Kawhi "no-show job" that paid $28M

[PushDaRock]

NBA cannot subpoena records according to Jake Fisher, so again this isn't going to be cut & dry.
Team sponsors can sponsor players separately,
-Tatum in Boston - Crypto arena has a deal with Embiid
-Deals being tied to the player being in that organization is also common practice

I don't have a skin in the race, but again there's enough plausible deniability that nothing is going to happen. You have to prove that this is a coordinated scheme and that hasn't happen with the information that's been made aware to us.

Is it common practice for someone to get 48m without needing to do anything other than be on a Basketball team?

The dollar amount and job requirement (doing nothing) is what makes this relevant. Do you think we have an investigation over this if Kawhi was getting paid 100k a year?

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

It's just silly to say the dollar amount doesn't matter. Would it matter if it was 100m? 200m? 500m?

Are there "plenty" of deals where players do nothing and collect 48m dollars?

No, it wouldn't be on the up and up because he would still be getting paid many multiples over market value. It's likely the reason he didn't plant a tree in the first place is because they didn't want to draw attention to him being an endorser.

[C Court]

Sponsorship deals for $48 million where players do not actually do something do not exist - except in this one instance. Dollar amount is very relevant. If it was a $10,000 deal with a local car dealership, no one would care.

[DreamTeam09]

Is it common practice for someone to get 48m without needing to do anything other than be on a Basketball team?

The dollar amount and job requirement (doing nothing) is what makes this relevant. Do you think we have an investigation over this if Kawhi was getting paid 100k a year?

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

It's just silly to say the dollar amount doesn't matter. Would it matter if it was 100m? 200m? 500m?

Are there "plenty" of deals where players do nothing and collect 48m dollars?

No, it wouldn't be on the up and up because he would still be getting paid many multiples over market value. It's likely the reason he didn't plant a tree in the first place is because they didn't want to draw attention to him being an endorser.

You're right that the dollar amount does factor in, I'll conceed on that one. But if he did plant some trees or if they did use his NIL then this would be harder to prove, granted maybe it would've looked sketchy earlier and probably wouldn't of needed the company going bankrupt to put 2 n 2 together

[CPT]

NBA cannot subpoena records according to Jake Fisher, so again this isn't going to be cut & dry.
Team sponsors can sponsor players separately,
-Tatum in Boston - Crypto arena has a deal with Embiid
-Deals being tied to the player being in that organization is also common practice

I don't have a skin in the race, but again there's enough plausible deniability that nothing is going to happen. You have to prove that this is a coordinated scheme and that hasn't happen with the information that's been made aware to us.

Is it common practice for someone to get 48m without needing to do anything other than be on a Basketball team?

The dollar amount and job requirement (doing nothing) is what makes this relevant. Do you think we have an investigation over this if Kawhi was getting paid 100k a year?

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

What?

In every sponsorship deal, there’s *something* given by both parties.

It might be a commercial, a post, or at least a press release so the sponsor can gain some clout from using the player’s name.

This was a donation.

[DreamTeam09]

Is it common practice for someone to get 48m without needing to do anything other than be on a Basketball team?

The dollar amount and job requirement (doing nothing) is what makes this relevant. Do you think we have an investigation over this if Kawhi was getting paid 100k a year?

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

What?

In every sponsorship deal, there’s *something* given by both parties.g

It might be a commercial, a post, or at least a press release so the sponsor can gain some clout from using the player’s name.

This was a donation.

Nike or any company could sign someone & sit on their investment. Yes I also understand that you would want a return in your investment and use it to your advantage to ensure a return but still...

[bballsparkin]

Kinda feel bad for Clipper fans. Still think of Kawhi as one of my top 5 players I love watching. Hakeem, Bird, Kawhi,...not sure after that. I don't even hate Balmer. Got to make em pay though.

[CPT]

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

What?

In every sponsorship deal, there’s *something* given by both parties.g

It might be a commercial, a post, or at least a press release so the sponsor can gain some clout from using the player’s name.

This was a donation.

Nike or any company could sign someone & sit on their investment. Yes I also understand that you would want a return in your investment and use it to your advantage to ensure a return but still...

Do you think Nike would sign someone and not let anyone know about it?

If Aspiration sent out a press release to announce their "strategic partnership" or "brand alliance" with Kawhi, we could say "wow, they spent $48 million for that?" It would be a terrible deal, but there would be something.

What are we doing here?

