TheBoards

Go Back   TheBoards > Basketball > National Basketball League

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 30-03-2016, 02:01 PM   #1
Wild 1
Member
Default NBL Announces Changes to Contract and Salary Rules

http://www.nbl.com.au/featured-news/...-salary-rules/

Key highlights of the changes are listed below:

•Rosters increased to 11 contracted players.

•Existing ‘hard cap’ of $1m to be replaced by a ‘soft cap’ of $1.1m, exceeding which will result in a team having to make a salary equalization subsidy contribution.

•Salary cap in future years determined by averaging all teams’ salary payments for the prior season.

•Development players now permitted to play in all home and away games and age limit rises from 24 to 25.

•One player per team from a FIBA Asia or Oceania country other than Australia or NZ may be contracted as a non-restricted player.

•Marquee Player System to apply to non-restricted players only.

•Up to 4 marquee players permitted per team, and only a specified component of their salaries will be counted toward the salary cap.

•Up to 3 Restricted (Import) Players on each roster

•Aggregate salaries of at least 5 players on each team must not exceed $400,000 in 2016/17.

•Salary Floor implemented – Clubs must spend at least 90% of the Salary Cap.

•Salaries publicly disclosed.

•Player Points System removed.

•Player Values for Salary Cap purposes to be assigned by Contract Review Committee – their values will override the salary submitted on paperwork to the NBL as a measure to police the Salary Cap and ensure Players are appropriately valued.

•$1.1m Salary Cap is a Soft Cap, with teams able to spend over and above this figure however they will be required to contribute to the Salary Equalisation Subsidy Account. Funds accrued in this account will be able to be distributed to Clubs who are struggling to meet the Salary Floor.
__________________
23 seasons as a Wildcats member.

KingJamesXXIII
NBL Dream Team FB Page - https://www.facebook.com/NBLDreamTeam
Wild 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2016, 02:02 PM   #2
Wild 1
Member
Default

The one that jumped out most when I first read it was the salaries publicly disclosed. That's going to be interesting. Lots of pressure on you if you are on top of that list haha
__________________
23 seasons as a Wildcats member.

KingJamesXXIII
NBL Dream Team FB Page - https://www.facebook.com/NBLDreamTeam
Wild 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-03-2016, 07:57 PM   #3
fan since the old snakepit
Member
Default

Interesting. The salary for cap purposes decided by committee has some similar equalisation of resources ideals but with so many more price points than the points cap. (ie all 10's were not equal or even close to equal etc) I like the idea but will wait to see how it stacks up in practice. Sure will be a good talking point.

The tax on going over the soft cap will spread the wealth a little as well.

With a roster of 11 contracted players plus 2 development players I am not sure what value anyone gets by carting the whole 13 around on the road.


Anyone like to have a go at determining how much they think the committee will value current players at.


Hawks

Lisch $220K
AJ $200 K
Penney $180K
Forman $100K would have been higher before last season.
Martin $80K
Coenraad $80K
Ellis $ 70K
Davo $70K
White $50K
Weekes $50K

The 11th player will be almost certainly on the lowest possible salary to allow you to spend more of your $400K on the bottom 5 on something decent.

Last edited by fan since the old snakepit; 30-03-2016 at 08:02 PM.
fan since the old snakepit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 12:38 AM   #4
koberulz
Member
Send a message via MSN to koberulz
Default

The way I understand Roy Ward's article is the committee values are kept confidential and only actual salaries are made public.

Which seems backwards.
koberulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 12:37 PM   #5
DDFan
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by koberulz View Post
The way I understand Roy Ward's article is the committee values are kept confidential and only actual salaries are made public.

Which seems backwards.
Agree, let the commitee decide player values, & pass on their findings to all clubs for discussion, before it gets locked in.

That's it, end of discussion, the public don't have any right to know the earnings of ANYONE.

As fellow OzHos, we should respect player privacy, we all here have the benefit of anonymity on even our given names, employment, earnings, addresses, ethnicity, marital status & sexual preferences, to name just a few. It seems extremely contradictory that even us fanatical 'Ball fans, would need to know the earnings of a professional sportsperson.
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.

