The sixers will not be sold as it is the the main source of income for basketball in the state.

If the sixers are sold the debt still remains without the major cashflow provider.

The only way they will be sold is if someone assumes the 12mill debt.

If i had 12 mill there are alot of better ways to invest it than this.

Exactly Kent! What business man would buy a company that has that large a debt???

Tynan suggested the primary role of the Controller is to determine IF the organisation can keep going...and the $1.5 million is to AVOID insolvency, not fund a restructure

So, for what its worth, what I would explore is:

1. Dissolving the current structure  constitution included  and installing 1 Board only to manage basketball in the State. The 1 Board would need to include appropriate representation from the stakeholders, but should also include independent persons.

This would probably save a lot of management time, effort and cost in servicing the 4+ Boards that are now in place - and make the focus on the local comp and development programs.

2. Selling the management rights of the 36ers  not the license  on the proviso that all home games are played at the Dome, that the organisation retains catering and ticketing rights

and then

3. Selling the Dome to the Entertainment Centre or a Ticketing Agency or the Caterers  on the basis of them being able to increase its use  concerts etc., in addition to it having it available for the 36ers play its games there, and the catering and ticketing revenues being retained. I would also investigate having the local Council sell the land as well in case future development of the landfill becomes economically viable.

These two decisions would provide a clearer and more predictable income stream  both for any capital projects and funding junior development and the sport etc.

It would also take out substantial costs  insurances, player costs, administration costs, marketing costs, not to mention the Government debt/s etc.

# 6630

1. Agree with your point about restructure. Its a must. Thats what happens in business. The NAB doesn't have 50 different boards for their various businesses. They have 1 Board with management companies and CEO's responsible for the day to day operations of the various business units.

Why do you have to have stakeholder representation on the board? Again rarely happens in business (except for the CEO). They look for the best candidates with different areas of expertise. But they do have people with experience in the field (in this case basketball so eg how about Spear, Ali, Bell)

2. Don't agree shouldn't (and they won't) be sold. For reasons given in other posts.

3. Won't happen. Why would the Entertainment Centre want it? They have their own business to run and certainly don't need 2 venues. Ticket agencies......same applies.

The big issue that few have discussed is the Govt's role in helping create the debt by building the Entertainment Centre in direct competition and removing a key source of revenue in the original income and expense numbers(concerts etc) for the Dome.

So what about the Govt actually helping and doing a "Hindmarsh" and writing off some (or all) of this debt and letting basketball get back on its feet.

Its an interesting thought with an election next year....isn't it. What do you think would happen if every basketballer over 18 years, and every parent with a kid playing under 18, wrote to their local member (and opposition candidate of course) requesting the debt be forgiven or it might cost a vote!!

Election in 2 months (DOH)

Tynan

1. Structure

The sport needs to retain some conscience for the stakeholders and the social player who make up the backbone of the sport. Therefore, I think the stakeholders should provide that, but should be a minority position.

Alternately, the Board should be independent but draw upon some people from within the sport  e.g. the AFL Commission

2. 36ers

The organisation has shown no particular competency to run the 36ers. In fact, it has compromised its primary role as custodian of the sport by attempting to be all things to all people.

The size of the business is too big for the structure that is in place. The only way to unlock the value of the 36ers is to release them as an entity, that said, they just can't afford t forgive the revenue streams that flow from the team, such as venue rental, catering etc.

Other posts have discussed philosophical reasons 'why' not couched in the probable financial reality of BASA/the sport. Again, with no specific competency, why not find the best managers to run, market and manage the team?

3. Dome Sale

Financial performance is an indicator that venue management is another aspect of BASA that it has no specific skills in?

Ticketing agencies and caterers are all investing in venue management  e.g. Perth Entertainment Centre, the Super Domes in Sydney and Auckland etc.

The issue of having to manage and market two venues is straightforward  it would be based simply on optimising the capacities and specifications of each e.g. Michael Edgley is on public record having said that the Dome is the best venue for a circus in Australia. I think that between Entertainment Centre, Dome and Thebarton Theatre, we have 3 venues able to handle just about everything outside of the mega band such as U2.

So, why replicate management costs, marketing costs? Why not link other costs such as insurances, power, labour, maintenance, cleaning etc. when economies of scale might lower them?

4. Debt

Agree this is the driving issue. The $250k paid by the Government [in the Advertiser on Tuesday] to compensate for not being able to host other non-sports events is an admission of that. However, the entertainment Centre is now trading profitably.

In terms of forgiving the Government will have no choice but to do so UNLESS it can create fresh, predictable revenue streams from the sport.

IF it does the latter why not 'sell' the major assets against future revenues, and in doing so remove the costs from the sport?