Kawhi Leonard Signed a Secret $28M Deal. Steve Ballmer Funded a Fraud. We Followed the Money. | PTFO

[jvsimonetti0514]

I think the obvious pushback to Cuban’s first statement about the first 50 million not being for Kawhi is that the company was burning through so much cash that the money got spent elsewhere before they could pay Kawhi. I’m sure the aspiration leadership didn’t expect the company to go bankrupt and would have more money to pay Kawhi later on. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen they kept shaking Ballmer down for more money later on.

[inonba]

I think the obvious pushback to Cuban’s first statement about the first 50 million not being for Kawhi is that the company was burning through so much cash that the money got spent elsewhere before they could pay Kawhi. I’m sure the aspiration leadership didn’t expect the company to go bankrupt and would have more money to pay Kawhi later on. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen they kept shaking Ballmer down for more money later on.

Don't even know why it's even a debate. Everyone acknowledges Aspiration was running a Ponzi scheme. Did everyone forget how a Ponzi scheme works?

Like the cash and cheque example I gave, just because the cheque bounced doesn't dismiss the intent. It just means I didn't know you have a negative balance in your bank account. Presumably, the plan was the next sucker would pay off the obligation to Ballmer.....like how Ponzi intended.

[Mak]

One thing I would point out is I would be surprised if Ballmer does really stupid things, because it was proven multiple times when he was running Microsoft…

You would not know this unless you used "Windows Me" before.

[manlisten]

I think the obvious pushback to Cuban’s first statement about the first 50 million not being for Kawhi is that the company was burning through so much cash that the money got spent elsewhere before they could pay Kawhi. I’m sure the aspiration leadership didn’t expect the company to go bankrupt and would have more money to pay Kawhi later on. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen they kept shaking Ballmer down for more money later on.

Cuban is misrepresenting the statement made by the source. They said Kawhi's contract was to circumvent the cap, from what I recall they never specified which of the payments was meant to fund this contract.

[Slava]

One thing I would point out is I would be surprised if Ballmer does really stupid things, because it was proven multiple times when he was running Microsoft…

The one thing Nadella keeps repeating when asked how he changed Microsoft was that he went away from the past culture of seeing everything g as a zero sum game to find opportunities where they could grow the pie for everyone and that is a direct reference to how Ballmer approached it. The OpenAI partnership would never have happened under Ballmer and he’d have rode the engineers hard until they delivered a language model even if they were a decade behind others getting there with an inferior product.

[pepe1991]

Ballmer should be removed from ownership.

This is how blatantly corrupt this whole thing is.

Now anything happening at all is up for debate, of course. These days being blatantly corrupt is just a standard part business/politics etc.

Ballmer won't be removed from ownership. If they thought removing Sterling was ugly, this is going to be a whole different level of ugly. I'd anticipate a yearlong suspension for those involved, loss of draft picks that the Clippers still control, and a large fine if anything ends up happening.

They simply have to remove him because if they don't, League's credibility will be gone. This is largest scandal in nba history.

It literally implicates that:
owners pay players under a dask
that league has no credible ways to track down what's going on
that league has no clue who and what are their own team's investors
that salary cap is just fictive line that is being crossed
that players are willing participants in salary scams
that other part owners aren't only well aware but play role in it
that sponsors are part of the money wiring

If league's rules are being crossed so much, why can't Kings play 6 on 5 ?

[RRyder823]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g

That's the NBAs way of sweeping this under the rug.

Tell people its going to be a wait before any resolution so they lose interest

Wait that long time so people lose interest or completely forget

After said time had passed and when its time to punish the team give them a slap on the wrist because the league knows people dont have the attention spans to call for blood the next 6 months strait and they'll have moved on

This is about as close to a "get **** we ain't doing ****" statement from the league as youll see




Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[jvsimonetti0514]

I think the obvious pushback to Cuban’s first statement about the first 50 million not being for Kawhi is that the company was burning through so much cash that the money got spent elsewhere before they could pay Kawhi. I’m sure the aspiration leadership didn’t expect the company to go bankrupt and would have more money to pay Kawhi later on. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen they kept shaking Ballmer down for more money later on.