Last edited by DDFan; 31-03-2016 at 12:40 PM.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 02:09 PM   #6
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
That's it, end of discussion, the public don't have any right to know the earnings of ANYONE.
This is patently incorrect - check any public company's annual report. Ask yourself too whether you would be happy not knowing what salary politicians, judges, etc are paid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
As fellow OzHos, we should respect player privacy, we all here have the benefit of anonymity on even our given names, employment, earnings, addresses, ethnicity, marital status & sexual preferences, to name just a few. It seems extremely contradictory that even us fanatical 'Ball fans, would need to know the earnings of a professional sportsperson.
I can't believe you're comparing posting on a forum to a paid job as a public entertainer.

Players can keep their address, marital status and sexual preference private, as always - but if they choose to take a job as a professional basketball player, the same as if they choose to take a job as the director of a public company, the remuneration they receive in that role will be published.
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 02:55 PM   #7
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

My thoughts on the new rules (quotations below are from http://www.nbl.com.au/featured-news/...alary-rules/):

Quote:
The former ‘hard cap’ of $1 million has been replaced by a ‘soft cap’ of $1.1 million.Teams may exceed the soft cap provided that they pay a salary equalisation subsidy based on the extent to which they have exceeded the cap.
Interesting that it seems there is no hard cap at all - a theoretical squillionaire with a raging hard-on for an NBL championship could assemble a $50 million team (and even avoid paying any subsidy if the majority of that money goes to Australian players).

Quote:
Every player in the competition will be given a player value by an independent Contract Review Committee. It is that value – an independent measure of each player’s market value – which will be counted towards the salary cap – not the dollar amount, or the value of other benefits, which the team has contracted to pay to the player.
This worries me. Everybody is talking about how they've scrapped the points cap and retained the salary cap, but in reality they've done exactly the opposite - the market value of players has been removed from the equation, and the artificial rating is the only measure left. They've scrapped the salary cap and kept the points cap. All this achieves is helping the richer teams, who will be able to cherry-pick the best "value" players (ie most favourable independent rating / potential to develop) by offering them more money and benefits than other clubs, without that investment being reflected in the parity measure.

I have no idea how this independent contract review committee is going to come up with these values, either. The advantage of a salary cap is that with most things in the world economy, the market is the best determinant of actual value - it automatically weights all of the relevant inputs, such as playing ability, age, potential, scarcity at a particular position, injury risk, personality, nationality, value in drawing fans, etc. How is the committee going to assess all of these factors? The points system just used some kind of metrics-based statistical assessment (which ended up with the annual debacle where a defensive superstud like Damian Martin gets rated as a 9 and the Wildcats appeal it down to an 8 when the actual value for an NBL GF MVP-level game-winner like him should clearly be a 10, which any Cats fan would happily argue at any time of the year except when the player ratings are first published). Stats don't take into account any of the other factors I mentioned above, which all feed into the market salary of a player - will the committee? Or is it just the same old points system with the points value starting with a dollar sign instead?

Quote:
In order to ensure that wealthier teams are not able to ‘stockpile’ talent on their benches when those players could or should be in the starting line-up of less wealthy teams, a talent-distribution threshold has been introduced which requires that any 5 of a teams’ players must, collectively, be paid no more than $400,000 (in 2016/17 and subject to adjustment thereafter).
This is a pretty good idea, but it still does absolutely nothing to stop a rich side assembling the following lineup:

1. Best player in league
2. 2nd best player in league
3. 3rd best player in league
4. 4th best player in league
5. 5th best player in league
6. 6th best player in league
7. $180,000 stud
8. $100,000 starter quality player
9. $40,000 rookie
10. $40,000 rookie
11. $40,000 rookie

Given few teams run a rotation greater than eight players (and why would you if you had the six or seven best players in the league), you never have to put a guy on the court who's making less than six figures (although I'm sure those three rookies would get plenty of time in the 15 or so minutes at the end of every blowout win).

