Name change?

Surely knowing how close Ben F seems to be to Mitch Creek it has to be something to do with his potential move to Brooklyn.

Could the 6ers be threatening to block his pathway there until they are paid a significant amount of $ top compensate for losing him?

Will Boti (or anyone else in the media) have the balls to come out and honestly report on what is happening at risk of getting the cold shoulder from the 6ers in the future?

Anonymous, it is the 36ers.

Sounds likely Oso. The sixers are owed nothing. He has an nba outclause. They need to fuck off or maybe change ownership if this is the case.

I suspect the NBA outclause required transfer payment at some point in the past, but not sure he was under contract at this point.

TBH, I'd forgo any transfer insistence if there was a risk of it impacting future recruitment of others.

Will Boti (or anyone else in the media) have the balls to come out and honestly report on what is happening at risk of getting the cold shoulder from the 6ers in the future?

because no-one in Australian basketball expects anything relevant/useful/interesting from the Advertiser's sports writers ? and Boti still usually has some hidden kernel that is relevant/useful/interesting ?

I still don't quite get it. Didn't he decline his player option to sign with a team in Europe, then use his NBA out clause in that deal to go to Brooklyn?

Was there something in his contract that said opting out of his deal for Europe was free, but opting out to go to the NBA had a price tag?

Doesn't sound right.

Very Old, yes, I imagine that's right, but assuming that, I'd give the semi-retired and unpaid blogger a bit of grace. If there's a story, The Advertiser should be on it as paid and resourced writers.

Fair Call Isaac on naming Boti, I guess that's simply because he is the only name I know (I wouldn't have a clue who write for he Advertiser anymore) and he seemed to mention on Twitter a while back in response to another Ben Fitz tweet 'watch this space' so I assumed it was about the same topic.

Would be a tricky situation though, come out and drop a big story that makes the sixers looks bad but still want to have access to them for the future.

The 36ers have always been run like a tinpot operation. Fucking up the spelling of Brad Newley's name on the contract offer that saw him then sign with Townsville instead, refusing to give Joe Ingles a spot on the full roster only offering a DP spot seeing him then sigh with the South Dragons instead and score 20 in his first game, supposedly releasing Ferguson early last offseason so OKC didn't have to pay the transfer fee costing the club $400k and now screwing up with Creek's contract costing them $100k.

Earlier allegedly coming to terms with Creek on a new deal and then when he got the contract the deal was for less than they had previously agreed to and now holding up his NBA contract which if it hasn't already will ensure he likely never plays for us again, damages our standing with players and coaches in the NBL and will also tarnish our club internationally with future imports.

You couldn't make this shit up.

Ingles was also spoken of as a centre by the admin at the time. Thought it was his name misspelled rather than Newley's - but it's been ages and might be wrong. I think there was something about Newley being somewhat ignored while the Crocs coach (Stacker?) visited him in hospital during an injury recovery. I don't think admin helped, but I think the Newley effort and then lack of confidence in Ingles came from the then-coaches.

They've been a bit bush league forever, but who knows how they've conjured up bungling Creek's re-signing (should've been a huge priority) and then whatever is going on now. Doubt any of it has endeared them to the coach.

Apologies I misremembered and thought that was Newley and like Issac said I remember there was other stuff like the Crocs going all out to lure him and the Sixers just expecting the local boy would sign with his local team.

I'm going to wait until there is more come to light, but in recent memory the Sixers have not done anything toxic.

I would hope the Sixers don't do anything to jeopardise anyone's NBA dreams let alone those of their favourite son.

But as mentioned above, we don't even know 100% that this is about the Sixers.

I would say BenFitz is referring to the Sixer's requesting an injunction for his release to Brooklyn unless adequate compensation is provided.

Poor form and suffice to say we will never see Mitch back in Sixer's blue.

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/basketball/adelaide-36ers-file-injunction-to-stop-mitch-creeks-nba-clearance-without-compensation/news-story/9fa392a557143135fd0a80eb8889ffd9

You would expect most clubs to be happy if a player went to the next level, just like an SANFL player moving to the AFL.....

Seems like all contracts have a standard "NBA out" in them and I unaware of any player transfer fee like they have in soccer.

Turned out to be c.nts...

Of course it's about the 36ers...

Everyone wave goodbye to future recruiting chances. To Creek ever playing for Adelaide again, etc. Insane decision to make IMO.