Cuban is misrepresenting the statement made by the source. They said Kawhi's contract was to circumvent the cap, from what I recall they never specified which of the payments was meant to fund this contract.

Cuban’s point is everyone assumed that the first 50 million was used to cover the 28 million in cash and 20 million in stock. I certainly did. Now it was actually the carbon credits purchased by the clippers at later dates that paid Kawhi. They do pretty much line up to the day for some of kawhi’s payments but it does change the story from how it was originally reported. He still uncovered a cap circumvention scheme but which payment it was changed. It’s certainly a little ironic that Cubans attempt at Ballmer defense uncovered the actual scheme.

[Magic_Johnny12]

Kawhi quickly went from one of the most unliked players in the league to one of the most unlikeable players of all time.

Regardless of his peak, his championship this single situation will haunt him and his legacy forever.

Does he care or does it mean anything? Probably not, but Ballmer should not be the escape goat here and Leonard should receive equal if not more disciplinary punishment than Steve and I personally hope the league grows some cojones and sets a precedent that this ish will not be tolerated.

I sound like a Karen, but I don’t care. If nothing comes from this not only will it set a clear precedent to the other owners but the league in it’s entirety could slowly snowball into something that loses all its integrity.

IF true Leonard’s actions should be viewed in the same light as a players betting on themselves.

[G R E Y]

Ballmer should be removed from ownership.

This is how blatantly corrupt this whole thing is.

Now anything happening at all is up for debate, of course. These days being blatantly corrupt is just a standard part business/politics etc.

Ballmer won't be removed from ownership. If they thought removing Sterling was ugly, this is going to be a whole different level of ugly. I'd anticipate a yearlong suspension for those involved, loss of draft picks that the Clippers still control, and a large fine if anything ends up happening.

They simply have to remove him because if they don't, League's credibility will be gone. This is largest scandal in nba history.

It literally implicates that:
owners pay players under a dask
that league has no credible ways to track down what's going on
that league has no clue who and what are their own team's investors
that salary cap is just fictive line that is being crossed
that players are willing participants in salary scams
that other part owners aren't only well aware but play role in it
that sponsors are part of the money wiring

If league's rules are being crossed so much, why can't Kings play 6 on 5 ?

Yeah the line can't keep changing and the league cannot be chasing law changes but get ahead of it. In 2019 there were heaps of **** things going on behind the scenes, hell going back to at least 2017 that we now know of, but because Robertson is some quasi KL rep and not an official agent he gets away with squeezing illegal demands from FOs? NBA should have closed that loophole six years ago. This is on everyone involved, from the requester to the giver of funds to the recipient. Thor's hammer on them all.

[Kordic27]

I think the obvious pushback to Cuban’s first statement about the first 50 million not being for Kawhi is that the company was burning through so much cash that the money got spent elsewhere before they could pay Kawhi. I’m sure the aspiration leadership didn’t expect the company to go bankrupt and would have more money to pay Kawhi later on. When it was clear that wasn’t going to happen they kept shaking Ballmer down for more money later on.

Cuban is misrepresenting the statement made by the source. They said Kawhi's contract was to circumvent the cap, from what I recall they never specified which of the payments was meant to fund this contract.

Cuban’s point is everyone assumed that the first 50 million was used to cover the 28 million in cash and 20 million in stock. I certainly did. Now it was actually the carbon credits purchased by the clippers at later dates that paid Kawhi. They do pretty much line up to the day for some of kawhi’s payments but it does change the story from how it was originally reported. He still uncovered a cap circumvention scheme but which payment it was changed. It’s certainly a little ironic that Cubans attempt at Ballmer defense uncovered the actual scheme.

So is the thinking now that the first $50M was an actual investment, and subsequent carbon credit purchases were to pay Kawhi?

[drekwins]

deleted

[drekwins]

Cuban is misrepresenting the statement made by the source. They said Kawhi's contract was to circumvent the cap, from what I recall they never specified which of the payments was meant to fund this contract.