Quote:
This will mean that any non-restricted (local) player may be nominated by a team as its marquee player, meaning that only the first $150,000 of that player’s salary will be counted toward that team’s salary cap, a move that for the first time sees Australian players being acknowledged by the NBL as some of the best in the world.
I'm disappointed that the marquee status can only be applied to local players. In my opinion, the quality of the league (and from a fan's perspective, the entertainment value) is greatly improved by being able to attract known NBA names rather than that tier of Australians hovering between the NBL and the NBA. I think somebody like Josh Childress has done more for the profile and watchability of the league than Daniel Kickert, even if Kickert contributed more to his team winning.

This seems to me like a crowd-pleaser move for the players' union, opening up the prospect of big paydays for the top Australian players at the exclusion of imports. With only locals eligible for marquee spots, there'll be tremendous financial competition to secure the best available Aussies/Kiwis, whereas to pay an equivalent import the same money will incur massive salary cap penalties.

If you want to drastically overpay an Australian - fantastic, we won't even count it against the cap. If you want to improve the quality of the entertainment product by investing in a quality import - get ready to pay luxury tax through the nose.

Quote:
Any team may replace any one or more of its restricted player entitlements with an additional non-restricted marquee player, with the salary cap amount increasing by $50,000 for each additional marquee player. (i.e. $200,000 of a team’s second marquee player’s salary would be counted toward the salary cap, $250,000 for the third and $300,000 for the fourth).
A further crowd-pleaser for the local players.

Quote:
Salary cap in future years determined by averaging all teams’ salary payments for the prior season.
The actual payments or the fictional ones?

Quote:
One player per team from a FIBA Asia or Oceania country other than Australia or NZ may be contracted as a non-restricted player.
Subtle change from the previous situation where an unlimited number of Oceania players were non-restricted.

Quote:
Salary Floor implemented – Clubs must spend at least 90% of the Salary Cap.
In actual payments or the fictional ones?

Quote:
Salaries publicly disclosed.
The actual payments or the fictional ones? Surely the latter would make more sense, as the former ones don't actually feed into anything as far as I can tell.

Quote:
Player Points System removed.
Full credit to their powers of propaganda that everybody actually believes this and is running with it.

Quote:
$1.1m Salary Cap is a Soft Cap, with teams able to spend over and above this figure however they will be required to contribute to the Salary Equalisation Subsidy Account. Funds accrued in this account will be able to be distributed to Clubs who are struggling to meet the Salary Floor.
Some great weasel language here - no guarantee that the luxury tax will be distributed in full, rather that it "will be able to be distributed". What is the definition of "Clubs who are struggling to meet the Salary Floor"? If there are no such clubs, where does the money go?

