I believe so generally. Really capture that NZ bball market with a good rivalry

Been discussed at length before, and yes IMHO 2nd NZ would be great.
The (previous??) owner of the Saints tried a couple of times to get this up, but couldn't get NBL agreement.
Originally, Sengstock rejected the bid as it didn't fit his BS "Community" model. Then I think in later years, the ownership didn't have the wealth to sustain an LK model.

It would be great to:
Create some rivalry WITHIN NZ,
create competition for, and split, the "Tall Blacks" talent pool,
create a new doomsday double, with teams travelling to NZ playing two games.

But the issues remain the same.
You need the government to stump up for a decent venue, and
Owners with the wealth to support an NBL franchise.

TSB arena?

Nick Mills has stated on the record he won't pay for a licence fee, and that was when they were cheap pre-LK.

Would be good to have a second NZ team but it won't have anything to do with the Saints.

Bring it. I don't care if my team wins or loses, just so long as we beat New Zealand

The rise of kiwi players is a good thing - perfect for a second team. More $$$ to bring those marquee NZers back home.

Those options for a 12 team are all pretty average. Newcastle would they be appropriately supported? Canberra?

GC, Townsville would be no.

Geelong not sure about.

My mind would be a third Melbourne team focussing North or West.

AFAIK Wellington have not been approached for a new NBL bid either.

As much as I would love to see a new team, we don't have an indoor arena that would do the NBL justice. But combine it with the NZBA and it'd definitely alter the NZ basketball landscape (especially at high school level, where the North Shore high schools own the national comps).

Oops! I may have my CEO's mixed up.
Who was it pushing the "Community Model"??

NB: I am using the term "bid" in its most general meaning, not as a formal process.

The Saints owner (Mills??) was keen for a long time, but got no love from the NBL.
A while back, there was talk around a "community model". It's what the NBL wanted at the time, but Mills was not interested. Some either people were trying to get a "community model" up, but it didn't amount to anything, then things changed at the NBL. We had the Marvin interim period, then LK took over.

In the LK era, any wouldbe owner needs to stump up a lot more cash than previously.

It was the guy who came in after the demerger. Fraser something, I think?

Fraser Neill? Graeme Wade?

You could do a bunch of paid company searches and find out who the directors are if you were really serious.

and shareholders.

Does it matter who owns what?

You really like basketball, right?

Get behind your team, somehow.

You're right about it being whackie that one bloke owns most of the teams. If he didn't, we'd have a 4 or 5 team comp. Well, we actually wouldn't cos those owners would more than likely pull the plug on such a league.

So, if he ends up owning all the NBL clubs, and the NBL 1 clubs too, so-be-it.

As close as you are to the truth, who cares. Look at this forum and the passion most of us display. For all intents and purposes, these teams/clubs are as independant as they need-to-be/have-to-be-to-survive to deliver what we have.

I hope that this all changes soon and I'm sure that it will.

I just can't see LK being a hoarder of non-profitable basketball teams and that he will have sold his "other" licenses..and I'm sure that he will.

Who?

I assume they're talking about the Bogut/Homicide thing.

Ah yeah, Fraser Neil, that sounds better.
Yeah, he had the idea for lots of "community based" teams, playing in smaller regional venues...
To be fair, After the fiascos with Dragons, Kings, and Bullets, (and a few smaller ones) I can understand why he would have liked to move away from the private ownership model. Problem is that nobody will put that kind of cash into a Community model. Its one thing to piss your own money away on, quite another to watch some boob do it for you.

As for LK onselling teams. The issue is not that one has to pay $xM for the franchise. It's that if you don't have those millions to play with, then owning an NBL team is probably not for you.

Yes LK took over Melbourne, but my understanding is that he has subsequently brought others in.
Similarly with Brisbane, at least a third is now owned by somebody else with plans (pre covid) for that to move up, eventually to 100%.
He obviously pushed for the Phoenix, but got another billionaire to invest, and if he can't get somebody upfront for Tasmania, I imagine that once it is operationally independent of his property deal, he'll follow similar steps there.
The only reason they are holding the Hawks license is to try and keep the "team" alive.

Whilst I have not agreed with some (or perhaps many) decisions, and feel that some of his actions have been "unfair" its clear he's acting to promote the league and what he sees as being in the league's best interests.

Clearly MU is well funded, but Perth and Sydney are equal to the challenge and there has been great competition these past seasons.