This is very very disappointing, I was just saying that the Sixers don't do toxic things.

WTF, why? Just how much are we talking about?

If Brooklyn balks at this and shows Mitch the door, and he's already told his German club no thanks, he WON'T come back to the Sixers.

This to me is even more disappointing than losing the GF.

Ok, everyone is very quick to blame the Sixers here. I'll play devils advocate. How do we KNOW that they didn't have a clause in Creek's contract that entitles them to a transfer fee? Surely the owners wouldn't pursue this unless they genuinely believe they have a case?

Even if they are due a fee ......eventually Creek will be coming back and I don't know perhaps not massively pissing off a favourite son is the better path.

36ers have build a nice roster of youngsters the past few years but any future players with NBA aspirations will be staying away you'd think.

So I'm guessing that the article was light on actual specifics?

Simple things like the 36ers explaining why they think they're entitled to this fee when as far as the basketball public knows, Creek didn't exercise his player option, signed overseas and then utilised his NBA out clause in that contract to pursue his NBA dream, should really clear it up?

Surely it's in their best interest, as good luck getting any decent local players to sign there now with how this looks...

Can the Sixers even raise an injunction if there is no contract to back it up?

There seems to be some conjecture on whether Creek opted out or opted in.

I've read one article which suggested he opted in, but most of the talk here says opted out.

"eventually Creek will be coming back"

How does everyone know this?

@Playmaker - we don't, it is a guess but more likely than less IMHO.

I expect the 36ers took legal counsel before pursuing this matter. Hopefully the advice was better than "It's the vibe of it.....".


Hopefully the matter achieves conciliation without detrimental impact on any party, particularly Mitch and the 36ers.

Can see Creek returning to NBL eventually but unlikely with Adelaide.

1) Is Mitch Creek a contracted player for the 36ers? Was/is he on the roster to play next season?

2) If he is a contracted player for the 36ers, was there a stated buyout amount in the contract? Is this based on the length of his contract (eg if he was signed for the 36ers for the next 2/3 years the buyout would be higher)?

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/basketball/adelaide-36ers-file-injunction-to-stop-mitch-creeks-nba-clearance-without-compensation/news-story/9fa392a557143135fd0a80eb8889ffd9


this was open to me without a sub

but does not work when I post it

perhaps start from here ?
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/

that worked ;)

Doesn't work for me.

If he signed a contract with these clauses then he has to honor it.

Poor form and short sighted by the 6ers.

Even if they had a case, they're destroying a relationship with a player and sending a negative message to players league-wide.

Is 100k really worth more than their reputation and good will of the fans? They will drop more than that when us members leave and they can't get players to joIn the team. This is an all time bone headed move. You don't think the nets are just like let's move on a player we can get with no issues. This is his big chance and some suit in Adelaide is flushing any chance he has down the toilet.

When $100,000 might be about a third of how much they're looking to give him in the first place, they might pass on Mitch and go for a player who doesn't have a slightly insane team owner trying to pinch pennies from them. The ramifications of playing these games with NBA teams could echo on for years. I even suggest boycotting the Sixers if they continue.

My god this is just sad.

https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/8/8/17663560/australian-team-wants-compensation-from-nets-before-letting-mitch-creek-go

Firstly, you are putting Mitch's NBA dream at risk for $100,000??? Come on Sixers don't do this.

Creek had one year of a three-year deal left to run with the 36ers in the 2018-19 season but triggered his European/NBA out clause to join a top-level German club, Wurzberg. Wurzberg gave Creek its clearance but Adelaide claims it must get its approval as well.

Poor Mitch Creek, would retiring his number 55 be enough to get him back there?

I mean seriously Mitch would literally run through a wall if it meant he could get a greater chance to make the NBA... real fucking sad when that wall is a team you've loved for years

I love how every punter says its only $100K and your standing in the way of Creek's dream!

Its easy to say when its not your $100K

There's something about this that doesn't really add up for me. Maybe i'm being naive. There have been articles in the past in which the 36ers said they'd seek compensation but ultimately not block Mitch from going to the NBA. The fact that Mitch is at the club this week working out indicates to me that he has some level of comfort with what is happening. It'd be good to hear from him personally to be honest.
Whatever happens, it's yet again a whole bunch of terrible publicity for the club. We seem to do this annually...

