RealGM

MagicMamba88 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Watch on YouTube

Did the richest owner in sports sweeten the pot for the most private star in the NBA? Pablo Torre investigates a tree-planting green bank called Aspiration... unearths more than 3,000 pages of exclusive documents... and speaks to high-level sources, ultimately linking Kawhi Leonard's "no-show" endorsement deal to his contracts with the Clippers; to his Uncle Dennis; and to owner Steve Ballmer's personal $50M investment in a company that's now being probed by the U.S. government. Former front-office executives Amin Elhassan and David Samson react to the reporting and wonder how Adam Silver will look into these new allegations of salary-cap circumvention — and whether Ballmer's money took "a round trip."

316Hornets wrote:

Enso wrote:

316Hornets wrote:I'm thinking lifetime ban for Kawhi if he or his agent specifically requested illegal no show endorsements to circumvent cap. It just seems so blatant and casts a bad look on NBA as a whole if that's what happened.

It'll never directly be pinned on Kawhi, maybe the uncle or his management. If it is pinned on him prob a year suspension.

Kawhi is a NBA superstar and he should be expected to follow the rules of the game like other stars getting paid max money. This is a situation where the Commissioner just has to set an example and ban Kawhi from playing in the NBA ever again. Do we really want to hear another story in a few years about Kawhi taking another secret deal? I don't have all the evidence but if we are to believe Kawhi has his agent going around to multiple teams(Tor, Lac) making illegal demands, there's no place for that in the sport.

madmaxmedia wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:But that's why Silver's comment that the "burden of proof is on the league" was so dissonant. He's too good a lawyer to make that error by mistake. It leads me to believe that notwithstanding the blatant circumvention, the league plans to whitewash Ballmer. Maybe it's pressure from the league's new media partners. Who knows?

I think that his statement can be read in different ways. When he made those statements, he probably wasn't fully versed in the initial information that came out, the NBA hadn't even started investigating, etc. So I at least partially took that as a statement of, let's settle down for a moment, we're going to investigate and then make our decision on what we actually find and not what's being discussed on social media or in the news.

But I 100% agree that calling it 'burden of proof' was a poor choice of words (as was "I've never heard of [Aspiration before]..."

I just want the truth to come out one way or the other, and for the NBA to issue an appropriate judgement on it. Fortunately Pablo's investigation is helping this, and if the NBA wanted to sweep it under the rug then that is getting harder to justify with each new Torre bomb.

Mephariel wrote:Are people here just pretend to be dense? Of course the burden of proof is on the league. How can it not be on the league? Has anyone here ever dealt with employee issues at work? Try going to an employee and tell him he harassed someone and say "the burden of proof is on you to prove you are innocence" and see how that goes. The employee doesn't have to proof anything. You are the one who bring in the claim, you need to prove the employee did something wrong. But, but, the document say this and that! If you think Silver will just hand out a punishment based on text from a document, then I don't know what to tell you. If Silver go to a meeting with the governors and say "I have no actual evidence that Ballmer did anything, but I will punish him because a document allow me to do so..." how do you think that meeting is going to go?

BTW, section 13.2 doesn't even say the burden of proof is on Ballmer. Section 13.2 states "violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence..." It is still the league's responsibility to bring those direct or circumstantial evidence to light.

He's just saying this not the same thing as a court of law, not that Silver or the NBA can arbitrarily do whatever he wants. The NBA is going to investigate and then decide. If the entire money and paper trail looks absolutely shady AF, they can act on that. They don't need surveillance cam footage actually showing Ballmer hading Kawhi bags of cash.

inonba wrote:

Hello Brooklyn wrote: Its not on Balmer to "prove" why Aspiration did what it did. Its on the league to prove that Balmer was in on it. And so far they have nothing.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to legal expert Michael McCann on the Zach Lowe podcast who came to the same conclusion.

Watch on YouTube

16:30 mark. "Listen to legal expert Michael McCann on the Zach Lowe podcast" explain how section explains 13.2 (d)

A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a) or 2(b).

shifts the burden of proof from the league to the Clippers.

Well, Zach Lowe talked to more than one legal expert

Watch on YouTube

It's right at the beginning of the podcast 3:30 mark.

Curmudgeon wrote:But that's why Silver's comment that the "burden of proof is on the league" was so dissonant. He's too good a lawyer to make that error by mistake. It leads me to believe that notwithstanding the blatant circumvention, the league plans to whitewash Ballmer. Maybe it's pressure from the league's new media partners. Who knows?

bisme37 wrote:

inonba wrote:

Hello Brooklyn wrote: Its not on Balmer to "prove" why Aspiration did what it did. Its on the league to prove that Balmer was in on it. And so far they have nothing.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to legal expert Michael McCann on the Zach Lowe podcast who came to the same conclusion.

Watch on YouTube

16:30 mark. "Listen to legal expert Michael McCann on the Zach Lowe podcast" explain how section explains 13.2 (d)

A violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence, including, but not limited to, evidence that a Player Contract or any term or provision thereof cannot rationally be explained in the absence of conduct violative of Section 2(a) or 2(b).

shifts the burden of proof from the league to the Clippers.

