316Hornets wrote:The money was so insignificant to Balmer that he didn't even bother covering it up? This isn't something the NBA can just let go because other owners are going to see the type of risk/reward from the outcome.
I just don't know how one of the top 10 richest guys in the world was so sloppy. Like he could pad most players pockets like it's nothing. And the genius plan was to set up some fraudulent company instead of offering Kawhi some untraceable crypto currency or bank account in the Caymans?
Ballmer did not set up this company, the company was already present. I don't know how they connected, but it's been verified that they contacted many rich people trying to get funding. His funding did not give him any controlling interest or anything like that, as it was around 3%, but he was of course an investor.
What we can piece together that Ballmer did is that he gave the company funding, which we can assume helped to further legitimize then in the eyes of others, because they can say, "see, Ballmer funded us", and then they can get other people to fund them. They had a lot of investors and collected a good amount.
Likely there was some understanding that they would essentially pay Ballmer back with the Clippers sponsorship, which was supposed to give $300 million over 20-ish years, which meant he would also get the $50 million back in 5 years, plus more down the road.
The cap related aspect would be that there was an understanding, implication, suggestion, whatever you want to call it, that they would introduce Kawhi, and he would receive an endorsement deal with them.
Everyone believed the company was "legit". Of course it would have been dumb to set up a fraudulent company any then have them do fraudulent things, that's an easy way to get caught. On the other hand, introducing what is considered a legitimate company to a player for a sponsorship is not against the NBA rules.
What the NBA does not allow is for that to be part of your contract signing pitch. So when a team is pitching to the player, they can't have the execs of a company there saying, "if you sign with this team, we will also give you ____ endorsement for this amount".
Now, there's wiggle, because execs like Time Warner, Comcast, etc have been part of pitches for many teams, and the NBA has said it is allowed, but they can only talk about market opportunities being in the area, but can't offer specific perks or endorsements for signing the contract.
After the contract is signed though, the NBA does not restrict teams from connecting players with companies for possible endorsements, only rule is that they can introduce, but they can't be part of the negotiation or contracts.
Now of course this is where Ballmer can feign ignorance. He would not have access to Aspirations records or decision making, that part is true. He can of course say, I'm not allowed to be in the negotiation between Kawhi and Aspiration, also true. But, as far as I'm aware of, players will usually share the details of their endorsement deals with their teams, even though it is their own business and not the companies.
The reason is so to avoid conflict of interest or anything that breaches theit contract or goes against cap laws, etc. This last post would be the last that requires the most explaining. If Ballmer claims the Clippers were not informed, why? Then they also have to as Kawhi and co, if you know that it is best practice to give the team details to ensure compliance, why didn't you, any if both parties can't give sufficient answers to these inquiries, then you know there was foul play somewhere.
