Would the imports we get really be much better?

I'd be worried that we'd end up in scenario that we are getting the same level of imports; its just that they are getting paid a lot more.

We already seem to get some really good imports e.g. arguably some of the best players outside of the NBA as is.

Didn't Jacob Wiley for example carve up the Spain league last year? (2nd leading scoring or something)

Maybe an extra cap would help get those bigger time players/huge players who are more marketable like Lance Stephenson, Jeremy Lin etc, but even are some of those guys worth a mil on the court (or even worth it for marketing?).

Interesting conversation.

I just don't think the quality of imports would change much because we already get the top strata outside of the NBA?

The types of ex-NBA players who go to China would end up in the NBL. This can only be a good thing, even though we know the likes of Marbury, Lin, OJ Mayo and Gilbert Arenas probably wouldn't set the NBL on fire.

A-League is a good example - you can have the extra cap space and money but really they haven't captured much more than the odd aging player for marketing.

I would rather see the money help keep our kids returning from D1 or D2 College in our system so they can continue to make a liveable dream without having to play in the Turkish 3rd Division.

What Bogut's promises ownership stake worth?

I wonder if a bogut style deal could be a good option for some fringe NBA guys. I would love for the NBL to perhaps move even earlier in the year to create a short, sharp season which opens up the opportunity for the top level guys to go to the NBA or Euro for the last part of their seasons.

I would love to see the NBL run between September and January with January designated to the finals campaign. A 15 week/30 game season with games thursday to sunday, followed by a month of finals.

Short and Sharp. Two games per week per team and allows bigger names the ability to come and play an easier start to the season and stay fresh for the run into the playoffs in the NBA.

Another perk would be having finals in January generally avoids finals for all other sports and ensures the NBL is done and dusted prior to AFL preseason games starting.

The start of the season would get buried by AFL/NRL finals, it would kill the NBLxNBA series, venue availability would mean Perth, Melbourne and SE Melbourne would have to take home games on the road and the latter two would be unable to play home finals....

"A 15 week/30 game season..."

About the length of most TV reality game series (i.e., The Bachelor, Survivor, etc.). Coincidence? I think not... Probably some psychology about how long you can keep the audience watching from week to week in there.

We already have one Bogut was on $1 million last season and will be again this season.

OP, the floor took about 4 seasons to increase by 60% to where it is now. Most of the increase has happened in the last 2 seasons. That reflects the substantial spending of 3, maybe 4 teams. The other teams don't seem to have that sort of cash, so the floor will probably grow in line with spending by the richest 3-4 teams. This season suggests they have an appetite to keep spending, so maybe the floor will crack $2 million in 3 seasons, at this rate.

However, the earlier poster's question applies - how much has revenue grown? And, more to the point, how much of that growth has gone to clubs, as apposed to the NBL?

I think there probably has been some revenue growth but most likely it's gone to the NBL, not so much to clubs. Exceptions would be the Kings' jump in season memberships sold last year and presumably some greater sponsorship revenue for some clubs, as interest in NBL has grown.

However, other revenue, like anything from more eyeballs on screens and league level sponsorship would go to the NBL. Anyone know what the NBL/clubs revenue sharing arrangements are? Does Kestleman have to recoup his investment before any profits can be shared with clubs?

I also think any revenue growth is probably not much at this stage.

Last comment. If the highest paid player at the moment is getting $600,000 salary, adding $400,000 to that will add about $6 per ticket to the cost of going to a game, unless other source revenue to the player's club goes up to cover it. So, that player has to add a lot of drawing power, such as Bogut did for Sydney last year.

Bogut's contract figure won’t be divulged by the NBL or Sydney, but it’s understood he will earn close to $1 million.

"... to create a short, sharp season which opens up the opportunity for the top level guys to go to the NBA or Euro for the last part of their seasons."

This already happens.

Um, no. Only $160,000 of whatever the Kings pay him counts for salary cap purposes. That's what "marquee player" means in the NBL. They can pay him as much as they want to but only $160,000 of it counts for luxury tax purposes.

What does that have to do with anything?

How long until a franchise (or league) can afford to pay $1 million to 1 player?