individuals.


Report this post



KET
Last year
11:24 4 Nov 16

Reply #605577

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Cool your jets SJ, it's not Kings v The World. Sydney have been absolutely crap the last few years, when you're Perth or NZ you can start with the bluster.

I think many are happy for the Kings to do well precisely because they've been so awful. Plus, the NBL needs the biggest market to succeed.


But, you're clutching at straws even for someone with purple and yellow sight. You'd be going to extreme lengths to justify the idea the Kings are below $1.1mil. This is probably why people are annoyed at the NBL for not doing what they said they would: publish independent contract values.

People aren't annoyed at Kings recruiting well but it is absolutely a systematic failure if the Kings don't end up paying luxury/equalisation tax.


Report this post



LV
Last year
11:26 4 Nov 16

Reply #605578

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

KET- don't bother.

SJ is a nice man, but is best ignored when discussing the Kings. I've known him for 10+ years, believe me, he genuinely does believe that the sun shines out of the a$$ of anyone wearing Purple and Yellow.

Love ya, SJ :-)


Report this post



Nonanon
Last year
11:29 4 Nov 16

Reply #605579

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

"There's all this hysteria about the Kings simply because we're top of the table and "seem" unstoppable.

We've recruited well & we're getting lambasted for it. You lot can't have it both ways."

I think most people are actually happy for the Kings recruiting and playing well, but at the same time questions are being asked how they got there.

I certainly have more admiration for them than the Hawks under James Spencely, screwing people out of money with a bullshit VA and re-branding, then spending big.


Report this post



Zodiac
Last year
11:30 4 Nov 16

Reply #605580

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

I'll be honest I've lost a fair bit of respect for Gaze with these comments. He's got the cheek to imply the Kings are under the cap when they would be closer to double it and then to try and point the finger at other teams?

Very poor Drewy.


Report this post



Duke Fan
Last year
11:33 4 Nov 16

Reply #605581

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Take it easy on Drewy. 8 of the team are sleeping on foldup beds in his garage and he's paying their $27.50 pocket money each per week. He knows exactly what the team is spending.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
12:06 4 Nov 16

Reply #605584

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Gaze said above" being involved in having to pay some taxes" So where did he say the Kings wouldn't be paying? Pretty clear to me.
He also said and you would expect it to be the case that others would have to pay as well.
Yet for some inane reason, it's now the Kings won't be paying taxes ffs.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
12:07 4 Nov 16

Reply #605585

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Cough cough. :)


Report this post



_Strungout_
Last year
12:17 4 Nov 16

Reply #605587

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Gaze put these quotes out and has been refreshing the hoops.com.au forum ever since.

High level trolling. Well played Drewy.


Report this post



paul
Last year
12:20 4 Nov 16

Reply #605588

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Anon he is quoted as saying:

"But I don't think we're in that extreme category where we might be facing some prospects of, depending on the end numbers, being involved in having to pay some taxes."

The don't at the start of the sentence gives the negative, even though it got a bit long-winded in the middle.


Report this post



KET
Last year
12:34 4 Nov 16

Reply #605589

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

'I don't think we're in [the] category where we [have] to pay taxes.'

^
That reflects what Gaze was saying


Report this post



Mike
Last year
12:36 4 Nov 16

Reply #605590

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Would anyone in the world buy this deflecting nonsense?


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
12:42 4 Nov 16

Reply #605591

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

All I'll add to my previous Turn It Up, is that if the Kings aren't paying luxury tax then that's a sure sign that the system needs significant repair work.
It seems to be the intent of the rules to allow someone like the Kings to assemble a superteam, but the intent is surely also that the strugglers who can't do that get compensated for it.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
13:13 4 Nov 16

Reply #605593

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

"One thing I have learnt in my short time here is that the speculation and the lack of knowledge of what people are getting paid and the rumours that go around is quite comical." For most of the know it all here.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
13:20 4 Nov 16

Reply #605595

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Surely he didn't say those bits about likely avoiding luxury tax while casting aspersions instead at other teams with a straight face.
What?
Andrew Gaze is talking nonsense?
I just assumed it was written into his contract that he was not allowed to open his mouth in public?