Cuban’s point is everyone assumed that the first 50 million was used to cover the 28 million in cash and 20 million in stock. I certainly did. Now it was actually the carbon credits purchased by the clippers at later dates that paid Kawhi. They do pretty much line up to the day for some of kawhi’s payments but it does change the story from how it was originally reported. He still uncovered a cap circumvention scheme but which payment it was changed. It’s certainly a little ironic that Cubans attempt at Ballmer defense uncovered the actual scheme.

So is the thinking now that the first $50M was an actual investment, and subsequent carbon credit purchases were to pay Kawhi?

I'm not sure that we will ever be able to tie any of the money to a direct specific payment (i.e. - $1M directly from A to B to C). Think of it as saving money for a child - without opening a separate account to keep the funds separate. In this scenario, you may just add the money to your account and keep track of the balance. Then, when it comes time to return the amount to the child, you draw off of your total account balance. It's a co-mingling of funds.

[inonba]

Cuban is misrepresenting the statement made by the source. They said Kawhi's contract was to circumvent the cap, from what I recall they never specified which of the payments was meant to fund this contract.

Cuban’s point is everyone assumed that the first 50 million was used to cover the 28 million in cash and 20 million in stock. I certainly did. Now it was actually the carbon credits purchased by the clippers at later dates that paid Kawhi. They do pretty much line up to the day for some of kawhi’s payments but it does change the story from how it was originally reported. He still uncovered a cap circumvention scheme but which payment it was changed. It’s certainly a little ironic that Cubans attempt at Ballmer defense uncovered the actual scheme.

So is the thinking now that the first $50M was an actual investment, and subsequent carbon credit purchases were to pay Kawhi?

Think Ponzi scheme, except Ballmer makes up the last couple of layers of the pyramid.

[TheAlchemist]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=W09F6FrMDfp5_y1gKYgF1g

I’m sure that won’t let this story to hang over the entire all star weekend and most of the nba season.

Exactly.

Imagine Kawhi playing in the all-star game while the NBa makes its decision lol?

Talk about circus.

Adam silver really and truly should just force the clips to nullify Kawhi’s contract. Maybe 1-2 picks. Slap on the wrist of Balmer. Keep it moving.

Thats the best way this will die down. A swift, smaller then expected reaction, no talking about it anymore, and call it a day.

[mojomarc]

One thing I would point out is I would be surprised if Ballmer does really stupid things, because it was proven multiple times when he was running Microsoft…

The one thing Nadella keeps repeating when asked how he changed Microsoft was that he went away from the past culture of seeing everything g as a zero sum game to find opportunities where they could grow the pie for everyone and that is a direct reference to how Ballmer approached it. The OpenAI partnership would never have happened under Ballmer and he’d have rode the engineers hard until they delivered a language model even if they were a decade behind others getting there with an inferior product.

So maybe off topic for some of this, but I can't resist. As a Microsoft veteran for nearly a quarter century I've seen both Ballmer and Nadella first-hand. First, Ballmer did do some mind-numbingly dumb things (remember the funeral for the iPhone???), but he was not generally stupid. He was massively detail-driven, more so than many managers much closer to the ground. If you went into a meeting with him about some scenario, you better have a full suite of analytics ready and you better be able to drill down in minute detail around this. It would be shocking if he were investing and did not do a serious amount of due diligence. I mean, if he didn't, I would honestly wonder if we were seeing an alien in Ballmer-skin it would be so incomprehensible.

As for Nadella, that's one thing from a strategic point of view that differed. But that wasn't the only thing--Ballmer had an overwhelming confidence that Microsoft had the best people who could solve any challenge, and that Microsoft had deep enough pockets to be a fast follower and simply outlast others. That worked very well until it didn't. Apple and Google both proved that if the fast follower is just a bit too slow they are out in the cold and there's a long tail to that. I wouldn't say that Nadella is really a "let's make the pie bigger for everyone" kind of guy as much as he is a "if we embrace what everyone else is doing we remain relevant while we figure out our own native strategy, and this works even if our margins shrink precipitously by doing this" kind of guy. More an embrace, surround, and then compete approach rather than compete only.

Obviously I can't get in any details, and my opinions are my own and in no way represent any official position from Microsoft. But I could see these points both playing out in strong favor of Ballmer knew exactly what was going on, and that Ballmer was orchestrating this because he feels that his deepest of the deep pockets as an NBA owner afford him an ability to outlast others. And he was never afraid to invest heavily, even in a losing cause. To me, what Pablo has shared seems very much in line with what I would expect from Ballmer based on my rare direct and many times indirect interactions with him and his leadership style.

