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

[ciueli]

Most fans are going to not care about this. I doubt most owners will care.

A lot of teams do stuff like this and just don't get caught. Its been alleged that Joe Tsai gave KD/Kyrie a ton of perks too.

Balmer didn't set up a dummy corporation. He invested in a business that also gave an endorsement to Kawhi. This type of stuff happens all the time.

The only difference is that Kawhi was stupid enough to not actually do anything to earn the endorsement. If he even did one event or made one Tweet there would be really no case against what he did.

Circumvention requires actual proof. And there is still no proof at all that Balmer knew about it.

I imagine that the league may pass reforms on the types of player endorsements players can take. But players union would probably be strongly opposed to it.

Bottom line: It won't set a precedent because this has always been happening. Teams will just be more careful.

Good to know that after 89 pages of content, there's still someone looking for that signed confession.

Implication for Salary Cap Circumvention:
Disproportionate size of Kawhi's contract
No deliverables
Timing with Contract Events
Prioritized disbursement
Timing of Dennis Wong investment

I haven't encountered anyone even come close to providing a reasonable explanation for the above list without implicating a larger crime, not to mention the mountain of evidence surrounding it.

If anyone wants to try, be my guest, but in both criminal and civil investigations, the law often infers intent from behavior and timing, especially when: “No other plausible explanation fits the facts.”

For example, in regards to the Dennis Wong investment: If the league were to try to prove cap circumvention or similar wrongdoing, the alignment (due payment date → missed payment → owner infusion → payment made) is exactly the sort of “temporal correlation + financial flow” evidence they’d want. It doesn’t prove definitively that the infusion was solely for that payment, or that intent to circumvent was admitted, but it's strong circumstantial evidence that it's exactly what happened.

A signed confession? How about any proof at all that Balmer knew or directed any of the money going to Kawhi?

Do you not understand how evidence works?

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

Everything you have mentioned is purely circumstantial. 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.

There is simply no way that the NBA is going to give Balmer a serious punishment for something they can't prove he was involved in at all. It won't happen.

The Joe Smith, Donald Sterling and Robert Sarver situations all required direct evidence.

Yet another person who doesn't realize that the NBA doesn't need more than circumstantial evidence to act. This has been posted on this thread many times, this is not a court of law, there is no burden of proof, there is no innocent until proven guilty. Even the appearance of wrongdoing can be enough to levy a punishment according to the CBA. They have a mountain of it already, more than enough to suspend Kawhi or even void his contract, fine the Clippers, and strip picks.

[G R E Y]

The ESPN show yesterday taking credit from Torres was BS. But one thing I started hearing is the whole "Kawhi and Clippers will split" angle.

Looks like LAC leaking info and blaming Kawhi and Uncle Dennis. Most likely the Kawhi contract will be voided and the huge amount of evidence pushes silver to make a decision.

If he does get voided, it's interesting to hear what Kawhi would do in this situation. Does he sign a max or as close to the max possible, with a team? Or stays in California ? Sac/GSW/Lakers?

As a Raptors fan I would love it if he came back here lol. But that's far gone now that Masai is gone. Could he return to the Spurs?

Never.

I'm surprised you'd want him back. I wonder if that's a consensus of your fanbase of if more have moved on. Seems like even most of the Clips fanbase is done with him.

Wherever they go next they can kiss their diva demands goodbye. Teams will be very wary and set up clear boundaries.

[Crunch 99]

A Ballmer smoking gun is not necessary to penalize. We aren't talking criminal court here, where guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We are talking about an internal NBA matter, where a preponderance of evidence is sufficient to penalize.

[Clav]

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

It's been said before in this thread, but this is not a criminal case in the US court of Law. It is a law firm hired to verify findings / recommend action for a business agreement [the CBA]. Yes, it is a high profile business agreement, and certain violations COULD lead to criminal charges being filed, but what is more likely is that the findings remain within NBA purview -- wherein Silver, the NBA Commissioner, recommends punitive action. Then the NBA Board of Governors will vote in favor of or against the Commissioner's suggestion.

