Awks for Adelaide

Pretty awkward for the entire top 3 I think. On the flip side, incredible from Cairns, NZ, and the JJs.

36ers previous issue = the absence of a rich owner who can spend
36ers current issue = the presence of a rich owner who does spend

Pray for Adelaide fans.

What an embarrassment Adelaide are. Culture absolutely rotten.

Wow! Good transparency by NBL.

Puts extra emphasis on how good NZ and Cairns were

So that is within the salary cap but after you've paid out the marquees then so we all think that is the same order of team spend for last season?

"36ers previous issue = the absence of a rich owner who can spend
36ers current issue = the presence of a rich owner who does spend"

100% haha

Seriously though, trying to do the old Real Madrid doesn't work - money is only good if you can use it well.

I’m hoping the reason Adelaide spent so much is by matching the expenditure with revenue increases.

Ultimately we don’t want a championship bought for a year or two, we want a strong, stable and successful club.

The top 3 teams should be embarrassed.

Hawks should be embarrassed as well.

Not really for the Hawks, that includes all the spend on the imports who got injured. I think their total spend would have ended up being above what they budgeted for.

36ers must be losing huge amounts of money as too SEM , Brisbane and Hawks

Perth used to say they made 1 million a year when the salary cap was 1 million so they too must be dropping cash in big bags.

No way these salaries are sustainable without benevolent ownership.

36ers were hamstrung by JVG's decisions which are still being felt. Unfortunately they haven't learnt, and are still just clinging on to free agency with no long term plan.

There's a little bit of detail in the article that might make the relative spending of the teams misleading.

For contracts paid in USD, they use a fixed exchange rate to convert the contract value to AUD. The article says this is below the real exchange rate.

So consider this scenario:

Club 1 pays a player a USD amount that converts using this method to, say, AU$300k.

Club 2 pays a player AU$300k.

Let's assume all the other players are paid exactly the same.

What that means is in "real money" Club 1 have spent more than Club 2 - but that isn't reflected in the table above.

And whilst you might be able to say it is likely imports that are paid in USD, you can't know that there aren't imports paid in AUD...

US players are paid net as well, does the taxes come into these figures? Are extra over for marquee players in these figures or just base marquee. I actually think that the salaries are quite low compared to what is available OS.

What I'd be gleaning is the sheer discrepancy between $2.9m and $1.65m.

Is there a scenario or mechanism that:
#1 allows clubs to compete salary wise; and
#2 doesn’t prevent clubs attracting as best talent possible; and
#3 doesn’t overly punish big market successful clubs for doing well or investing - especially given NBL clubs aren’t exactly making outrageous unfair profits.

Is it entirely impossible to reconcile those three things?

Import contracts are done at the exchange rate of the day of the contract and then divide by say 10 payments or how ever long the contract is for.

The gross contract value would be included in the numbers above for imports and locals. You dont have locals saying they get paid ex tax and so on.

"Is there a scenario or mechanism that:
#1 allows clubs to compete salary wise; and"

There is a soft cap in the NBL of $1.71 million, to increase by $1.82mil next year.

For marquee Australians, Next stars and I think 1 Asian League players and 1 indigenous player too, there are deductions from what they receive, to what is counted to the cap.

Marquee Australians for example you can pay $1 million, but only $250k goes towards the cap. Looking at the Kings, they amount here is probably (close to?) the cap + Cooks' marquee exemption.

Once the cap is exceeded, I believe a tax is paid to the NBL, who then distribute it to poorer clubs.

"#2 doesn't prevent clubs attracting as best talent possible; and"

Best talent possible is how much they want to outlay. You can't spend what you don't have, the mechanism is in place.

'The best they can afford'.

"#3 doesn’t overly punish big market successful clubs for doing well or investing - especially given NBL clubs aren’t exactly making outrageous unfair profits"

The rich clubs can exceed a soft cap. One could say this isn't being overly punished.

You just explained the current system, we know what the current system is and why they do it.

Question isn't about striking the balance between the competing aspects either, because we know that’s what the current system attempts.

The question is more towards "is it possible to have it all"

Is there a system that removes/reduces the sheer sizeable discrepancy that *does exist in the current system* without screwing with things like talent acquisition which is the benefit of the current system in place.

If you’re say, Cairns, and you’re putting in $1mil a year less than other teams, so you try to money ball it and all your hard work finishes with others stealing your players at their peaks....it’s like supporting a club not designed to do the one thing that is meant to be the point: winning the championship.

Most competitions in the world have uneven balance sheets between clubs, it's just the way it is. Big clubs have money, smaller clubs have less.

For sure

AFL is one of the few comps where the disparity is more skewed towards culture and location than anything else

KET, how do you want to judge the clubs?

If financial position (as an entertainment venture), then getting reliable crowds without overspending on talent counts for something. Maybe that's working for Cairns?

Purely winning championships?

Making the post-season and making fans feel like you're at least counting for something?

Three of the top four teams by the final ladder were the bottom spenders by roster. That's worth something IMO.

Beyond just the spending, some locations are going to be bigger drawcards than others.

[
If you're say, Cairns, and you’re putting in $1mil a year less than other teams, so you try to money ball it and all your hard work finishes with others stealing your players at their peaks....it’s like supporting a club not designed to do the one thing that is meant to be the point: winning the championship.]

Correct

And this is one of the reasons why, as was pointed out in another thread I started recently, that the history of the NBL is a history of capital city success

Only Canberra achieved any real success, and that was for a few years in the 80s before struggling through the 90s.

The system and mechanisms have changed but the NBL's always had big spenders and lower spenders

Ultimately the current system is serving many different purposes and doing a decent job.

Om the topic of 22-23 though, usally there's one lower budget team who does well, in 22-23 there were 3.

It was an odd year. Adelaide were a dysfunctional mess, reminiscent of United first season 14-15. Perth made mistakes in roster composition, SEM had Qi leave plus a poor coach and plenty of injuries, United were decimated by injury. Cairns and NZ did a lot right.

These things opened the door and Cairns and NZ grabbed the opportunity with both hands.

And this is one of the reasons why, as was pointed out in another thread I started recently, that the history of the NBL is a history of capital city success