Furthermore, is the league relying on the clubs to honestly report the amounts they are paying players over the cap? Given the actual salary figures are now being replaced by the assigned ones, one can assume any cap enforcement resources (ha!) will be abandoned - so there's a massive incentive for clubs to avoid paying the luxury tax by simply failing to report it. What club is going to pay cash to their competitors if it's easy to get away with not doing so? This provision looks like yet another red herring - I would be shocked if any clubs end up paying a cent.
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 05:19 PM   #8
DDFan
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
That's it, end of discussion, the public don't have any right to know the earnings of ANYONE.
This is patently incorrect - check any public company's annual report. Ask yourself too whether you would be happy not knowing what salary politicians, judges, etc are paid.
Fair enough, I should've started that sentence with, "In my mind, ......", but in response to your poser, I (meaning me, & me only) don't give a rat's arse what CEOs, politicians, rock stars, astronauts get paid, but I do expect them to produce the goods, in accordance with their working responsibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
As fellow OzHos, we should respect player privacy, we all here have the benefit of anonymity on even our given names, employment, earnings, addresses, ethnicity, marital status & sexual preferences, to name just a few. It seems extremely contradictory that even us fanatical 'Ball fans, would need to know the earnings of a professional sportsperson.
I can't believe you're comparing posting on a forum to a paid job as a public entertainer.
Apologies, you're in one of those moods, so I'll try to make myself understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
Players can keep their address, marital status and sexual preference private, as always
1 .. Maybe I'm over indulging my imagination, but I wouldn't think it out of the realms of possibility that an infatuated fan might follow their public property idol, to their home address.
2 .. Their marital status is published on the NBL site, & I have no probs with that.
3 .. On the sexual preference thing, you've not heard of Tiny Pinder? In line with that, if anyone is caught stepping over the line of the legal system, then in my mind ..... they immediately forfeit any privacy protection. Ooooops, until proven guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
- but if they choose to take a job as a professional basketball player, the same as if they choose to take a job as the director of a public company, the remuneration they receive in that role will be published.
I'm not solid on the difference between a public company & a private one, so I ask (for the benefit of some OzHos forumers), what salaries were Kings management on, since the flacid ressurection?
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 05:25 PM   #9
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
1 .. Maybe I'm over indulging my imagination, but I wouldn't think it out of the realms of possibility that an infatuated fan might follow their public property idol, to their home address.
And I'm agreeing that their address should remain private (along with their marital status and sexual preference, should they wish to keep it so) ... I don't exactly understand what we're arguing about here.
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 05:32 PM   #10
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
I'm not solid on the difference between a public company & a private one, so I ask (for the benefit of some OzHos forumers), what salaries were Kings management on, since the flacid ressurection?
A public company is one in which members of the general public can buy ownership shares through a stock exchange or equivalent. I think you'll find the Kings aren't listed on the ASX.
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 05:57 PM   #11
DDFan
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
Players can keep their address, marital status and sexual preference private, as always - but if they choose to take a job as a professional basketball player, the same as if they choose to take a job as the director of a public company, the remuneration they receive in that role will be published.
Was Kevin Brooks' Coca-Cola remuneration ever published?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
And I'm agreeing that their address should remain private (along with their marital status and sexual preference, should they wish to keep it so)
Professional basketballers can wish all they like to keep those things private, but it rarely happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
... I don't exactly understand what we're arguing about here.
I thought that we were simply exchanging thoughts/ideals, not arguing, so if you'll accdept that, we should both be happy. As you should know, I live in my fantasy world, all I wish is for everyone to love each other, but it's under threat & unrealistic. There's SFA that I can do about it, but I continue to put it out there in the hope that someone might take the batton & run with it. Despite that disclosure, I'm determined to die laughing, make of that what you wish.
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 06:41 PM   #12
DDFan
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
A public company is one in which members of the general public can buy ownership shares through a stock exchange or equivalent. I think you'll find the Kings aren't listed on the ASX.
Thanks for that, I'm clearly clueless on the whole investment/speculation system.
So, if the Kings aren't listed on the ASX, is Coca-Cola open for discussion regarding Kevin Brooks' remuneration in his alleged management role while being a professional basketball player for the Kings? I ask in all innocence, because I don't know if Coca-Cola is a private or public company.
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 07:16 PM   #13
PyroCross
Member
Default

There's one rule I don't understand - the aggregate $400K rule. The rule reads as though any 5 players on a team cannot have a combined salary of $400K (so any starters or any bench guys put together), but then you have marquee player rules where one player could expend $150, $250, $300K on a salary cap.

So the marquee players are not included in the aggregate rule?

Interesting rule with one Oceania/Asia player who's not from NZ/Aus able to be included. Can we call this the 'Tai Wesley Rule' for the interim?
PyroCross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-03-2016, 07:24 PM   #14
koberulz
Member
Send a message via MSN to koberulz
Default

I assume it's poorly-worded and actually means there must be a five-man combination on each team that totals less than $400k, rather than any five.
koberulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 02:17 AM   #15
Nerf Herder
Member
Default

One thing I had to re-read a couple of times was the marquee player rule only relating to non-restricted players now... This seems like a huge backward step (see Stumps' reasons above) with regards to the potential entertainment factor...
__________________
Tool Herder: Special Projects Team Lead / Mayor of Twatland / Herder of Tools
The Kings are dead... LONG LIVE THE KINGS!
Nerf Herder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 08:14 AM   #16
Wallitron
Member
 
Wallitron's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to Wallitron Send a message via MSN to Wallitron Send a message via Yahoo to Wallitron
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by koberulz View Post
I assume it's poorly-worded and actually means there must be a five-man combination on each team that totals less than $400k, rather than any five.
I think it's even more than that. I think it applies to your entire bench. In other words, your 6th through 11th highest paid players can't total more than $400k.