If you would like to read the CBA's section pertinent to this area, check here!

https://atlhawksfanatic.github.io/NBA-CBA/circumvention.html

[Mavrelous]

Good to know that after 89 pages of content, there's still someone looking for that signed confession.

Implication for Salary Cap Circumvention:
Disproportionate size of Kawhi's contract
No deliverables
Timing with Contract Events
Prioritized disbursement
Timing of Dennis Wong investment

I haven't encountered anyone even come close to providing a reasonable explanation for the above list without implicating a larger crime, not to mention the mountain of evidence surrounding it.

If anyone wants to try, be my guest, but in both criminal and civil investigations, the law often infers intent from behavior and timing, especially when: “No other plausible explanation fits the facts.”

For example, in regards to the Dennis Wong investment: If the league were to try to prove cap circumvention or similar wrongdoing, the alignment (due payment date → missed payment → owner infusion → payment made) is exactly the sort of “temporal correlation + financial flow” evidence they’d want. It doesn’t prove definitively that the infusion was solely for that payment, or that intent to circumvent was admitted, but it's strong circumstantial evidence that it's exactly what happened.

A signed confession? How about any proof at all that Balmer knew or directed any of the money going to Kawhi?

Do you not understand how evidence works?

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

Everything you have mentioned is purely circumstantial. 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.

There is simply no way that the NBA is going to give Balmer a serious punishment for something they can't prove he was involved in at all. It won't happen.

The Joe Smith, Donald Sterling and Robert Sarver situations all required direct evidence.

Yet another person who doesn't realize that the NBA doesn't need more than circumstantial evidence to act. This has been posted on this thread many times, this is not a court of law, there is no burden of proof, there is no innocent until proven guilty. Even the appearance of wrongdoing can be enough to levy a punishment according to the CBA. They have a mountain of it already, more than enough to suspend Kawhi or even void his contract, fine the Clippers, and strip picks.

You need to read the room, I presonally believe the evidence is enough even for civil court, let alone for internal atbitration within the league and Ballmer, but all signs point to very limited response by Silver and judging by the media, Kawhi is getting thrown under the bus.
Most likely scenario is owners making sure this doesn't happen again w/o hurting Ballmer.

[TheAlchemist]

The ESPN show yesterday taking credit from Torres was BS. But one thing I started hearing is the whole "Kawhi and Clippers will split" angle.

Looks like LAC leaking info and blaming Kawhi and Uncle Dennis. Most likely the Kawhi contract will be voided and the huge amount of evidence pushes silver to make a decision.

If he does get voided, it's interesting to hear what Kawhi would do in this situation. Does he sign a max or as close to the max possible, with a team? Or stays in California ? Sac/GSW/Lakers?

As a Raptors fan I would love it if he came back here lol. But that's far gone now that Masai is gone. Could he return to the Spurs?

Never.

I'm surprised you'd want him back. I wonder if that's a consensus of your fanbase of if more have moved on. Seems like even most of the Clips fanbase is done with him.

Wherever they go next they can kiss their diva demands goodbye. Teams will be very wary and set up clear boundaries.

He’s immortalized as the guy who brought us a chip. He won’t be lesser than that. He’s kinda more mercenary than a diva in my opinion. Diva is the whole Harden/Durant/Lebron etc.

[jbk1234]

Most fans are going to not care about this. I doubt most owners will care.

A lot of teams do stuff like this and just don't get caught. Its been alleged that Joe Tsai gave KD/Kyrie a ton of perks too.

Balmer didn't set up a dummy corporation. He invested in a business that also gave an endorsement to Kawhi. This type of stuff happens all the time.

The only difference is that Kawhi was stupid enough to not actually do anything to earn the endorsement. If he even did one event or made one Tweet there would be really no case against what he did.

Circumvention requires actual proof. And there is still no proof at all that Balmer knew about it.

I imagine that the league may pass reforms on the types of player endorsements players can take. But players union would probably be strongly opposed to it.

Bottom line: It won't set a precedent because this has always been happening. Teams will just be more careful.

People keep saying this without being able to cite examples of this always happening. The ONLY example is the report that the Nets paid for apartments for Kyrie and Durants girlfriends, and that's a miniscule amount of money compared to this. If I had to make an educated guess, there are less than 5 owners that are okay with this, and in a league with 30 teams, that's going to be a problem for Silver if he attempts slap wrists and walk away.

