British basketball could land a multi-million pound investment that might transform the sport from top to bottom despite fears that it could put existing clubs, Glasgow Rocks included, out of business.
It has been revealed that an un-named American-based backer has made an initial offer of £36 million to take over the running of the UK's premier division from the incumbent British Basketball League, while also providing capital to boost grassroots and the Great Britain national teams.
The revelation comes amid what is becoming a increasingly vociferous turf war between the BBL and Basketball England, who currently hold the right to grant the operating license for any professional league before the responsibility is passed to a GB-wide body in 2016.
A committee to review the current arrangement, and to consider a pitch from a possible replacement, began work yesterday with a stated remit to consider all options to move basketball out of the fringes and to attract much-needed funds. And, Basketball England's chairman Jan Hagen claims, there could be additional monies put on the table to upgrade every facet of the game.
"We want investment in facilities," he said. "And investment in the pro league where we can see players on decent salaries playing basketball every week, so the product becomes better. We want to see teams representing the UK in the Euroleague. We want to have funding in place where our elite teams can train properly with some of the players on a contract. That's not going to work with just £36 million but the interesting thing is that the investor sees it as initial seed funding. So all we have said is that, ok if that sort of money is on the table, then as a board we would be negligent not to look at it."
The BBL is, so far, treating the move with a mix of extreme suspicion and undiluted hostility while hinting that they too have fresh investment in the pipeline. However the waters have been muddied after it was revealed that the current chief executive of Basketball England, Huw Morgan, last year set up a third-party private company through which the US-based investor might channel their cash.
The move has led to the Welshman, a former executive of the English Rugby Football Union, being removed from overseeing the review while three independent directors of the Sheffield-based governing body have now stood down after their personal involvement with the potential backer was adjudged to be a conflict of interest.
Should the takeover come to fruition, Morgan would inevitably follow suit, Hagen declared, but the blurred lines between oversight and self-interest threaten to derail any attempt at consensus. "On one hand you've had someone who has, in effect, threatened our license," one senior BBL figure argued last night. "But then you have the same person owning the company which could take it over."
With lawyers managing the fall-out, Hagen will plough on with the evaluation process. "It's not a God-given right to have this license," he declared. "We need to award it to whoever we believe can create a step change in the sport rather than standing still. If this particular proposition is not credible, then we'll have to look elsewhere."
Every option remains in play - for now. "It is not a done deal," one member of the evaluation committee told The Herald. And any possible change would first be appraised by Basketball Scotland through its seats on the board of the British Basketball Federation which will inherit the oversight of the professional game following the 2016 Olympics.
It may means a fistful of dollars flowing in, if the scrutineers view the trans-Atlantic offering as a viable means to create a whole new ball game. "Or," Hagen underlines, "they might say it's too far-fetched to contemplate and that we should renew the BBL license for another year. Those are not my decisions.
"What we have decided as a board is that we know the money is real. We've verified that there is an investor looking to put a minimum of £36 million into the sport. For us, it would be ludicrous not to go to the nth degree and see what we can do about it."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article