[brownbobcat]

NBA cannot subpoena records according to Jake Fisher, so again this isn't going to be cut & dry.
Team sponsors can sponsor players separately,
-Tatum in Boston - Crypto arena has a deal with Embiid
-Deals being tied to the player being in that organization is also common practice

I don't have a skin in the race, but again there's enough plausible deniability that nothing is going to happen. You have to prove that this is a coordinated scheme and that hasn't happen with the information that's been made aware to us.

According to the CBA, Jake Fischer is dead wrong. Just think about it from a common sense perspective of how difficult it would be to find a smoking gun email stating, "Thanks for the help circumventing the cap for Kawhi Leonard! Regards, Steve Anthony Ballmer".

That's why Section 1 B states (in part):

Such an agreement with a sponsor or business partner or third party may be inferred where: (i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party;

Technically, that means Ballmer's investment doesn't even matter. Kawhi getting paid $28-48M by a sponsor without justification is enough.

[mathgeek]

Sponsorship deals for $48 million where players do not actually do something do not exist - except in this one instance. Dollar amount is very relevant. If it was a $10,000 deal with a local car dealership, no one would care.

Sure but it's in Aspirations best interests to keep the Clippers relevant because they did a 300 million dollar carbon offsetting deal with them. They paid Kawhi nothing to stay and do what he does best help them win basketball games. Kawhi's money was a drop in the bucket for their 2+ billion dollar valuation. This is all a grey area and will be one of the biggest stories this year because it'll set precedence in all of sports.

[mathgeek]

NBA cannot subpoena records according to Jake Fisher, so again this isn't going to be cut & dry.
Team sponsors can sponsor players separately,
-Tatum in Boston - Crypto arena has a deal with Embiid
-Deals being tied to the player being in that organization is also common practice

I don't have a skin in the race, but again there's enough plausible deniability that nothing is going to happen. You have to prove that this is a coordinated scheme and that hasn't happen with the information that's been made aware to us.

According to the CBA, Jake Fischer is dead wrong. Just think about it from a common sense perspective of how difficult it would be to find a smoking gun email stating, "Thanks for the help circumventing the cap for Kawhi Leonard! Regards, Steve Anthony Ballmer".

That's why Section 1 B states (in part):

Such an agreement with a sponsor or business partner or third party may be inferred where: (i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party;

Technically, that means Ballmer's investment doesn't even matter. Kawhi getting paid $28-48M by a sponsor without justification is enough.

Kawhi may very well play the angle that it was uncle Dennis his handler that swung a deal he had no knowledge off. This happens all the time. Players get told by their trusted guardians friends, family, etc to focus on basketball and they'll handle their financials to look after their best interests.

[mathgeek]

We were defrauded out of a 2nd and potentially 3rd Ring and no one can convince me otherwise.

What's worse the ripple effect of Kawhi's decision to go to LA eventually led to Masai being fired.

The Clippers got nowhere and knowing how Shai turned out they're in a very bad position. They did the most and got screwed by Kawhi and Uncle Dennis in every sense of the word.

[inonba]

Sponsorship deals for $48 million where players do not actually do something do not exist - except in this one instance. Dollar amount is very relevant. If it was a $10,000 deal with a local car dealership, no one would care.

Sure but it's in Aspirations best interests to keep the Clippers relevant because they did a 300 million dollar carbon offsetting deal with them. They paid Kawhi nothing to stay and do what he does best help them win basketball games. Kawhi's money was a drop in the bucket for their 2+ billion dollar valuation. This is all a grey area and will be one of the biggest stories this year because it'll set precedence in all of sports.

And do you know how Aspiration gained their 2+ billion dollar valuation? Let me give you a hint. It has something to do with going to sports teams and selling them carbon credits, then taking that money and sponsoring that team right back.

Aspiration wasn't conducting any legitimate business as their main goal was inflating their net worth so they could secure more loans and investors. That makes your claim complete nonsense.

KL2 Aspire was also listed as one of the top creditors of Aspiration (#4). LA Clippers #1. Really cute to classify that as a drop in the bucket.

[inonba]

Kawhi may very well play the angle that it was uncle Dennis his handler that swung a deal he had no knowledge off. This happens all the time. Players get told by their trusted guardians friends, family, etc to focus on basketball and they'll handle their financials to look after their best interests.

So the defense is ignorance ?

Well, let me make this easy for you.
1. He signed his name
2. He cash the cheque

Good luck with that defense.

[C Court]

Sponsorship deals for $48 million where players do not actually do something do not exist - except in this one instance. Dollar amount is very relevant. If it was a $10,000 deal with a local car dealership, no one would care.