The league need not pass reforms as there are existing CBA rules that were broken.

Bill Simmons was on the record on his pod saying this happens all the time. Joe House even directly alluded to KD/Kyrie getting interest in foreign companies.

Of course it hasn't been reported because teams try to keep it private.

Did Bill Simmons provide examples of it happening all the time?

How about a single example? Just one?

Why should I believe that Simmons is in a better position to know than a random poster on this website?

[levon]

The ESPN show yesterday taking credit from Torres was BS. But one thing I started hearing is the whole "Kawhi and Clippers will split" angle.

Looks like LAC leaking info and blaming Kawhi and Uncle Dennis. Most likely the Kawhi contract will be voided and the huge amount of evidence pushes silver to make a decision.

If he does get voided, it's interesting to hear what Kawhi would do in this situation. Does he sign a max or as close to the max possible, with a team? Or stays in California ? Sac/GSW/Lakers?

As a Raptors fan I would love it if he came back here lol. But that's far gone now that Masai is gone. Could he return to the Spurs?

Never.

I'm surprised you'd want him back. I wonder if that's a consensus of your fanbase of if more have moved on. Seems like even most of the Clips fanbase is done with him.

Wherever they go next they can kiss their diva demands goodbye. Teams will be very wary and set up clear boundaries.

He’s immortalized as the guy who brought us a chip. He won’t be lesser than that. He’s kinda more mercenary than a diva in my opinion. Diva is the whole Harden/Durant/Lebron etc.

This guy demanded access to a female locker room for stretches. He left a game at halftime without telling his team. He demanded part ownership of teams during FA, and not even just the team he'd be playing for. Just because he's a mute savant that needs other people to talk for him doesn't mean he isn't the biggest diva I've seen in the NBA since ... I don't even know who.

[madmaxmedia]

The correct thing to do now, would be to let the investigation play out for a few more weeks gathering anything and everything they can and talk to as many people as they can including Leonard, Uncle Dennis, clippers from office people and anyone from Aspiration willing to talk.

If they can't find much more than what's already been reported, essentially give the Clippers a max fine (like $7.5 million I think) and hit them for a few 2nd round picks essentially stating that the Clippers circumvented the cap due to Ballmer having ownership in Aspiration while Aspiration also sponsored Leonard to an unreasonably high contract... even if Ballmer claims to not have knowledge.

NBA can make a statement about how moving forward they will have a more detailed policy on cap circumvention and they that any business that 1% or more of is owned by an NBA owner is not allowed to sponsor athletes.... At the same time, moving forward, NBA players need to make the league aware of any and all sponsorship deals they have in excess of $1 million per year from any company anywhere.

This pretty much equates to a slap on the wrist with a promise to do better in the future, and it lets Ballmer continue to claim he didn't realize he was doing anything that violated the CBA because it wasn't expressly laid out in the cap circumvention rules, but that he understands and accepts the punishment from the league and he'll be more careful moving forward, etc.

Letting this drag out until February would be awful IMO the league really needs to get some punishment out now and really try to minimize it in a way that they aren't painting Ballmer as a cheater as much as they are saying that even though he was unaware he was doing so, by having ownership in Aspiration that deal was deemed to be circumvention.

I’m unsure a 2-week expedited investigation leading to a slap on the wrist is the “correct” thing to here, but ok.

The correct thing from the league's standpoint.... having this drag on all season and constantly being asked about seems like a real L for the league. Doing nothing, just knowing the evidence we have seems like a real L for the league as well. Spend the next few weeks to a month to really try an dive in and make sure there's no smoking gun and if there isn't you try to hold Ballmer accountable in as nice and least damaging way as possible so #1 He doesn't come back at the league and #2 you don't destroy the working relationship.

The worst thing would to do IMO is let this drag on all season and then say we didn't find anything there's no punishment.

Ballmer's ownership of the Intuit Dome and everything else he has sunk into in the league makes it incredibly unlikely they go hard on him unless there's an actual paper trail detailing how in order to get Ballmer's money Aspiration had to secretly pay Leonard a huge no show endorsement deal. That's super unlikely to appear anywhere.