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
13:50 4 Nov 16

Reply #605597

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

On a sadly serious note, this simply fuels the stink and suspicion.

Every knows the Kings are massively exceeding the soft-cap. I can say that with confidence because its based on deemed salaries, so even if their stars agreed to play for peanuts, that doesn't matter.

The assumption has always been that the (max) 150% tax would prevent anything too extreme, and if a rich owner was crazy enough to spend that kind of money, the league and other clubs would just laugh and happily take their money.

The fear with an owner like Anschutz is that they will do what thy want and tell the NBL to shove their tax. The suspicion is that part of agreement for them to buy into the NBL via the Kings, was some form of sweetheart deal.

Over the years there have been many egregious issues regarding the Salary Cap, but for mine this is eerily reminiscent of the 1995 fiasco. After cracking down on other teams, the NBL allowed the Giants to go nuts. They took no action during the season, and waiting until after the Giants lost the GF before announcing massive fines (which were then immediately waived.) I have always wondered what would have happened if they had won?


Report this post



drewfan
Last year
13:53 4 Nov 16

Reply #605598

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

blake has never won a title despite being in the NBA for many yrs. Is he now playing for money , or the chance to win a ring. Powell has won a couple of rings, but is he playing for money or success in his twilight yrs.

With their NBA careers over, they would have "banked" enough money to be sitting pretty now. I would think their priorities are now not money, but life style in an english speaking country, and the chance of winning a ring


Report this post



Wookiee (double E)
Last year
14:00 4 Nov 16

Reply #605599

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

I think we need to take Gaze's statements with a grain of salt, as he likes to talk and usually waffles on without thinking of any surrounding issues... He's got a point that no-one knows what players are being paid, but that's on the NBL to fix.

His statement, if not taken out of context, that the Kings might be in the camp of teams that might not need to pay tax is RIDICULOUS...

If he's trying to avoid any stigma that might be on a team overpaying, that's silly, but if he's legitimately trying to make people believe that we aren't over the soft cap to a significant degree that we would have to pay taxes, then I'm embarrassed to be a Kings fan... If you don't want to answer something, fine, but it's just going back to the old days of multiple sets of books and dodgy old Seamus to try to work the numbers to avoid the rules and to pay what should be owed... It hurts the credibility of the team and in the end, will contribute to destroying the league again...

So what if we're over the cap? Own it... "Yes, we've spent over the soft cap, but as per league rules, we thought that it was worth paying the taxes in the best interest of getting the sport back to its high levels of popularity in Sydney and investing int he longevity of the sport in this great city blah blah blah" there, easy...

And as for everyone against the Kings, SJ, it's definitely not the case, I've actually been surprised how little shit they've copped for their recruitment, it's just the lack of transparency, (which is a league wide problem) and the potential to dodge the numbers, which as a fan of the NBL in the past, I think we can all agree has been the case and something that we all hope never happens again...


Report this post



Wookiee (double E)
Last year
14:10 4 Nov 16

Reply #605601

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

@drewfan - I think you're right to a certain degree... It's hard to just assume thought that both players have banked their money and not been irresponsible with it (look how many high and low profile players have gone bankrupt) although recent articles suggest that Blake at least has been planning for his non-playing days for a while now (coaching and real estate training already undergone) and having a family, you'd hope that he was wise with his cash...

Powell is pretty active in pushing his charity, so either he's a shyster that is using it to scam people, or he's a pretty decent guy with his head on straight that has a moral compass leading him to help people which could mean that he's been a bit smarter with his cash as well, instead of living the high life and making it rain dolla bills ya'll...

I'm sure they wouldn't knock good money back or gift it back or play for peanuts, but it seems like a least a good portion of their motivation is to keep their playing career going for as long as possible in as top a league as possible... being a primarily English speaking country in a beautiful part of teh world ad not have to freeze your arse off getting to training (I remember one ex-King import having to ride a bike through the snow to training!).


Report this post



_Strungout_
Last year
14:32 4 Nov 16

Reply #605603

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

After reading this article http://i.imgur.com/pEtLcWE.gifv


Report this post



drewfan
Last year
14:34 4 Nov 16

Reply #605605

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

wookiee taking it further, how good is it for their families to live in a safe , english speaking country, great climate, great city, like being on holidays.

