I can already hear the hum of angry Twitter thumbs approaching like spitfire planes but stay with me. We're not saying it will work, or even that it should, just that it can if its done right and - perhaps more importantly - sold right.

In sport it's not the idea, but the pitch, that gets it off the ground. To borrow the wisdom of the great Cosmo Kramer, you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

This week your columnist had a lengthy chat with NBL Commissioner Jeremy Loeliger, largely about what the Hawks ownership structure will look like.

League owner Larry Kestelman has hinted that the foundation club needs to broaden its geographical and economic base. Our chat with Loeliger showed the league has moved from thought bubble to full sales pitch.

Like the bulk of the Illawarra faithful, Game On has a natural aversion to the conversation. To be fair, Loeliger made a decent case and - while he didn't state it explicitly - you can take it as given the NBL won't grant the license to any owner without such an undertaking.

The Hawks have dipped their toe in that water recently with its forays into Canberra and, to their credit, Hawks fans were largely on board with a two-game commitment.

Four games? That would be the absolute ceiling. For that to work, the club and the NBL needs to take fans with them. In five years of private ownership, the Hawks have done enough guessing about what the future holds.

There were two key points that arose in Loeliger's pitch for four games, firstly, asking local businesses and members to buy corporate packages for 14 home games is a big ask for smaller market.

The club's working capital comes from the upfront cash of memberships and corporate packages. Committing to 14 games is a big undertaking and will only become a tougher sell amid the economic fallout from COVID-19.

The Hawks home venue has plenty to do with it to. The club cops the flak over ticket prices but the point has been made in these pages, the Hawks get absolutely slugged financially to play at the WEC. You only need to recall the disastrous aborted game against New Zealand last season to see who's getting the rough end of that stick.

The other point Loeliger made was that a cluster of games is more attractive to potential hosts than a single "token" one. That is where the plan lives or dies, economically, and in the hearts and minds.

Using Canberra as the most obvious example, a four-game commitment becomes a four-game corporate package for business partners and four-game memberships for fans based in the capital.

On the flip-side, short of a huge financial commitment from the government, taking a game to Tasmania next season would be utterly pointless. Tassie has it's own team coming, the Hawks wouldn't convert a single new fan.

Of course the ACT government, or any other interested party, needs to put its money where its mouth is. NBL games are a valuable commodity, not a gift, and should be treated as such.

In the AFL, Hawthorn have taken four games a season to Tasmania since since 2007. It's a privilege the Tasmanian government has paid plenty for. It remains the club's major sponsor all-year-round.

Bathurst Regional Council does the same when the Panthers brings an NRL game west every season, as it has done for the past six years and will do until 2028.

That's where the Hawks new owners need to be in control of its destiny. Becoming a traveling road show at various locations at the whim of the NBL won't wash with fans, and it shouldn't.

If new owners are willing to come the NBL's table and entertain the idea of taking games away, they should decide where and when. They'd be entitled to ask for a few more favours in the draw - i.e less Monday night games - while they're at it.

Ultimately, how it goes over with the Hawks faithful will depend where ownership falls. The club has had a bumpy ride with the private ownership model.

Fans were never really clear about what first owner James Spenceley's motivations were. Still aren't. Simon Stratford took sole ownership at an unenviable time and, one thinks, with the best of intentions.

However, more than being just a media recluse, players, coaches, staff, fans, and even major corporate partners, never knew where he stood, what his motives were, or where the club was headed long term.

If he were still in charge, fans would rightly view any move to take even a single game away with skepticism. Similarly, if another ownership group from interstate or wherever else take over, fans could rightly view the road plan as the beginning of the end.

Plenty are skeptical about the LaMelo Ball camp's motives in seeking ownership of the club. Glen Saville is in that camp and no opinion holds more weight than his. The NBL itself seems wary enough having dealt with the Ball camp more than anyone else.

In reality, Ball might be the sizzle, but consortium partner Tory Lavalle is the steak. Illawarra to his boot-straps, his ties to sport in the region are blood-thick. With an owner like that in charge, fans may just get on board with a plan to spread their wings if they're sure Wollongong is, and always will be, home.

Like we said from the top, we're not saying it will work, just that it can if its done right - but the club needs to take its fans with it.