Chairman, if Mitch has an ongoing relationship, I suspect it would be with teammates and coach. I could see this incident as being part of something that drives a wedge between the club and everyone on-court. Can't see how many players would be supportive of it or that Joey would be enthused by them bungling re-signing his top player and then making future recruitment more difficult.

I wonder if his deal had a clause allowing him to play in Europe in the NBL offseason and then come back to the Sixers.
But if he left to the NBA there was a buyout clause, which probably assumed he would have been signing a guaranteed NBA deal. Which would have given him $1mil roughly.
But as he has only signed a training amp deal that guarantees about $30k the $100k buyout looks pretty rough.
Obviously just guessing at the details, but that would make some kind of sense.

Many contracts have a claw back provision in a contract whereby a player has permission to play or be released for a certain opportunity but should that cease or be declined, automatically the player comes back under the contract of the club they had previously come from under a form of team option/first right of refusal condition. This is usually given to protect Player if they get cut in EU mid season but also the club so they release an asset but he doesn't wind up playing against you in 3 months if they get cut.

Everyone who is whinging about this should really look at what happens in the EU leagues where this is common place particularly for local talent which is extremely hard to replace.

Basketball and the NBA is a business as to is NBL ownership! LK and Co turned it from a bush league hobby sport to an investment and as such we should expect the owners to treat it as such.

Thats right CJ magically got an america accent whilst living in Aust/NZ its funny he didn't have it before his two years in community college or when he first got back to Australia.

People whining about accents is a monstrous pet peeve of mine. It's personal. It's irrelevant. And to use it as a sleight shows no understanding of someone who's grown up amidst two cultures. Give it up. It's pathetic.

Aussiebballer and Reality, I've been wondering something similar to both of you. There must be some grey areas relating to Creek's contract or none of this would be happening. We could just as easily point the finger at Brooklyn and ask why they are such cheap skates that they won't pay the Sixers $100k for a player they developed over about 8 years! They have a $118 million roster for christ sakes. WTF is $100k to them?!?!

I think the 36ers have filed this injunction against BA as well. I'd guess BA are not very excited about it.

Beantown, if they have not committed more than $x0k to Creek at this point, you think they're going to be keen to put up more (I heard $350k, not $100k) rather than just go with someone else they were considering?

Meanwhile:

Come on @Adelaide36ers. This is awful. Whoever is pushing this will lose you a lot of fans and potential players. https://t.co/0MotuKCyl1

— Josh Childress (@JChillin) August 9, 2018

They have a $118 million roster for christ sakes. WTF is $100k to them?!?!

Only about $30k of his contract is guaranteed. The $100k payment would only be made if he makes the Nets roster when his contract would become fully guaranteed to the tune of around $700k for the season.

This is an embarassment. Get me in the room with the GM, i swear to god. Mitch worked his ass off for this club, at a measly salary for most of his playing time. F^&k right off Adelaide, this is disgusting.

You're right, he is very close with Joey and the boys but don't you think for a second the coaching staff are ok with this BS either, they have no say in teh business crap and that is what this is CRAP.

people thinking 100K is a drop in the ocean have no real idea what a G league or training contract is worth in the NBA, not much at all.

He will be on minimum wage and he is going over there to forge his way, not make coin right now. SORT it out sixers, i will not renew my membership until you do.

Storm in a teacup. Sixers have agreed to terms with the Nets. Mitch is cleared to play.

What a brave statement from the club as well. Don't know what I really wanted them to say but they have dragged their name through mud, the cheque better be huge.

Not brain surgery? He was cleared to play in Germany by FIBA, which could not happen if there was a contract in place with Adelaide. Adelaide are trying to get something out of a situation where there is nothing. If it was cut and dry they need to be paid there would be no need for heading to court. They dropped the ball.

To the anon above

You have no idea about the situation or any facts involved. Creek had the player option which means he doesn't have a contract if he chooses that path. He didn't pick up the option and was cleared regardless. The 36ers low balled him well below what others on the team get paid despite being the teams best player.

There is only one person to blame for all of this.

FWWI here's the 'NBA out clause' that used to be in the NBL Standard Player Contract, back in 2010-11. This was the contract published by the NBL Players' Association.

"18. NBA RELEASE

18.1 The Club agrees to enter into bona fide negotiations with the Player to release the player from this Contract if the Player receives a bona fide offer from a National Basketball Association ("NBA") Club.

