If long posts aren't your thing, avoid this one. I'm finding it hard to string together a coherent post on recent events, so you'll have to put up with this copy-and-paste-induced trip through time for now.
When the long-anticipated review in to basketball was tabled in September of last year, this was what I wrote:
Listed in the review are four key objectives for the next four years.
These include doubling player registrations to 500,000, an amicable
target; being ranked by FIBA in the top three nations in the world, we're
already second so that can't be too hard; and also reducing government funding
to 25% or less.But the big one is, obviously, the aim to become a "Top 3 recognized sport
measured by viewers/attendees."
Dragons co-owner Raphael Germinder also recalled the promises made back then on the weekend:
(The reform's) charter was to deliver financial stability, broadcasting of
all games, government funding, a new governance and leadership group, a viable
budget to connect with community and market the game, adequate player salaries
to attract the best talent and finally playing a different period in the
year.
So basically, at this point in time, it was all happy-happy joy-joy. They were big goals, but they weren't unattainable.
Things soon started to go wrong, however. Grantley Bernard's November 14 column in the Herald Sun raised brewing concerns:
But just what is going to be different about the relaunched competition other
than its name?Are the teams going to change? No.
Are the venues going to change? No.
Is the level of play going to change? No.
Maybe the only thing you can really change about the new NBL is the
perception.
Two days earlier, then-CEO of Basketball Australia Scott Derwin dropped a bombshell with a throw-away line in The Australian:
"We are also looking at doing away with the salary cap."
At this point, the promises stemming from the review into the sport and early discussions on what the New NBL would look like were starting to fade away.
But Derwin felt there was no need to panic, assuring us in that same article:
"But with a new NBL, new criteria, we as a national body would be silly not
to have a team playing out of Brisbane."A decision will be made by late January or early February."
It's interesting, in light of recent events, that once upon a time BA expected to know about the inclusion of a team by late January or early February.
Anyways, by December I was on my soap box:
Since the document's release back in September, the sport's interim
administration has been disturbingly contradicting many of the review's
recommendations. [...]We may just end up seeing the exact same teams, give or take a Sydney-based
side, of course. [...]According to the timeline set out by the review, "key appointments" were
supposed to take place in November. [...]And it seems key appointments are not the only area that has been running
behind schedule. The release of the review was delayed. Voting on the review's
recommendations was delayed. Question marks surround whether or not bids coming
out of Brisbane and Sydney can be prepared in time.Running on such a tight schedule puts the sport in a dangerous position. If
history is anything to go by, this is a frightening proposition. Remember that
the Razorbacks becoming the Sydney Spirit was a decision made on a short time
frame. Allowing Tim Johnston to own the Sydney Kings was a similarly rushed
decision. What about the move to summer?
Also around this time, the first real key decision the "new" BA involved itself in, the establishment of the Sydney Spirit, proved to be the failure everyone expected it to be. I wrote about that issue here.
By the end of the month, Grantley Bernard was producing some of his sharpest work yet again:
Seriously, the proposed reform of basketball in Australia, especially the NBL
as the masthead of the game, is not reform. It is more like an adjustment that
will have the NBL, or whatever it is going to be called, heading down a familiar
path. [...]The most visible aspect of the reform process, the NBL, its teams and games,
will not change to the extent that people see change. [...]The NBL needs to take a big dose of reform. All it is getting is a spoonful
of adjustment.
Exacerbating fears over a lack of change, it was even reported that the new league would bear the exact same name as the old one, the NBL.
In the next few months the focus shifted to the thrilling finish to the present NBL season. But the fact there was little reform news over this period would've been a factor in this.
A team in Sydney had not been found. A team in Brisbane had not been found. There were no major announcements late in January or early in February, despite the claims by BA there would be.
A post over at Scibz' Spiel looked at the timeline set out by the review and noted how behind things had become:
It's January 2009 and the important step of accepting expressions of interest
from current and prospective team owners is yet to be taken. In fact, the most
recent closing date given for applicants was January 16, which appears a
pipedream considering the interim board hasn't even finalised what the criteria
for licenses will be.
And another important grab from that post:
After the recent resignation of interim CEO Scott Derwin, the leadership
waters have only become murkier.
From this point on, BA were well and truly behind schedule.
The new bids they were expecting didn't eventuate, and even current clubs struggled with the criteria. The search for a new leader (although didn't Derwin always carry that "interim" tag anyways?) complicated things further.
Without the new bids, the reform could never gain any momentum, particularly with the rapidly shortening time frame. Sponsors were never going to warm to a Sydney-less and Brisbane-less league.
Going on recent reports, Fox Sports didn't like it either.
My thoughts following Larry Sengstock's belated appointment last month as the new CEO summed up the lack of progress:
There is, however, enough of a reason to remain cautious in spite of today's
announcement. Like how ridiculously deep into the reform process this
appointment is, for example.The new NBL is only – supposedly – six months away.
We haven't got any idea on which teams will be competing. We haven't got any
idea on the name of the competition. And it has taken until now just to find
someone to oversee the competition?The introduction of the new league was always going to be a race against the
clock. But you have to wonder if the sport is rushing into this too fast.
Clearly, I wasn't the only one wondering that.
On Friday, the Dragons pulled out of the 2009/10 season. Their reasoning was perfectly understandable.
A couple of days later, the Melbourne Tigers joined them on the sidelines. Their reasoning was perfectly understandable.
Now, Basketball Australia say they'll press on without them, even if it means enduring another half-arsed season. Their reasoning is, well, I'll let you decide that...
0 comments:
Post a Comment