I've got a few questions for those in the know in relation to this area.
Had the government released the stranglehold it had over BSA in the form of the Dome debt (ie take back ownership of the Dome) and put in place some decent guidelines in the form of a business structure for BSA to separate governance of the various entities (ie separate the running of the 36ers from that of the Lightning, and juniors) then would BSA have been financial
Everyone has been understandably upbeat about a privatised 36ers but has this move towards privatisation eventuated as a result of either:
a) Best interests of basketball, or
b) The Government wants its $10million back or as much as it can get ASAP.
I think it is fair to say that the Government will not recover the entire Dome debt from BSA as a result of the sale of the forced sale of its main assets (the Dome and the 36ers).
Even for hypothetical purposes, lets say they did get the full $10 million (or whatever the figure may be).
I appreciate this is a big sum of tax payers money for the Government to turn its back on but I'd be interested to see how much the Government puts into other sporting and recreational areas.
Is the money that the Government will get from the sale of the 36ers really a significant sum when all is said and done for the State budget?
There will be people much more in the know than me on this issue but take out the Dome debt (and increasing interest obligations that were deferred year after year) and was BSA as a whole financial?
I understand that a lot of the cut backs that occurred to the 36ers were to put us in a position to meet interest obligations when the interest free period ended.
Unfortunately, as always happens, any savings made by cut backs were extinguished by falling crowds and sponsorship.
This together with a failure to capitalise on the lucrative play-off dollars by not advancing deep into the play-offs the last few years also has taken its toll.
One of the arguments raised in favour of private ownership is that you will have separate people running the 36ers from those running junior basketball, etc. Less red tape, etc.
However, all of this could have occurred with a BSA owned 36ers with a decent structure and probably should have occurred years ago.
This whole tendering process highlights some of the problems facing basketball in South Australia at present.
Obviously all potential buyers have backers and presumed relationships with sponsors that will see the 36ers be financial at least in the immediate future.
Again, I have no idea as to Higgins' or Pickard's interest if any in buying the 36ers but assuming both are interested is it fair to say that if Higgins loses that he won't be pumping his company's money into a Pickard owned 36ers and vice versa?
Hopefully all will end well with decent new owners who will make great decisions for the good of basketball but I just raise for discussion purposes, did the Government sell out on basketball for what will be a sum irrelevant in the whole scheme of the State Budget?