18.2 The Club and the Player must negotiate an amount of compensation payable to the Club in good faith. If the parties cannot agree on an amount of compensation then the matter may be referred to arbitration under clause 15.

18.3 In the event that the Player returns to the NBL competition, the Player agrees that the Club may (at the sole discretion of the Club), subject to clause 18.4, require the Player to play for the Club in the NBL competition for the period of this Contract that is left unfulfilled by the release of the Player from this Contract.

18.4 If the Club requires the Player to play for the Club under clause 18.3, then the Club must:

(a) pay to the Player the Salary in accordance with the terms of this Contract for that period that the Player plays for the Club in the NBL competition.


18.5 The Club and the Player agree:

(a) to enter into a Deed of understanding to formalise the terms of the release of the Player by the Club; and

(b) that the Club must cause a copy of the Deed to be given to the NBL within seven (7) days of the Player and the Club entering into the Deed."

Who knows how far from this Creek's contract terms might vary but at least this gives some idea of what an NBA out-clause might look like. Anon's point above about 2-way deals would apply to the term "bona fide offer" in this clause, if that's how Creek's contract is written.

Adelaide are getting paid which is there right. They'll also get more if he makes the roster.

NBA clauses don't cover two way or G-League deals as said above and also only apply if you have a guaranteed deal...many still have some compensation figure on a pro rata basis depending on the time of the clubs season it occurs.

PeterJohn, and what part of that contract does it say that the NBA team has to pay the NBL team? it is all NBL team and player negotiating a release. Last time Creek played it was not even for Adelaide.

Pretty sure the NBA club can payout to a limited amount and then the player has to pay the difference. It this case the dollar amount is small. Even if the sixers are doing the right thing (I don't think they have) the have botched up the publicity side of things so bad that the damage has been wide ranging.

It's not even a true NBA contract. Sixers are just being douches as usual. Absolutely crazy. Worst run team in the NBL bar none.

The crux of the matter is STILL why he was cleared to sign in Germany (was this just the regular short term end-of-season deals like other players?) and whether or not he took up the player option or not (sorry, it sounds convincing, but until either party confirms it, anon saying something is still just anon). I can't see why Creek would take up the player option without an increase in pay with the profile that he had and the amount of cash that other NBL teams at the very least would have thrown at him... it doesn't make sense...

If someone would just officially clear up whether he was signed with Adelaide or not, then I think everyone will be happy... well, internet happy, which is still at least 30% outraged, but it would be enough...

Either way, the 36ers have stuffed this up from a perception point of view with crap communication, as always...

Now you have Bogut saying he has heard that at least one team has gone after him already should he return and Ingles saying he knows one club he is not coming back to. They really have screwed the pooch here, don't think they really thought this through.

Maybe now Adelaide can move on and look forward to an exciting season ahead with DeLeon and co.

The funny thing is the way we are all forgetting that he hasn't even made the final roster yet and still has a lot of work to do to get there.

I mean yes technically its a release to the Nets - but in reality its a release to go attend a few trainings with the potential to prove yourself for something more.

Could potentially be a lot of bad publicity for nothing.

It was only bad publicity becuase Adelaide/NBL fans have no concept of how it works!

In Europe the fans hating seeing players leave to the NBA and want the club to get fair compensation as part of the that process.

It appears NBL fans think owners should just give assets away from free (and yes players are assets!)

Agreed. Negotiations over releases are pretty common in Europe, we're just not used to them here. What also didn't help was Adelaide not explaining anything about the situation publicly, leaving fans to speculate.

@Reality

Fans are used to this since Bradtke going to Portland mid season, Cattalini going to Europe and Gaze going to college instead of playing a full NBL season. A multitude of examples exist.

You suggesting that this is new is laughable. Only a few years ago 36ers released DJ to Europe so it's very familiar to 36er fans in particular. It's been happening for years.

What isn't new is legal action against the face of the club, ostracising the player ,sponsors and fans in the process.

If a new owner wants to start setting up contracts to include buy outs etc thats fine but it cant be done retrospectively. It sure as hell cant be handled the way it has been handled by the 36ers on this occasion.

Also I think fans have a sense of ownership (maybe not the right word) with regards to Mitch having him been with us for such a long time and seeing the work he has put in. And now should things not work out like we all hope there is little chance he will come back and play for us.