RealGM

I wonder how often this has happened before, albeit on a smaller scale. $28M, if true, is going to cause problems for the Clippers and the league.

Old_Blue wrote:

Read on Twitter

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nba/article/kawhi-leonard-reportedly-paid-28-million-for-no-show-job-with-clippers-as-way-to-get-around-nba-salary-cap-125651365.html

Pablo out here doing god's work. If only more 'journalists' knew what that word meant.

Void his ass

statsman wrote:I wonder how often this has happened before, albeit on a smaller scale. $28M, if true, is going to cause problems for the Clippers and the league.

I mean the last thing that even compares to this is the Joe Smith situation with Minnesota decades ago.

It is pretty egregious. And if I'm following, Kawhi is the guy you'd want to pay way more than a max contract? Really?

EvanZ wrote:

statsman wrote:I wonder how often this has happened before, albeit on a smaller scale. $28M, if true, is going to cause problems for the Clippers and the league.

I mean the last thing that even compares to this is the Joe Smith situation with Minnesota decades ago.

The ESPN story mentions this in their story about this...

In 2000, it was discovered that the Minnesota Timberwolves engaged in an illegal secret agreement with Joe Smith by allegedly promising to pay him a future multimillion-dollar deal if he signed with the team on a shorter contract for less money.

The NBA penalized the Timberwolves by removing five first-round draft picks, fining the team $3.5 million and banning head coach Kevin McHale and owner Glen Taylor for a season, along with voiding the contracts for Smith.

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/46146871/report-clippers-skirted-nba-salary-cap-kawhi-leonard-payment

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:It is pretty egregious. And if I'm following, Kawhi is the guy you'd want to pay way more than a max contract? Really?

I'm guessing it was all part of the PG/Kawhi summer and they probably needed every dollar under the cap to make it happen. Before I get on my high horse and start demanding suspensions and such, are we sure lacob doesn't have similar skeletons in his closet?

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:It is pretty egregious. And if I'm following, Kawhi is the guy you'd want to pay way more than a max contract? Really?

I think that part of it is his agreeing to play for the _Clippers_. You'd have to pay ANYBODY a premium to do that. If this is true, do the Clips get the same treatment as the Wolves? It sent that franchise back for a decade or more.

This has Uncle Dennis fingerprints all over this.

Crazy-Canuck wrote:This has Uncle Dennis fingerprints all over this.

OR maybe it's the billionaire owner who's worth more than the rest of the league combined who's actually the one that is responsible for this.

I agree with what Mark Cuban said on Twitter. Ballmer is too smart to use a third party entity for an intentional circumvention of the salary cap, and then allow that same company to go bankrupt and end up in court with its finances being carefully scrutinized. Where is the evidence of misconduct by the Clips? We have an anonymous witness who worked for Aspiration in its finance department, who is not under oath or willing to put his name behind it, and what is he saying exactly? That someone else told him the endorsement contract was designed to circumvent the salary cap. Who is this other person who made the statement to the anonymous witness? Did this person have personal knowledge of decision making by the Clips front office? Someone is going to have to step forward and give evidence under oath. The fact that Kawhi got paid a lot of money and never did any work for it is suspicious, but for NBA to punish the Clips, there needs to be evidence directly implicating them. I don't see it. At least, not yet.

Clips statement says the allegations are "provably false." In the legal world, this is a low key cocky phrase. Ballmer can afford the best lawyers and I have no doubt they vetted the public statement. I am predicting no punishment for the Clips.

For their part, the Clippers have released the following statement...



For his part, Kawhi really does appear to love planting trees...

Old_Blue wrote:For their part, the Clippers have released the following statement...

Read on Twitter

Respect your opinion Old Blue, and I am not saying there isn't the appearance of impropriety. Uncle Dennis is shady for sure. Maybe there is incriminating evidence that hasn't come to light. I edited my post above before seeing your post, but only to add that I think the Clips statement that I saw was written like they are confident the evidence will exonerate them. The statement you quoted is phrased a bit differently, but takes the same tone. If incriminating emails are disclosed, or there is a witness with personal knowledge who was part of Clips FO or dealt directly with them, and will put their name behind it ... that might change my mind.

If I recall correctly, in the Joe Smith situation, there was a contract written on a napkin and Glen Taylor was directly involved. Aspiration is a third party and it will be harder to prove Clips misconduct.

vvoland wrote:

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:It is pretty egregious. And if I'm following, Kawhi is the guy you'd want to pay way more than a max contract? Really?

I'm guessing it was all part of the PG/Kawhi summer and they probably needed every dollar under the cap to make it happen. Before I get on my high horse and start demanding suspensions and such, are we sure lacob doesn't have similar skeletons in his closet?

I had the same thought about Lacob.

Remember all the talk about getting investment tips or whatever it was that Iggy was into as being a recruiting advantage?

Larry Ellison wrote:Respect your opinion Old Blue, and I am not saying there isn't the appearance of impropriety. Uncle Dennis is shady for sure. Maybe there is incriminating evidence that hasn't come to light. I edited my post above before seeing your post, but only to add that I think the Clips statement that I saw was written like they are confident the evidence will exonerate them. The statement you quoted is phrased a bit differently, but takes the same tone. If incriminating emails are disclosed, or there is a witness with personal knowledge who was part of Clips FO or dealt directly with them, and will put their name behind it ... that might change my mind.

If I recall correctly, in the Joe Smith situation, there was a contract written on a napkin and Glen Taylor was directly involved. Aspiration is a third party and it will be harder to prove Clips misconduct.