Sure but it's in Aspirations best interests to keep the Clippers relevant because they did a 300 million dollar carbon offsetting deal with them. They paid Kawhi nothing to stay and do what he does best help them win basketball games. Kawhi's money was a drop in the bucket for their 2+ billion dollar valuation. This is all a grey area and will be one of the biggest stories this year because it'll set precedence in all of sports.

They paid Kawhi $48 million and received no (zero) services in return. The only reason, as you stated was to entice Kawhi to stay with the Clippers. There’s no grey area here. This is a clear and complete circumvention of the NBA salary cap.

Read the CBA and show us where direct payments to NBA players for $48 million where said player provides no direct endorsement services to the paying company Is a grey area? You won’t find it because it is clearly 100% illegal and forbidden by the CBA.

[DreamTeam09]

NBA cannot subpoena records according to Jake Fisher, so again this isn't going to be cut & dry.
Team sponsors can sponsor players separately,
-Tatum in Boston - Crypto arena has a deal with Embiid
-Deals being tied to the player being in that organization is also common practice

I don't have a skin in the race, but again there's enough plausible deniability that nothing is going to happen. You have to prove that this is a coordinated scheme and that hasn't happen with the information that's been made aware to us.

According to the CBA, Jake Fischer is dead wrong. Just think about it from a common sense perspective of how difficult it would be to find a smoking gun email stating, "Thanks for the help circumventing the cap for Kawhi Leonard! Regards, Steve Anthony Ballmer".

That's why Section 1 B states (in part):

Such an agreement with a sponsor or business partner or third party may be inferred where: (i) such compensation from the sponsor or business partner or third party is substantially in excess of the fair market value of any services to be rendered by the player for such sponsor or business partner or third party;

Technically, that means Ballmer's investment doesn't even matter. Kawhi getting paid $28-48M by a sponsor without justification is enough.

see, now that's a good find, thanks for pulling that information

[C Court]

This case will not be adjudicated in a court of law. Instead it will be decided by Adam Silver who has virtually ‘absolute’ powers as granted by the team owners. There is no legal bar of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, Silver can conclude that Ballmer and Kawhi are guilty of circumventing the salary cap based on circumstantial evidence. Then it’s up to the Clippers to prove their innocence.

[tecumseh18]

It's an erroneous myth that circumstantial evidence doesn't matter in a court of law. It does, if there's no reasonable alternative explanation.

And the NBA isn't even a court of law. It's a business that is heavily structured around the concept of Bird rights and making it easier for small market teams or less attractive destination franchises - like the Raptors - to keep their star players.

Clippers are NOT going to get away with this. There is no reasonable alternative explanation for these circumstances.

[Dennis 37]

The dollar amount is irrelevant imo unless there's a clause in the league / and yeah I'm sure plenty of sponsorship deals come with players not actually even doing something. If Kawhi did a commercial or actually planted a tree somewhere would that make things on the up n up also?

What?

In every sponsorship deal, there’s *something* given by both parties.g

It might be a commercial, a post, or at least a press release so the sponsor can gain some clout from using the player’s name.

This was a donation.

Nike or any company could sign someone & sit on their investment. Yes I also understand that you would want a return in your investment and use it to your advantage to ensure a return but still...

There is no comparison to Nike. Nike might sit on someone while waiting for another player's endorsement deal to expire. Or wait for a shoe to be ready to market. If Nike sat on someone there would be a logical reason. There is no logical reason for this company to sit on their highest paid endorsement celebrity.

[tecumseh18]

This case will not be adjudicated in a court of law. Instead it will be decided by Adam Silver who has virtually ‘absolute’ powers as granted by the team owners. There is no legal bar of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, Silver can conclude that Ballmer and Kawhi are guilty of circumventing the salary cap based on circumstantial evidence. Then it’s up to the Clippers to prove their innocence.

Hah, CC, it may look like I was responding to your last post, but I composed it entiredly independently and didn't even see your post.

Great minds, etc...

[C Court]

This case will not be adjudicated in a court of law. Instead it will be decided by Adam Silver who has virtually ‘absolute’ powers as granted by the team owners. There is no legal bar of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, Silver can conclude that Ballmer and Kawhi are guilty of circumventing the salary cap based on circumstantial evidence. Then it’s up to the Clippers to prove their innocence.

Hah, CC, it may look like I was responding to your last post, but I composed it entiredly independently and didn't even see your post.

Great minds, etc...

No worries. I read it as an agreement which is why I gave your post an And-1. In fact I take it as an honour for my post to be agreed to by the #1 legal scholar here.