Tigers are run the same way not public though as it costs almost 500k to get a company listed and then you have to have a bro firm backing to get it done.

Forgot to add


We as the South Australian basketball community can control basketball and have it head in a direction it should go.

The shareholders can appoint a board of directors to overlook the running of the local ABA and junior programs as well as how the fellas (first step would be reinstate the name LIGNTING) and Sixers are marketed.

If it's your money and you have a much bigger say and take a much larger interest in how the club and board of directors control things. To potentially allow the profits to get spent in an unsavoury manors will stop that mismanagement of funds if it doesn't it means you will have a smaller ROI or even no ROI if the right decision are not made all the time. At the moment as a player, coach, parent or Sixer/Fellas member you have to rely on your club delegate or club president or board of directors to make the right decision for you.

I would like to be included in the decision-making process from now on and that's why I would buy some shares if they became available.

Sorry it was so long.

#66159

The Sixers or BASA should have a public meeting to seel the idea to interested buyers and let them know that it will be potentially 3 or 4 years (even as many as 6 or 7 years) before you will get a ROI.

Any interested buyer should be a wear that is the risk they are going to take investing in the product. I have faith in the product and brand name SIXERS and simply don't understand how they lose money. I understand how BASA do and potentially the Fellas would but not the SIXERS.

I wouldn't want to buy the Lightning. I can't ever see them making any real money.

The 36ers could possibly make money for a new owner, if they listened to the fans and were run well.

Surely they wouldn't lump the two programs together in a sale, I don't think it would be overly attractive to a future investor.

The Sixers "lose money" because they are hit with a big cost for the Dome, that's it. And it's not like they can say "sorry BASA, that's unfair, we'll play out of the netball stadium" - they're one entity. If they were paying what other NBL clubs were for their game venue, they'd be fine as a club. BASA and Fellas are another story.

Remember, we have the best attendance in the league and room to improve. We're not overpaying our team. We're overpaying our coaches less than last year. Corporate support is down, but not terrible. In owning the venue, the club gets some return on the catering too.

So Joe you would look favourably at investing in a couple of shares in the Sixers - I assume that you are not a philanthropiost and you would be viewing this as an investment......

At present you can easily get 5% return on your money in various bank accounts (probably morte if you looked hard enough) To get this return on your investment in the Sixers (assuming 7500 shareholders as you indicated) the Sixers organistaion would need to be paying total dividends of $750000.00 per year. Assuming they would not want to pay out all their profits in dividends and be able to save some for growth its not unresonable to say that they would need to make a profit of say 1 million....

Dont think we are anywhere near that figure....and cant see it happening in the forseeable future!

i agree with BOTI there sixers never lost money there profit was shifted around into other debts and avenues which then made it look like the 36ers were loosing money,

if the Sixers are BASA one and only Asset which is not loosing money then why sell it, if they were to sell it BEST case scenarion would be $1mil for the license if sold now meaning BASA would be left to find 14mil through other avenues which it cant do, therefore more then likely destroying them selves and alot of others in the process,

i know a few ppl think selling the sixers is the solution but imo i think it would do more harm then good at the moment,

and i think if it was to be sold it would need to be sold to a indervidual with Large cash backing eg. groves and his 500plus mil , or to a group of powerfull business ppl

if it was sold to "sharholders" say 7500 and lets say that there are 3 or 4 ppl with the same amount of shares all of a sudden you have basa all over again with fighting between "owners" who have there own agendas to push forward,

so again i think selling it is not the answer atm it may be down the track but i think the government will hang onto it as its a Viable Asset to sell later down the track if they cannot get financials in order,

some good points though Joe, just i think seeling it is a knee jerk reaction at the present,

and keeping it owned by and association that is putting its best foot forward, like we all hope the new board will do , i can see another AFC out of this the work Jackson and Sander did (dif sander) and brought them into a sucessfull Association Owned Team in competition when ALL of the Privately owned clubs are financially struggling, another example is West Coast Eagles and Perth Glory who are owned by there retrospective Associations

There Are Pros and Cons to both sides of the Argument

To clarify - I agrre that managed properly thsi Sixers should be making a profit - just not the the levels needed to make such a share issue a viable option

I love my basketball and my 36 er's but lets put some facts around this thread. And sorry for the length upfront but I don't realy think people understand finance, public listings or the role of administrators who take over companies or associations in financial hardship.

Last issue first. His role is to try and ascertain firstly IF the entity is an ongoing concern or cannot survive.

Normally this involves one of 3 outcomes. He thinks income can increase... to not just meet expenses BUT also pay existing debts. Or he thinks it can't, which then has only 3 outcomes, sell assets to make whats left viable (if 36 ers are all thats profitable why you sell them??), downsize staff to save on costs, or you guessed it close it all down and put in the hands of a receiver who sels everything for the best he can get.

Re some of the other points :-

1. To offer shares as outlined you need a Public Offer document signed off by Accountants as to the current financials and also any future income and expense assumptions, profitability etc, Auditors that the assumptions made are reasonable, and of course drawn up by solicitors.
2. Then you need an underwriter/s who will guarantee any shortfall in the listing (in the example above $15 mill) will be picked up by them.(Fat chance!!)

3. It then needs to be approved by ASIC.

4. The cost of this would be a minimum of $300k but I reckon closer to $500k.

5. Because you buy 2 shares does not give you any say in the company, you are no more than a minority shareholder.

6. The Board, CEO and Management would already be in place before the Offer document was printed, so you would have no say as an investor in these appointments.

7. Isaac, with the greatest respect you may be able to run the 36 er's at a profit going forward (personally I doubt it) BUT you can't just forget where they sit now and say we are starting afresh. There is a debt owed and someone has to pay it or the interest on it.

Why would BAS/Govt agree to a sale of 36 er's for $2 mill but keep the debt? Just won't happen.

8. If the debt is really $15 mill, then the repayments even at a subsidised rate of say 5% equate to $750,000 pa. If its not paid I assume its capitalised and you guessed it it just gets worse.

As I said in another thread, the only business outcome that I think will work in the short term is a BASA/Govt subsidised Board overseeing everything.

If the Sixers survived under the mismanagement of the board, they should be able to not only survive now but go from strength to strength. The new restructured BASA could be just what the Sixers need to make it highly successful. Now is not the time to sell it.

I am not a philanthropist but I am in a financial situation where I could (and if push came to shove would donate) a substantial sum of money to help save the Sixers. I would give $5000-$6000 out of my own pocket to save the Sixers.

It was just a situation that I thought about and I decided to ask the question. It's not a potential situation that will obviously work to help save the Sixers but that's what this forum is all about.

I am sure there is hundreds of families like mine (many of yours as well) that have been involved in the Sixers or local basketball your whole life. It would not only be a dark day in South Australian basketball but South Australian sport if the Sixers were to fall over. That's why the first and only viable option is keeping it owned by the association as privet ownership has to be fraught with danger because if the profit levels are not high enough or the owner may just want to up and move them to a different location, if the Sixers we no longer playing in the NBL it would be a complete travesty of injustice.


Like Thomo said Lets hope the first thing Carter and Jackson do is separate the two entities completely, the Sixers should be ran like the Crows as they are separated from the SANFL and simply pay a dividend (if they make one) at the end of the year.

Tynan, great post, but I just wanted to point out that all I've said is that the primary issue stopping the Sixers from being profitable is the allocation of the debt to them. Were they paying a realistic cost for their playing facility, you'd have a profitable team. Hit them with something extravagant for the use of the Dome and they've got no chance.