All of this is worth something other than $$$$$$$$


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
14:36 4 Nov 16

Reply #605606

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Ever think that maybe even though they were paid multi millions by their NBA clubs.. they may NOT need to look for another HUGE payday, but still be paid a 6 figure sum?
Sure, might not need to, but I guarantee you that they still are getting their payday and aren't playing cheap.

Blake's trying to get back to the NBA and not for charity but because he's still trying to earn money.

It's not like they go "Well, I earned $10m. Now it's time to give something back to the sport. Let me go to some completely random country and play for a professional team for minimum salary."


Report this post



KET
Last year
14:44 4 Nov 16

Reply #605607

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

That makes it sound like an NBL ring is a substitute for an NBA ring... If Blake and Powell win an NBL championship, I hate to say it, but it probably doesn't rate highly on their excitement scale and probably won't be highest on the list of proud achievements at the end of their careers.

I agree with Luuuc and Wookiee, not much I can add


Report this post



Kingpodge
Last year
14:55 4 Nov 16

Reply #605612

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

wow.... Andrew hasn't dropped a zinger like that since he said that he'd played defence.......


Report this post



LV
Last year
15:02 4 Nov 16

Reply #605613

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

"blake has never won a title despite being in the NBA for many yrs. Is he now playing for money , or the chance to win a ring. Powell has won a couple of rings, but is he playing for money or success in his twilight yrs.

With their NBA careers over, they would have "banked" enough money to be sitting pretty now. I would think their priorities are now not money, but life style in an english speaking country, and the chance of winning a ring"

Drewfan ftw!

I give up. I'm out. Doneskies! Outta here.

This quote just wins the whole argument. How could I have been so stupid as to think that Blake and Powell might be on more than pocket change. They might get to WIN A RING in the NBL!!!


Report this post



Southern Joe
Last year
15:18 4 Nov 16

Reply #605615

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Wow!

6 figures a season minimum wage? Sign me up!! Hehehe

At others. Not seeing this as Kings V World.. just hilarious that this even starts because of some wins. If we were any less than 50% win loss.. how much would this be an issue?


Report this post



ROFLcopter
Last year
15:26 4 Nov 16

Reply #605619

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

" If we were any less than 50% win loss.. how much would this be an issue?"

It would the equivalent of United....and we'd be calling for Gazes head....like we are calling for DD's!! lol


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
15:55 4 Nov 16

Reply #605627

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Not sure of the rulees anymore but after a certain number of years don't the NBA players get a guaranteed lifetime pension?


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
16:00 4 Nov 16

Reply #605629

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

blake has never won a title despite being in the NBA for many yrs. Is he now playing for money , or the chance to win a ring. Powell has won a couple of rings, but is he playing for money or success in his twilight yrs.

With their NBA careers over, they would have "banked" enough money to be sitting pretty now. I would think their priorities are now not money, but life style in an english speaking country, and the chance of winning a ring
Might be true, buts its also irrelevant.
The system is supposed to work on "deemed" salaries as assessed by an independent committee.
I imagine to this primarily to overcome a star getting paid peanuts by the club, but also being paid $0.5M by a sponsor to do advertising, or to cover that some teams provide luxury accommodation, cars, meals, 1st class travel, etc.
But it would also capture a star player who comes here for little, to play with a friend, or to revitalise his career, or because he wants to cuddle a Koala.


Report this post



Isaac
Last year
16:31 4 Nov 16

Reply #605635

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Joe, it's partly starting in this thread at least because Gaze thinks it's not ludicrous to claim that they aren't above the soft cap. And yet it doesn't stop him claiming that others are. That's going to antagonise people...


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
16:41 4 Nov 16

Reply #605640

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

"accommodation, cars, meals" are all part of the current cap Dazz.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
17:30 4 Nov 16

Reply #605652

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Part of the issue with a salary cap has always been that its hard to nail down all the extra bits and quantify them.
It has been alleged that the Bendats own a mansion at City Beach, fitted out for players, complete with a maid and chef, where the imports get to "board" for a very low sum. And that other players with families get similar "rental" deals. So ostensibly, the Cats are not providing accommodation.