The Commissioner has wide latitude to inquire into the spirit of the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard. Subtract out the fraud element involving the third party and the question remains - Was the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard above board? Claiming that it was would upend any and all salary restraints baked into the CBA. What obstacle would exist then for the Dubs (or any other team) to simply funnel tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to a player via sham sponsorship arrangements that far exceeded the fair market value of the player's actual contribution? Essentially, what the Clippers are attempting to claim is that a third party's act of fraud committed upon them eliminates the possibility of a different act of fraud committed by the Clippers against the League. However, BOTH acts may well have occurred.

Agree with Old Blue. WITH OR WITHOUT A SMOKING GUN, this reeks of misconduct. If the NBA doesn't come down hard on the Clips, there's NO reason why every other team in the league won't set up multi-million dollar "sponsorship" deals for their players to circumvent the cap. Why would anybody sponsor Kawhi for a product like this otherwise? And do the deal with a shell company to hide the payments?

Old_Blue wrote:

Larry Ellison wrote:Respect your opinion Old Blue, and I am not saying there isn't the appearance of impropriety. Uncle Dennis is shady for sure. Maybe there is incriminating evidence that hasn't come to light. I edited my post above before seeing your post, but only to add that I think the Clips statement that I saw was written like they are confident the evidence will exonerate them. The statement you quoted is phrased a bit differently, but takes the same tone. If incriminating emails are disclosed, or there is a witness with personal knowledge who was part of Clips FO or dealt directly with them, and will put their name behind it ... that might change my mind.

If I recall correctly, in the Joe Smith situation, there was a contract written on a napkin and Glen Taylor was directly involved. Aspiration is a third party and it will be harder to prove Clips misconduct.

The Commissioner has wide latitude to inquire into the spirit of the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard. Subtract out the fraud element involving the third party and the question remains - Was the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard above board? Claiming that it was would upend any and all salary restraints baked into the CBA. What obstacle would exist then for the Dubs (or any other team) to simply funnel tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to a player via sham sponsorship arrangements that far exceeded the fair market value of the player's actual contribution? Essentially, what the Clippers are attempting to claim is that a third party's act of fraud committed upon them eliminates the possibility of a different act of fraud committed by the Clippers against the League. However, BOTH acts may well have occurred.

Exactly right. Both can be true. But it straddles the line because it just reeks as a transaction, and when you are dealing with a convicted fraudster and Uncle Dennis, they are capable of doing this on their own. I would like to see a smoking gun that Clips orchestrated this. Maybe that evidence exists. If so, I hope they find it and drop the hammer on Clips.

Old_Blue wrote:

Larry Ellison wrote:Respect your opinion Old Blue, and I am not saying there isn't the appearance of impropriety. Uncle Dennis is shady for sure. Maybe there is incriminating evidence that hasn't come to light. I edited my post above before seeing your post, but only to add that I think the Clips statement that I saw was written like they are confident the evidence will exonerate them. The statement you quoted is phrased a bit differently, but takes the same tone. If incriminating emails are disclosed, or there is a witness with personal knowledge who was part of Clips FO or dealt directly with them, and will put their name behind it ... that might change my mind.

If I recall correctly, in the Joe Smith situation, there was a contract written on a napkin and Glen Taylor was directly involved. Aspiration is a third party and it will be harder to prove Clips misconduct.

Was the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard above board? Claiming that it was would upend any and all salary restraints baked into the CBA. What obstacle would exist then for the Dubs (or any other team) to simply funnel tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to a player via sham sponsorship arrangements that far exceeded the fair market value of the player's actual contribution?

All true. If it is proven. Hasn't been yet, but might be. I like your goals, but this is a hard thing for NBA to regulate. It is only because Aspiration went the BK route that this evidence came to light.

Larry Ellison wrote:

Old_Blue wrote:

Larry Ellison wrote:Respect your opinion Old Blue, and I am not saying there isn't the appearance of impropriety. Uncle Dennis is shady for sure. Maybe there is incriminating evidence that hasn't come to light. I edited my post above before seeing your post, but only to add that I think the Clips statement that I saw was written like they are confident the evidence will exonerate them. The statement you quoted is phrased a bit differently, but takes the same tone. If incriminating emails are disclosed, or there is a witness with personal knowledge who was part of Clips FO or dealt directly with them, and will put their name behind it ... that might change my mind.

If I recall correctly, in the Joe Smith situation, there was a contract written on a napkin and Glen Taylor was directly involved. Aspiration is a third party and it will be harder to prove Clips misconduct.

The Commissioner has wide latitude to inquire into the spirit of the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard. Subtract out the fraud element involving the third party and the question remains - Was the arrangement between Ballmer and Leonard above board? Claiming that it was would upend any and all salary restraints baked into the CBA. What obstacle would exist then for the Dubs (or any other team) to simply funnel tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to a player via sham sponsorship arrangements that far exceeded the fair market value of the player's actual contribution? Essentially, what the Clippers are attempting to claim is that a third party's act of fraud committed upon them eliminates the possibility of a different act of fraud committed by the Clippers against the League. However, BOTH acts may well have occurred.

Exactly right. Both can be true. But it straddles the line because it just reeks as a transaction, and when you are dealing with a convicted fraudster and Uncle Dennis, they are capable of doing this on their own. I would like to see a smoking gun that Clips orchestrated this. Maybe that evidence exists. If so, I hope they find it and drop the hammer on Clips.

Evidence to establish what? Causation? Res ipsa loquitur - The thing speaks for itself. When I was in law school, I had a corporate tax professor who said the following - Whenever we observe illogical behavior in a corporate setting, the likely culprit is a tax consideration. Kawhi Leonard...selected to rep a tree planting business...and be paid $28 million for doing so. The tax consideration giving rise to illogical behavior in this scenario wasn't a federal or state tax. It was an NBA luxury tax and the evasion of it.