Well, Zach Lowe talked to more than one legal expert

Watch on YouTube

It's right at the beginning of the podcast 3:30 mark.

Curmudgeon wrote:But that's why Silver's comment that the "burden of proof is on the league" was so dissonant. He's too good a lawyer to make that error by mistake. It leads me to believe that notwithstanding the blatant circumvention, the league plans to whitewash Ballmer. Maybe it's pressure from the league's new media partners. Who knows?

bisme37 wrote:

madmaxmedia wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:But that's why Silver's comment that the "burden of proof is on the league" was so dissonant. He's too good a lawyer to make that error by mistake. It leads me to believe that notwithstanding the blatant circumvention, the league plans to whitewash Ballmer. Maybe it's pressure from the league's new media partners. Who knows?

I think that his statement can be read in different ways. When he made those statements, he probably wasn't fully versed in the initial information that came out, the NBA hadn't even started investigating, etc. So I at least partially took that as a statement of, let's settle down for a moment, we're going to investigate and then make our decision on what we actually find and not what's being discussed on social media or in the news.

But I 100% agree that calling it 'burden of proof' was a poor choice of words (as was "I've never heard of [Aspiration before]..."

I just want the truth to come out one way or the other, and for the NBA to issue an appropriate judgement on it. Fortunately Pablo's investigation is helping this, and if the NBA wanted to sweep it under the rug then that is getting harder to justify with each new Torre bomb.

Mephariel wrote:Are people here just pretend to be dense? Of course the burden of proof is on the league. How can it not be on the league? Has anyone here ever dealt with employee issues at work? Try going to an employee and tell him he harassed someone and say "the burden of proof is on you to prove you are innocence" and see how that goes. The employee doesn't have to proof anything. You are the one who bring in the claim, you need to prove the employee did something wrong. But, but, the document say this and that! If you think Silver will just hand out a punishment based on text from a document, then I don't know what to tell you. If Silver go to a meeting with the governors and say "I have no actual evidence that Ballmer did anything, but I will punish him because a document allow me to do so..." how do you think that meeting is going to go?

BTW, section 13.2 doesn't even say the burden of proof is on Ballmer. Section 13.2 states "violation of Section 2(a) or 2(b) above may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence..." It is still the league's responsibility to bring those direct or circumstantial evidence to light.

He's just saying this not the same thing as a court of law, not that Silver or the NBA can arbitrarily do whatever he wants. The NBA is going to investigate and then decide. If the entire money and paper trail looks absolutely shady AF, they can act on that. They don't need surveillance cam footage actually showing Ballmer hading Kawhi bags of cash.

Mephariel wrote:Try going to an employee and tell him he harassed someone and say "the burden of proof is on you to prove you are innocence" and see how that goes. The employee doesn't have to proof anything. You are the one who bring in the claim, you need to prove the employee did something wrong.

clippertown wrote:Let’s assume that Ballmer and Kawhi are 100% guilty (something that is not yet actually proven), my question relates to how the league’s rules and the US laws interact in this situation. If the standards of proof for the NBA are less than the standards of proof in California law, wouldn’t a severe adverse decision by the league get challenged in court? I get that the league has its own rules that everybody agreed too, but if for example Ballmer was forced to sell the team (lol), this would have many cascading impacts that do not land directly on the Clippers organization. Hundreds of vendors and advertisers could sue. These cases would drag the league into a legal battle outside of their ivory castle. Ballmer would definitely appeal in court and would be pretty public about it. Since only 5% of NBA fans even know about this situation, why would the league shine a light on it now?

I get the need for punishment, but the league mostly handles these embarrassing situations behind closed doors and between the owners. A protracted legal battle between a pissed off Ballmer and the NBA would be ugly for everybody, especially if Ballmer knows where some of the other skeletons are buried. I maintain that this is not the only circumvention going on, just the only one that was outed (due to the BK of Aspiration).

Ultimately, this will likely be dealt with by banning Ballmer from his own stadium for the season, giving up a couple of useless late picks (or swaps) and issuing a hefty fine that Ballmer will pay with petty cash – likely limited to the max penalty of $7.5M. This was not technically cap-circumvention btw – it was a bribe to get Kawhi to sign with the Clippers. Even if Ballmer wanted to, he could not have paid Kawhi a penny more than he actually paid him. Any additional monies were separate to the max player contract. These are similar concepts but not identical in a court of actual law.

The lack of media and any real announcements from Silver indicate which way the league is thinking. It’s likely Silver will be travelling in a brand-new Gulfstream G800 next season, and the league will write additional rules to counter this kind of activity in the future.