It's also been alleged that teams employ creative accounting, and/or simply lie to the NBL.
The league has had a hard cap for decades, but when was the last time you heard of a team being penalised for breeching it? I love the Cats and bleed red but I would never suggest they adhered to the full spirit of the cap.
That's why the points system was introduced, and why the new system is supposed to use independently assessed values. It would be the height of naivety to think that simply because penalties have been replaced with a tax, that teams would suddenly start reporting every cent.

Which just highlights (as if there was any doubt) what a moron Gaze is, why he has never had a senior coaching gig before, and who the real coach is at Sydney.
Other teams don't need to lie, in fact there is no reason for them to provide any financial data.

It's just as well that Sydney have stacked their line-up, because otherwise there'd be a risk that player might actually listen to him during a game.

After all these years, I finally understand why refs were often so lenient on him. Despite his phenomenal talent, he clearly has a mental impediment. We should have sent him to the Paralympics and won some gold.


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
18:13 4 Nov 16

Reply #605656

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Well that escalated quickly. Talk about uncalled for.


Report this post



drewfan
Last year
18:51 4 Nov 16

Reply #605663

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Dazz dickhead


Report this post



Bol Bol
Last year
22:56 4 Nov 16

Reply #605807

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

We all bleed red Dazz

I have always liked Gaze and i think hes been doing s great job coaching so far but I agree with the few comments here that he should be keeping those sorts of comments to himself now that he is a head coach.

Its disrespectful and he wouldn't know what other clubs are paying their players anyway. Its so obvious it was a bad attempt at deflecting


Report this post



Wookiee
Last year
00:12 5 Nov 16

Reply #605809

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Right well, that took a turn from making a decent point to doing a Dazz...

Gaze was foolish putting it out there that his team might not have to pay any taxes, given the team that they've put together, and the compounded it by eluding to other teams going over, if not worse than them... One or the other is not nearly as bad ("Sure, we're over the soft cap which is legal and we will pay our taxes, but it's not like we are the only team going over to make our teams better") but both was just stupid and is just making the situation worse...


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
00:36 5 Nov 16

Reply #605812

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

classic stitch up by Gazey surely


Report this post



MK
Last year
02:43 5 Nov 16

Reply #605818

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

They are definitely going to be paying luxury tax, they have blown the cap. Gaze has no clue, the monkey couldn't even work out how much he is being paid, so best he stick to basketball instead of running his mouth. There are documents from AEG Ogden that have been obtained, I have seen them. Kings are still paying Childress. This is how they get away with it. They keep paying these big imports what they have promised during the offseason as to go unoticed. They're cheats. Wait for the leaked documents, I cannot wait until the Kings management gets redfaced when they are posted to the NBL. ;)


Report this post



MK
Last year
02:46 5 Nov 16

Reply #605819

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Also ignore any purple and gold whingers on here, what they say is irrelevant.


Report this post



LV
Last year
08:58 5 Nov 16

Reply #605828

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Dazz= biggest douchebag on Hoops.com.au.

Butthurt bad, and taking it out on the internet. Poor bloke.... Must have a tough life.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
09:22 5 Nov 16

Reply #605831

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Is that Gaze quote on any other sites? Couldn't find it listed anywhere, could the site/article be bollocks??


Report this post



paul
Last year
09:51 5 Nov 16

Reply #605833

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

MK, if the Kings are still paying Childress it is the result of a deal signed by the previous owners.


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
10:06 5 Nov 16

Reply #605837

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Dammit, why can't Julian Assange look into the big issues like this one instead of trawling through government emails looking for dick pics?


Report this post



KET
Last year
10:15 5 Nov 16

Reply #605838

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It's the his next big scandal that will shock the world


Report this post



Wookiee
Last year
12:36 5 Nov 16

Reply #605858

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

How in the hell would the Kings still be paying Chill and NOT have him on the team? And you're saying that because of this it's how they get away with other stuff? Wow, that's tough even for Hoops logic... If true and I can't see how, that's got to be the icing on the cake of the previous management's reign of incompetence...


Report this post



Southern Joe
Last year
19:19 5 Nov 16

Reply #605904

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Apparently the Kings are still buying Firepower tablets as well. ......


