RealGM

Sorry about the new thread, but I simply didn't know where to put this.

Is there a stipulation in the CBA, or any other document, in which the owners or ownership groups of other teams can cast a vote of no confidence in one of their own. Basically, if an owner is too incompetent or cheap to field a competative team, it hurts the franchise, which in turn hurts the NBA as a whole. That means money out of everyone's pockets. Kohl has the well earned reputation around the league as being a meddling imbecile, so at some point couldn't these partners ask that something be done about our situation? Obviously, this would all funnel through David Stern who could pressure Kohl to either sell or allow basketball people to make basketball decisions. I think that Donald Sterling probably got some such pressure applied to him when he simply refused to resign any of his own players, leaving his team in shambles. In 1 summer that all changed. My guess is that it wasn't a money hating epiphany on Sterling's part.

there are a lot worse owners than kohl.

frankly, kohl's only problem is that he's not that interested in winning a championship. he just likes fielding mediocre teams. and as an owner, he'll use the small market excuse card until he sells the team.

I would imagine the 76ers fans are not too happy with their current owner either.

midranger wrote:Sorry about the new thread, but I simply didn't know where to put this.

Is there a stipulation in the CBA, or any other document, in which the owners or ownership groups of other teams can cast a vote of no confidence in one of their own. Basically, if an owner is too incompetent or cheap to field a competative team, it hurts the franchise, which in turn hurts the NBA as a whole. That means money out of everyone's pockets. Kohl has the well earned reputation around the league as being a meddling imbecile, so at some point couldn't these partners ask that something be done about our situation? Obviously, this would all funnel through David Stern who could pressure Kohl to either sell or allow basketball people to make basketball decisions. I think that Donald Sterling probably got some such pressure applied to him when he simply refused to resign any of his own players, leaving his team in shambles. In 1 summer that all changed. My guess is that it wasn't a money hating epiphany on Sterling's part.

why would other owners care if the bucks stink?

Well there was a Ted Stepien rule put in place many years ago. The former Cavs owner traded away so many draft picks that a rule was put in place that you can't trade first round picks in consecutive years.

Maybe there can be some kind of Herb Kohl rules put in place. They can start with a rule that he can't wear the same color sports coat for every game.

smooth 'lil balla wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



why would other owners care if the bucks stink?

Revenue sharing.

Plus they're a team in a small market, who (with the way things are currently being run) have become a black mark on the league. They inspire no new fans. Bucks fans are by definition NBA fans.

When multiple teams go for over a decade without making the playoffs and Donald Sterling has been tolerated Kohl should have no problem with the league.

midranger wrote:Sorry about the new thread, but I simply didn't know where to put this.

Is there a stipulation in the CBA, or any other document, in which the owners or ownership groups of other teams can cast a vote of no confidence in one of their own.

Yes. It is not dealt with by the CBA, but rather one of the other documents you refer to, the NBA Constitution and NBA By-Laws.

It would be dealt with by the NBA Board of Governors

midranger wrote:Basically, if an owner is too incompetent or cheap to field a competative team, it hurts the franchise, which in turn hurts the NBA as a whole. That means money out of everyone's pockets.

Right there is where the answer to the subsequent "Why would the other owners care?" questions.


However, Kohl's position as a Senator does factor in here. Kohl doesn't exactly wield a ton of power in the Senate, especially publicly. But he sits on a number of committees and sub-committees that have a lot of control and influence over media entities (this always seemed like somewhat of a conflict of interest for an NBA owner, but whatever). A number of the other other owners own, run, etc. a media company or have strong interests in a media company. It is pretty well established that those owners will never line up against Kohl. Are there enough owners apart from that group who could line up against Kohl and force him to change the way he operates or sell? Maybe. Probably not though.

I've always been hesitant to get into that topic because it can get pretty sensitive and has the potential to turn very political (something best avoided on this board) but I no longer know how to avoid it. It is not our fault our NBA team is owned by a United States Senator.