[Clav]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what exactly is a carbon credit? Why would a business purchase one? What is the economic benefit?

No worries -- The premise is that a company offers environmental services in one way or another that 'offset' emissions or outputs. CO2 is the primary one.

If, for example, your factory produces 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, but your CEO is pushing for all factories to reduce that total in efforts to create fewer outputs into the region or climate. Functionally, your factory cannot reduce its output, but a new company springs up that plants trees (Aspiration's premise). Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through their life cycle. The idea is that if you plant X amount of trees, they will take some percentage of the carbon out of the atmosphere which then offsets your CO2 produced.

Then, as a business owner, you can tell the public -- yes I am producing 50 tonnes of CO2, but I've also planted trees each year that remove 50 tonnes of CO2, thus our company is carbon-neutral (not adding aggregate CO2 to the total via this offset). Or if not "neutral" your company can say we've removed X tonnes from the atmosphere, etc.

As for the economic benefit, it is marketable, and some clientel prefer carbon-neutral companies that are in effect attempting to reduce our dependence on carbon producing inputs. For the company like Aspiration, it's a new market. For the Clippers or other companies, it's an attempt to change the way they operate. Environmentally, it's generally seen as a positive for conservation and pollution reduction efforts. Carbon Credits sometimes give tax breaks -- though I'm not sure if the US Fed administration currently is interested in that.

Does that help in any way ??

~~
Though, I have to say, it's a band-aid to the central tenet of emissions reduction. Planting trees in itself requires carbon for that company's operations, and in the event of a wildfire, those trees burn and then the carbon is put back into the atmosphere. It's not the ideal way to address carbon outputs, but it is certainly A way.

In Aspiration's case they required companies pay a premium and then they would go plant trees. [example: $2 to plant a tree, Aspiration was charging their clients more than that for their operations, etc, multiplied by millions of trees]

[PushDaRock]

I do like the halftime reveal of the investigation at AS weekend idea. Saves the league some money in not having to hire an entertainment act for the show.

[PushDaRock]

Read on Twitter

SUS

[mojomarc]

At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what exactly is a carbon credit? Why would a business purchase one? What is the economic benefit?

No worries -- The premise is that a company offers environmental services in one way or another that 'offset' emissions or outputs. CO2 is the primary one.

If, for example, your factory produces 50 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, but your CEO is pushing for all factories to reduce that total in efforts to create fewer outputs into the region or climate. Functionally, your factory cannot reduce its output, but a new company springs up that plants trees (Aspiration's premise). Trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through their life cycle. The idea is that if you plant X amount of trees, they will take some percentage of the carbon out of the atmosphere which then offsets your CO2 produced.

Then, as a business owner, you can tell the public -- yes I am producing 50 tonnes of CO2, but I've also planted trees each year that remove 50 tonnes of CO2, thus our company is carbon-neutral (not adding aggregate CO2 to the total via this offset). Or if not "neutral" your company can say we've removed X tonnes from the atmosphere, etc.

As for the economic benefit, it is marketable, and some clientel prefer carbon-neutral companies that are in effect attempting to reduce our dependence on carbon producing inputs. For the company like Aspiration, it's a new market. For the Clippers or other companies, it's an attempt to change the way they operate. Environmentally, it's generally seen as a positive for conservation and pollution reduction efforts. Carbon Credits sometimes give tax breaks -- though I'm not sure if the US Fed administration currently is interested in that.

Does that help in any way ??

~~
Though, I have to say, it's a band-aid to the central tenet of emissions reduction. Planting trees in itself requires carbon for that company's operations, and in the event of a wildfire, those trees burn and then the carbon is put back into the atmosphere. It's not the ideal way to address carbon outputs, but it is certainly A way.

In Aspiration's case they required companies pay a premium and then they would go plant trees. [example: $2 to plant a tree, Aspiration was charging their clients more than that for their operations, etc, multiplied by millions of trees]

See also: Greenwashing