Overall, a step towards an NBA type CBA is a good thing. The biggest problem, is the move effective parity tool used by the NBA is the draft. Also, the best tool the NBA have in ensuring that under the table deals are less favourable to players, is the trading system. There's really nothing you can do about teams giving marquee players the "Kobe" deal, but no tweener player is going to take unders on the books if there is a chance they could be traded, or worse still, waived and paid out.

Last edited by Wallitron; 01-04-2016 at 08:17 AM.
Wallitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 09:48 AM   #17
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

7th to 11th you mean?
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 10:00 AM   #18
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DDFan View Post
Thanks for that, I'm clearly clueless on the whole investment/speculation system.
So, if the Kings aren't listed on the ASX, is Coca-Cola open for discussion regarding Kevin Brooks' remuneration in his alleged management role while being a professional basketball player for the Kings? I ask in all innocence, because I don't know if Coca-Cola is a private or public company.
Coca Cola Amatil is a public company. It publishes the salaries of directors and key senior management personnel. Feel free to look up the annual reports for the years in question if you're desperately keen to know whether Kevin Brooks was listed.
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 10:50 AM   #19
DDFan
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
Coca Cola Amatil is a public company. It publishes the salaries of directors and key senior management personnel. Feel free to look up the annual reports for the years in question if you're desperately keen to know whether Kevin Brooks was listed.
First laugh's at me, it dawned on me last night that the acronym ASX stands for the Australian Stock Exchange, so that pretty much exposes how ignorant I am about the money market.

This morning, I Googled "coca cola share value", & up came the asx site, & that's where I left it. I didn't pursue any further, because as I previously stated, I don't give a rats about what anyone earns, so it will all remain a mystery until someone wants to end the controversy as to whether the Kings were cheaters, or totally innocent.

Sheesh, the whole Kevin Brooks Coca-Cola exec thing could've been a fire starter from a Kings hater for all I know, but no-one denied it either.

Just a thought, I doubt whether Kevin Brooks would've been listed as a director, or even key senior management, some it's possible that he wouldn't have been listed anyway.

Could be a nice project for a Kings fan, to finally calm the waters.
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.

Last edited by DDFan; 01-04-2016 at 11:06 AM.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 11:59 AM   #20
SB.1
Member
Default

Great analysis Stumps, are you on twitter? Your post is wasted here and I would love to hear Jeremy Longelier plus journos response to it.
SB.1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 12:26 PM   #21
DDFan
Member
Default

By now, this link from the fool frontal Boti Exposer may be wasted on NBL East coasters, & we central knowledgables, but the mighty Perth 'Cats may have the last laugh.

http://www.botinagy.com/blog/its-that-day/
__________________
"Box of Chocolates" OzHo.
DDFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 02:51 PM   #22
Stumps
Fightin' around the world
 
Stumps's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB.1 View Post
Great analysis Stumps, are you on twitter? Your post is wasted here and I would love to hear Jeremy Longelier plus journos response to it.
Thanks - @DC31
__________________
Ozhoops March Madness: It's back for 2011! Current bracket here
Stumps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 03:04 PM   #23
Wallitron
Member
 
Wallitron's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to Wallitron Send a message via MSN to Wallitron Send a message via Yahoo to Wallitron
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stumps View Post
7th to 11th you mean?
Actually, I meant 6th to 10th.

That would make more sense, but you are right, I think the actual rule is 7th to 11th.

Last edited by Wallitron; 01-04-2016 at 03:07 PM.
Wallitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 03:26 PM   #24
s**tkicker
Member
Default

3 Imports is shit. Not a fan of that.
__________________
Troll Alert.
s**tkicker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2016, 03:59 PM   #25
Nerf Herder
Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB.1 View Post
Great analysis Stumps, are you on twitter? Your post is wasted here and I would love to hear Jeremy Longelier plus journos response to it.
NBL people are usually only good at responding to the smoke being blown up their skirts, but it's always good to get some talk from the journos out there who are in the position to actually put it to them...
__________________
Tool Herder: Special Projects Team Lead / Mayor of Twatland / Herder of Tools
The Kings are dead... LONG LIVE THE KINGS!
Nerf Herder is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design and logos copyright ©2000 - 2010, Dek-Net Design