Sponsorship is one thing, but at what price is it coming in? I've seen figures for NBL sponsorship in the past (insecure NBL/BA websites, tsk tsk - a bit of directory pruning is basic stuff) and it was lower than I expected.

e.g., I could give up sponsorship of this site for $1 and then trumpet that I've brought in a sponsor.

I'd like to see them centralise some technology for use by clubs, without giving the keys up to Sportal. Things like statistics, photos, video, etc. I've recently begun to wonder if the concept of FTA isn't just a bit of a distraction. Get into junior clubs and market directly to people who already follow and play basketball. It's concentrated and affordable.

A lot of this is the job of clubs and not the league, but the NBL can provide a lot of support - centralised technology as I said, maybe a roaming couple of PR/ticketing experts who work 2-3 weeks with a club and then move to the next one (I've mentioned this in more detail here or on OzHoops before), etc.

What's with all this rubbish about FTA. It didn't work when basketball had a huge profile so why would it work now. We need to raise the profile again through more development and kids taking up the game, new teams (eg Dragons) and expansion (eg Singapore, Darwin). Even then FTA is a long shot - I think we should be very happy with the FOX coverage. And don't anyone whinge about not being able to afford - go down to your local and watch it.

I dont see why teh nbl doesnt sanction say 30k per team for the club to pay a couple of players to go visit schools and do clinics etc etc (on top of their playing salary without it affecting teh cap)

How good would it be to have say Oscar and Brad going around to visit a schools once or twice a week in season. Just running a short clinic and seeing the kids would get them all exited and the flow on effects of increased participation and coming to games would be instant. The A League are doing it so lets not get left behind!

Statman, they already do a bit of this (well, the Sixers do - not sure about other clubs), but you could always add a bit more.

Isaac, that is very true re the sponsorship. I have always thought there was a fair chance that the NBL has taken sponsorships at low levels, and this is not necessarily the positive that it appears.

I'm glad someone else has the same concerns, I was thinking I was being perhaps too negative towards Burton.

I guess its ok to focus the responsibility simply on Burton, but I suspect he is answerable to the club owners by and large, and he finds himself managing a sporting competition that is not making enough money to keep itself afloat  the clubs can't, so how can the NBL? I am sure he can't tell clubs where to play, but he might tell them where not to play?

The Clubs, with mostly not making money, are and act as essentially private enterprises, with a major exception here of the 36ers, and are no doubt reluctant to support national advertising or marketing campaigns, especially if they won't add immediately to their bottom lines. Perhaps they prefer to see any NBL sponsorship money reducing their costs, not growing their revenue? Perhaps they should pay a fixed amount per annum into a central budget for nationally weighted locally placed marketing campaigns  just like a McDonald's franchisee?

Sponsorship values too are a difficult issue. The value of a sponsorship seems to be set by demand from the market, and I don't suppose business has been knocking down doors to sponsor the NBL? However, if the AFL gets $6.0 million a year for its domestic competition, and Cricket Australia gets $1.7 million per year for the Pura Cup, with no TV coverage, how much do we think the NBL should get?

The suggestion that by regaining FTA coverage the sport will get back to where it was feels a bit naïve? As someone suggested, it didn't rate when the sport was flying, and well before Pay TV started to make inroads into the FTA audiences, so what will have changed? Is it reasonable to assume that, as good as it is, the WNBL coverage has as much to do with ABC policy and gender equality as televising elite sport?

Maybe the focus should be on making the Foxtel coverage a whole lot better  as we have seen this year at home games the atmosphere at games can be great, but this rarely if ever translates into better television coverage of matches? How can this be done better?

Maybe Foxtel can give every club 100 DVD copies of every televised game, which could then be distributed to junior clubs, along with discounted or group tickets and perhaps discounted Foxtel sign ups?

Whatever happens, I think that restoring the sport financially and commercially is a going to take some time, and a lot of money - and more people than Burton...

Because the NBL have SFA negotiating power. Anyone is able to dictate on their terms. If Fox says "exclusive live contract" the NBL, with no strong alternative, goes with it.

For that reason, I'd focus on areas where they DO have control.

As to the original post...FTA was gone long before Burton came into the CEO role.

As fir pouring money into ailing clubs...2 points I would like to make

a) Burton never has, and probably never will give clubs direct financial aid. The last occurence of this from memory was Peter Ali gave cash to the Razorbacks to survive. That is the way it should be. The NBL is a league that is supplied for clubs to play in. Management of local clubs is best left to the local club level.

b) The 36ers are NOT losing money. BASA lost money. They are 2 very separate identities, just that BASA owns the 36ers. The profits the 36ers make (and yes, there normally is a profit) is channeled back to the owners, in this case, BASA, who then do whatever the blazes they have or have not done with the money.
As for crowd sizes, I think you will find they have either stayed static or slightly increased under Burton's reign. The major drop occurred when Ali was in charge.

As far as the NBL having the WNBL on, the ABC has a mandate that states they must provide coverage to "lesser" womens sports. Basketball happens to be a decent TV spectacle generally, and is similair to netball, which allows them to keep the same production teams and styles when they switch from one code to the other (that is an assumption by the way)

As for keeping in teams. If clubs cant financially manage themselves, what else is the league meant to do? The Hunter / Canberra license has been trouble plaugued for a number of years, generally because they have tried to come in without much in reserve. Ask Eddie Groves (Brisbane owner) he struggled for years financially with that team...but perservered, and now has a relatively successful (financially) franchise. If only the team he buys could produce what they should be :o)