Ambrose wrote:No. The NBA decision is final.

clippertown wrote:Let’s assume that Ballmer and Kawhi are 100% guilty (something that is not yet actually proven), my question relates to how the league’s rules and the US laws interact in this situation. If the standards of proof for the NBA are less than the standards of proof in California law, wouldn’t a severe adverse decision by the league get challenged in court? I get that the league has its own rules that everybody agreed too, but if for example Ballmer was forced to sell the team (lol), this would have many cascading impacts that do not land directly on the Clippers organization. Hundreds of vendors and advertisers could sue. These cases would drag the league into a legal battle outside of their ivory castle. Ballmer would definitely appeal in court and would be pretty public about it. Since only 5% of NBA fans even know about this situation, why would the league shine a light on it now?

I get the need for punishment, but the league mostly handles these embarrassing situations behind closed doors and between the owners. A protracted legal battle between a pissed off Ballmer and the NBA would be ugly for everybody, especially if Ballmer knows where some of the other skeletons are buried. I maintain that this is not the only circumvention going on, just the only one that was outed (due to the BK of Aspiration).

Ultimately, this will likely be dealt with by banning Ballmer from his own stadium for the season, giving up a couple of useless late picks (or swaps) and issuing a hefty fine that Ballmer will pay with petty cash – likely limited to the max penalty of $7.5M. This was not technically cap-circumvention btw – it was a bribe to get Kawhi to sign with the Clippers. Even if Ballmer wanted to, he could not have paid Kawhi a penny more than he actually paid him. Any additional monies were separate to the max player contract. These are similar concepts but not identical in a court of actual law.

The lack of media and any real announcements from Silver indicate which way the league is thinking. It’s likely Silver will be travelling in a brand-new Gulfstream G800 next season, and the league will write additional rules to counter this kind of activity in the future.

clippertown wrote:Let’s assume that Ballmer and Kawhi are 100% guilty (something that is not yet actually proven), my question relates to how the league’s rules and the US laws interact in this situation. If the standards of proof for the NBA are less than the standards of proof in California law, wouldn’t a severe adverse decision by the league get challenged in court? I get that the league has its own rules that everybody agreed too, but if for example Ballmer was forced to sell the team (lol), this would have many cascading impacts that do not land directly on the Clippers organization. Hundreds of vendors and advertisers could sue. These cases would drag the league into a legal battle outside of their ivory castle. Ballmer would definitely appeal in court and would be pretty public about it. Since only 5% of NBA fans even know about this situation, why would the league shine a light on it now?

I get the need for punishment, but the league mostly handles these embarrassing situations behind closed doors and between the owners. A protracted legal battle between a pissed off Ballmer and the NBA would be ugly for everybody, especially if Ballmer knows where some of the other skeletons are buried. I maintain that this is not the only circumvention going on, just the only one that was outed (due to the BK of Aspiration).

Ultimately, this will likely be dealt with by banning Ballmer from his own stadium for the season, giving up a couple of useless late picks (or swaps) and issuing a hefty fine that Ballmer will pay with petty cash – likely limited to the max penalty of $7.5M. This was not technically cap-circumvention btw – it was a bribe to get Kawhi to sign with the Clippers. Even if Ballmer wanted to, he could not have paid Kawhi a penny more than he actually paid him. Any additional monies were separate to the max player contract. These are similar concepts but not identical in a court of actual law.

The lack of media and any real announcements from Silver indicate which way the league is thinking. It’s likely Silver will be travelling in a brand-new Gulfstream G800 next season, and the league will write additional rules to counter this kind of activity in the future.

clippertown wrote:Let’s assume that Ballmer and Kawhi are 100% guilty (something that is not yet actually proven), my question relates to how the league’s rules and the US laws interact in this situation. If the standards of proof for the NBA are less than the standards of proof in California law, wouldn’t a severe adverse decision by the league get challenged in court? I get that the league has its own rules that everybody agreed too, but if for example Ballmer was forced to sell the team (lol), this would have many cascading impacts that do not land directly on the Clippers organization. Hundreds of vendors and advertisers could sue. These cases would drag the league into a legal battle outside of their ivory castle. Ballmer would definitely appeal in court and would be pretty public about it. Since only 5% of NBA fans even know about this situation, why would the league shine a light on it now?

I get the need for punishment, but the league mostly handles these embarrassing situations behind closed doors and between the owners. A protracted legal battle between a pissed off Ballmer and the NBA would be ugly for everybody, especially if Ballmer knows where some of the other skeletons are buried. I maintain that this is not the only circumvention going on, just the only one that was outed (due to the BK of Aspiration).

Ultimately, this will likely be dealt with by banning Ballmer from his own stadium for the season, giving up a couple of useless late picks (or swaps) and issuing a hefty fine that Ballmer will pay with petty cash – likely limited to the max penalty of $7.5M. This was not technically cap-circumvention btw – it was a bribe to get Kawhi to sign with the Clippers. Even if Ballmer wanted to, he could not have paid Kawhi a penny more than he actually paid him. Any additional monies were separate to the max player contract. These are similar concepts but not identical in a court of actual law.

The lack of media and any real announcements from Silver indicate which way the league is thinking. It’s likely Silver will be travelling in a brand-new Gulfstream G800 next season, and the league will write additional rules to counter this kind of activity in the future.

CS707 wrote:I seriously doubt a forced sale is even on the table. No owner wants that type of precedent.