Kestelman's proposal was supposedly to take a 51% ownership for THREE years, "return the league to profitability," then step aside and reduce his ownership to 26%.

NSFW, NN warning

Isaac, Do you find this thread title acceptable?

Probably a fan of a rural team who hates progress.

probably a salty Perth fan who can't stand another team outspending them.

And the award for the biggest dickhead thread goes to...

Ok I'll bite... so if he only has 26% ownership then does that other 25% go back to NBL teams, the NBL as an administration or other means?

In this form what limitations would that represent, what couldn't he do?

Can we get rid of First Ever?

3 years does ring a bell, but 3 years from when?

Part of the problem is that we only had Boti (and others) reports of what was supposedly offered (and initially rejected?) and don't know what the final deal actually was.

Certainly my understanding was that it was for a finite period, but as I said we don't know the details of the final agreement.

People who have an issue with Kestelman's leadership have very short memories, that's all I can be bothered to say on the matter right now.

how many want to see this returned to the "grass roots" via BA?.... I'm quite happy with the entitled Bus driver when I see the long line of failed, recycled and dangerously incompetent alternate drivers waiting at the curb

Problems before Kestleman - the league may be forced to fold, completely gutting perhaps the most important organization in Australian basketball.

Problems during Kestleman - "Waaah, teams are spending too much on players, and MY PARTICULAR TEAM doesn't get to play against NBA teams."

Whinging bloody bitches. No appreciation whatsoever. People who rail on Kestleman like this should be banned from watching the league. It's one thing to have genuine gripes but this insane hatred is beyond the pale.

"most important organization in Australian basketball"

People continue to identify the health of the sport with the health of one competition. Health of a sport is usually measured by participation levels in the population and results on the international stage.

Population participation in organised basketball in Australia has borne no relationship with the popularity, size, viability or public profile of NBL over the last 25 years. Organised basketball participation has grown in line with population growth throughout that period, based on Australian Sports Commission and Australian Bureau of Statistics data. In the meantime, the NBL has seen booms in popularity, busts in popularity, variable profile through TV and media coverage, multiple team failures and multiple new teams.

I'll accept that the question of whether participation might have fallen if the NBL ceased to exist, is an open one. But so is the question of whether the NBL would have ceased to exist without Kestleman's purchase of the league.

One area where I think the NBL has become more important in recent times is international performance, with the change to the FIBA qualification process. The NBL now delivers whole squads for that process, which was not the case for the decade or so beforehand. That has made the NBL more important to the health of the sport itself, through a more direct contribution to Australia's international results.

Kestleman has changed the NBL significantly and it's probably overall for the betterment of the league. In saying that, I note that we don't know if the league today is truly a commercially sustainable proposition.

It remains to be seen whether that betterment of the NBL leads to any improvement in the health of the sport of basketball in Australia. It's quite possible things like introducing 3x3 will have a greater impact on participation than improving the commercial viability of the NBL. Internationally, the performances of Australian players in overseas leagues will have more impact on the international results that matter, than the NBL's success or failure.

From memory, Kestelman said if after three years the clubs weren't happy with progress under his ownership he would give them their stakes back. With things going well, likely there weren't too many takers.

And that's just it - THINGS ARE GOING WELL!

I defy anyone to show me a single metric by which the NBL has not consistently improved since LK has been in, every single season he's been in. There is none. Although the league is still fighting to become sustainable it certainly has far promise of doing that than it ever did, with record crowds and increasing sponsorship and TV relevance.

The community work has always been up to the teams. Now people are really reaching.

They need to be resourced for that.

Seeing as they're actually based in those communities theyre better equipped to go out into those communities as theyve always done. if theyve stopped doing that that isn't Kestleman's fault. So as I said, you're reaching.

Last I knew a large amount of community work was still written into every Wildcats contract. Plus you have guys like Greg Hire and Damian Martin who are constantly doing charity and community work even out of season and off contract (in the case of Greg).

If your club is not doing community work that is on your club not on Kestelman.

Most clubs do a truckload of community work, particularly in schools.

Has anyone heard what LK is doing this year with regard to pouring in money or giving up ownership or anything?