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
12:15 7 Nov 16

Reply #606545

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Here is the salary cap truth according to JVG.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/sydney-kings-insist-they-play-by-the-rules-as-questions-raised-over-their-starstudded-roster/news-story/ed25048b48df18bdf49e3717fc3e6eee


Report this post



Luuuc
Last year
13:06 7 Nov 16

Reply #606555

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

I've got no problem with anything JVG says there.
As long as teams over the cap pay their dues, the system has a chance of working as intended.


Report this post



paul
Last year
13:20 7 Nov 16

Reply #606559

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Exactly. We do need transparency though, or else we don't know if the system's working.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
14:57 7 Nov 16

Reply #606600

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

For mine that is completely missing the point.
I don't think anyone (sensible) has suggested that Sydney are doing anything other than what the NBL's new rule's allow. What we want to see is the NBL make those numbers public. Until that happens we have no assurance that Sydney are actually paying the tax they should.

I also don't like the assertion in that article that the tax basically goes into a slush for LK and his mates to play favourites with. That is not what was promised.

And as for whether this system is the way forward, well that remains to be seen.


Report this post



paul
Last year
15:07 7 Nov 16

Reply #606602

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It is only the way forward if it generates serious revenue. There is nothing to suggest NBL clubs spending big on players increases revenue, it is up to HQ to do the other work that brings people to the product and keeps them there.


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
15:19 7 Nov 16

Reply #606608

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Right on.
It seems like common sense that if a team spends an extra million then they'd want to make sure it results in at least that amount of increased revenue in return otherwise you can be sure they either won't be spending big again or won't be in the league much longer.


Report this post



Dazz
Last year
16:09 7 Nov 16

Reply #606634

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It seems like common sense that if a team spends an extra million then they'd want to make sure it results in at least that amount of increased revenue in return otherwise you can be sure they either won't be spending big again or won't be in the league much longer

There's a couple of parts to this.
Generous owners have often subsidised the running of teams. I have no problem with Anschutz subsidising the Kings, provided they are in for the long haul.
It does make sense that they would spend more money up front, get some success, get some bums on seats, and hopefully it pays off with increased attendances into the future.
The problem is that overspending by $1M, would result in a $1M tax bill, which means they need that $1M to generate an extra $2M in revenue. That's a tough ask.
And that's what fuels my concerns. If the Kings are crazy enough to pay that kind of tax, good luck to them. But the NBL's silence is worrying.


Report this post



Freethrows
Last year
18:27 7 Nov 16

Reply #606688

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

@Dazz, exceeding the salary cap by $1M would result in a tax bill of $1,062,500.00 (post #606634.)

Your point, though, is that the extra salary cap money spent would need to be raised in revenue to make it worthwhile for the owners. It's been alluded to in other posts that this is not necessarily a one-year deal for Anschutz, so they may well be prepared to take a hit in the first year, in an effort to build the team's image (and income) over several years.

I think you're also correct in your concern over what the NBL is (or isn't) planning to do with this money. I know I'm not alone in having had concerns since the new salary cap rules were posted on 30 March.

Bring on some transparency, NBL. They have a partnership with CPA Australia that was made for the pre-season. Perhaps it's time to have the CPA come through and run a ruler over the whole situation, then actually come up with the goods.

As far as I know, the "Contract Review Committee" still doesn't even exist. Does anyone know otherwise?


Report this post



Southern Joe
Last year
18:44 7 Nov 16

Reply #606694

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Question here....

If a club is paying a tax... would not that be a percentage that they pay... not dollar for dollar?


Report this post



Anonymous
Last year
18:49 7 Nov 16

Reply #606696

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

It's an internal tax SJ. Be at the game Saturday? Utd Vs Kings?


Report this post



Southern Joe
Last year
20:52 8 Nov 16

Reply #606935

re: Kings may not need to pay luxury tax: Gaze

Yep. General admin.

Come say g'day ( whoever you are ... ;) )


Report this post





 

Reply to this topic

Name Email

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Triton 84

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: 4:34 pm, Thu 27 Apr 2017 | Posts: 655,271 | Last 7 days: 693