Thanks GAD. Interesting stuff about the committees he serves on. There are just so many layers to this onion and each one stinks more than the last.

Kohl's ownership doesn't come close to rising to the level of incompetence needed for the owners to take action. It's got to be a situation where a team is winning 12-20 games a year while offering crazy contracts and trading away draft picks for nothing. Kohl's a bad GM but he's not an incompetent owner. He's no worse than say a Dan Synder in the NFL.

There have been some owners though making rumblings about the Knicks poor management and doing something there. The revenue that the Knicks bring in is so significant for certain revenue sharing programs that some owners are upset the Knick situation isn't being maximized.

MickeyDavis wrote:Well there was a Ted Stepien rule put in place many years ago. The former Cavs owner traded away so many draft picks that a rule was put in place that you can't trade first round picks in consecutive years.

Maybe there can be some kind of Herb Kohl rules put in place. They can start with a rule that he can't wear the same color sports coat for every game.

I know the exact details aren't important to the point you made above, but I want to add sidenote here on the Ted Stepien rule because people frequently misunderstand that rule.

The rule is that you can't make a trade that might leave you without any future first round pick in consecutive years. Key words are future and any. And you can also only trade draft picks five years into the future.

Alright, carry on

MajorDad wrote:
kohl's only problem is that he's not that interested in winning a championship. he just likes fielding mediocre teams.

I do not agree with that at all. Everyone assumes Kohl is in charge of personnel moves and micromanaging this pathetic team, but as a U.S. Senator, wouldn't he have higher priorities? I think he's a stand-up guy, a respectable person who may interview potential players, but only to make sure he doesn't have a bad apple on his team.

mpg wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I do not agree with that at all. Everyone assumes Kohl is in charge of personnel moves and micromanaging this pathetic team, but as a U.S. Senator, wouldn't he have higher priorities? I think he's a stand-up guy, a respectable person who may interview potential players, but only to make sure he doesn't have a bad apple on his team.

I rarely engage in this kind of hyperbole, but you sir are detached from reality if you believe what you wrote above.

It is so far from what is actually true, I don't even know what to say...

midranger wrote:Basically, if an owner is too incompetent or cheap to field a competative team, it hurts the franchise, which in turn hurts the NBA as a whole. That means money out of everyone's pockets. Kohl has the well earned reputation around the league as being a meddling imbecile, so at some point couldn't these partners ask that something be done about our situation?

Not happening. They would've done something about Donald Sterling years ago...

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I rarely engage in this kind of hyperbole, but you sir are detached from reality if you believe what you wrote above.

It is so far from what is actually true, I don't even know what to say...

How do you know what is "actually true"?

Mags FTW wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


Not happening. They would've done something about Donald Sterling years ago...

Maybe GAD could comment, but I'd speculate that they did. He all of a sudden began spending money over the course of a summer. What changed?

mpg wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



How do you know what is "actually true"?

Because GAD knows, GAD is GOD.

I'd guess that the organization is run by a bunch of Kohls, a bunch of incumbents with no fear of losing their jobs. There's no sense of urgency to do anything different. Maybe it's not expected of them to do anything different, just like it's not expected of the Bucks to do anything except make the playoffs (which is pretty easy in the east).

Going to the B.C. for a game is like walking into the past. Get some young bucks (no pun intended) in there to mix it up a bit. Make some aggressive moves. Make a goal bigger than just making an 8th seed.

GrandAdmiralDan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I rarely engage in this kind of hyperbole, but you sir are detached from reality if you believe what you wrote above.

It is so far from what is actually true, I don't even know what to say...

Agreed.

kebzach wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Agreed.

Wow this GAD guy really gets his ass kissed alot on this board.

mpg wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Wow this GAD guy really gets his ass kissed alot on this board.

It's called credibility. GAD adds a lot to our discussions. It doesn't mean he's always right or that everyone always agrees with him. But attacking him, or anyone else, is not the way to go.