Darwinism. It’s the term attached to the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin, which believe in the ‘survival of the fittest.’ The revisionists at Basketball Australia can now lay claim to their own adaptation. Known as “Derwinism”, after interim CEO Scott Derwin, it’s the blueprint for the future of Australian basketball and is based upon the premise of the survival of the richest.
When Derwin and the rest of the interim administration review bids for the new national competition set to begin next October, stringent criteria will be applied to ensure that only the strong, or rich, clubs will part of the game’s renaissance. By applying financial requirements such as a $1million bank guarantee and $500,000 in working capital, Derwinism will ensure that the weaker clubs, such as Wollongong and the now rudderless Sydney Spirit, will cease to exist, unable to hold their own alongside the big boys of the game’s new terrain. Those that can afford to meet the criteria, and, at least in theory, are therefore of sound financial backing, will evolve into viable and profitable clubs that can end the boom-bust cycle that has dogged the NBL since its inception.
However, there appears to be a major flaw in Derwinism – by the time the weak clubs are put out of their misery there won’t enough strong clubs to form a new league. Derwin all but admitted this last week in the Gold Coast Bulletin when asked if he was confident of receiving 8 bids that satisfy the new criteria:
“Good question, I couldn’t give you a firm answer”
“We are hopeful that we will, I wouldn’t say that I have 100 per cent confidence in it.”
Consequently, the interim administration will now sort the bids into two categories: complying tenders and non-complying tenders, with the latter being considered on their merits.
Should there be a deficit in the number of conforming tenders, which in today’s economic climate is certainly possible, some of the weaker clubs will sneak passed the knackery and continue to exist, purely for the sake of ensuring the strong have enough teams to play against.
In isolation this is a positive move – it means the new league may not consist of too few teams – but it contradicts the board’s primary objective of finding stability. As already discussed on this blog, on the surface there will be little difference between the current NBL and the new competition. Other than a new name and perhaps a return of the Sydney Kings and a Brisbane team, the remainder of the league will be the same. It is behind the scenes where the most important changes will be made, with the new licensing agreements meaning we should never see another mid-season collapse again. The financial guarantees mean any club who borders on insolvency will have reserves to dip into to at least see out the remainder of the season. There will also be a minimum of three owners per club with no more than a 40% stake each, meaning if one falls on hard times – such as Eddie Groves at the Bullets – there will still be two others who can pick up the slack.
Following the recent collapse of the Sydney Spirit and Cairns Taipans, Scott Derwin’s press releases had a familiar look to them.
During the Spirit debacle he said:
“This issue, along with the other recent issues surrounding other former NBL clubs, clearly illustrates the reason why the standards for the ‘New NBL’ will include far more stringent criteria in terms of ownership guidelines and financial guarantees when it is launched in season 2009/10.”
Likewise, after the Taipans suffered the same fate he said:
“The need for greater accountability and commercial viability will see the introduction of a more stringent criteria for the ‘New NBL’, in terms of ownership guidelines and financial guarantees, when it is launched next season.”
3 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Derwinism… could there be a more ironic term?
But seriously, the clock is ticking at Basketball Australia. It seems as though every part of the reform so far has either been delayed or altered with a cop-out like “conforming and non-conforming bids” to make up for the fact more time is needed.
It’s about time we had another Spiel.
This is seriously complex now, no one could have predicted the way this sport has collapsed in the last month, it’d have to be the darkest month for this sport in Australia ever. Disastrous would be an understatement.
The things that you believe are most important in the development in the new league are in direct conflict here. Stability vs. the number of teams. How does one tread this line in the next twelve months? Plagiarise at your peril might be the best option. There’s got to be some really hard decisions made.
Like you said, it’ll only take a tiny bit of bad press for the new league to look like the old league, because THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. If the first season of the A-League was marred with ethnic violence, it would have taken a massive caning and been quickly labelled ’same old soccer.’
Not all is lost. I think that at one level this new league brings the collapse forward, so when some owners know that they will not succeed in getting a new license, they just hide in a cave and communicate via email. But even then I suppose the ‘non-conforming bid’ rhetoric jeoardises the whole thing.
This is ugly, Scibs. Really ugly.
“This is seriously complex now, no one could have predicted the way this sport has collapsed in the last month, it’d have to be the darkest month for this sport in Australia ever.”
No, the darkest month was during the off season when Sydney and Brisbane both collapsed, basically on the same day.