I think the worst case scenario would be to do a quick investigation that doesn't reveal anything else (although I think what has been revealed has been pretty substantial), slap Ballmer with that $7.5M fine and a dock a few 2nd round picks, then have a new Pablo drop another bomb with even more sordid details that totally contradict the NBA's public findings and conclusions about the whole thing (I understand you are taking that into account.)

They should take as long as they need, unlike Ballmer who jumped the gun by going on ESPN the next day pleading his innocence.

The ironic thing (or maybe not so ironic) is that it was the subsequent efforts at cover up that really make Ballmer look bad. If it was just the original investment, then the evidence is much more circumstantial and there is at least a case for plausible deniability and ignorance on Ballmer's part. But who knows how hard the Clippers were pushed to inject the make up funds- I was personally dubious that Kawhi would hold himself out based on a couple of late $1.75M payments when he is getting paid a MAX CONTRACT, but I guess Unc was being a pain in the ass so who knows. Allegedly.

[inonba]

Do you not understand how evidence works?

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

Apparently you don't understand the definition of evidence or proof and it's painfully obvious. Instead of saying so and so said so, maybe it's time to stop being lazy and actually do the work yourself.

Take your own advice: Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

[inonba]

Good to know that after 89 pages of content, there's still someone looking for that signed confession.

Implication for Salary Cap Circumvention:
Disproportionate size of Kawhi's contract
No deliverables
Timing with Contract Events
Prioritized disbursement
Timing of Dennis Wong investment

I haven't encountered anyone even come close to providing a reasonable explanation for the above list without implicating a larger crime, not to mention the mountain of evidence surrounding it.

If anyone wants to try, be my guest, but in both criminal and civil investigations, the law often infers intent from behavior and timing, especially when: “No other plausible explanation fits the facts.”

For example, in regards to the Dennis Wong investment: If the league were to try to prove cap circumvention or similar wrongdoing, the alignment (due payment date → missed payment → owner infusion → payment made) is exactly the sort of “temporal correlation + financial flow” evidence they’d want. It doesn’t prove definitively that the infusion was solely for that payment, or that intent to circumvent was admitted, but it's strong circumstantial evidence that it's exactly what happened.

A signed confession? How about any proof at all that Balmer knew or directed any of the money going to Kawhi?

Do you not understand how evidence works?

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

Everything you have mentioned is purely circumstantial. 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.

There is simply no way that the NBA is going to give Balmer a serious punishment for something they can't prove he was involved in at all. It won't happen.

The Joe Smith, Donald Sterling and Robert Sarver situations all required direct evidence.

Yet another person who doesn't realize that the NBA doesn't need more than circumstantial evidence to act. This has been posted on this thread many times, this is not a court of law, there is no burden of proof, there is no innocent until proven guilty. Even the appearance of wrongdoing can be enough to levy a punishment according to the CBA. They have a mountain of it already, more than enough to suspend Kawhi or even void his contract, fine the Clippers, and strip picks.

Hello Brooklyn is a classic example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. A person that has very little knowledge in the subject they're commenting on, subject to overestimate their knowledge or ability.

[SNPA]

I love posters who are like…we need real evidence. I must see Ballmer signing a secret agreement to circumvent the cap where the scheme is laid out in full detail. There must be two eyewitness in the room and a video recording that also included him reading the details. Then I will need that contract with his fingerprints on it. Then we will need a DNA test from the document. And then…we will have real evidence.

lol. Not how the world works ya’ll. Ya’ll probably the same ones who scream You’RE a ConSPrACY thEoRIst when corporate malfeasance and crimes are discussed. Time to grow up.

[og15]

Most fans are going to not care about this. I doubt most owners will care.

A lot of teams do stuff like this and just don't get caught. Its been alleged that Joe Tsai gave KD/Kyrie a ton of perks too.

Balmer didn't set up a dummy corporation. He invested in a business that also gave an endorsement to Kawhi. This type of stuff happens all the time.

The only difference is that Kawhi was stupid enough to not actually do anything to earn the endorsement. If he even did one event or made one Tweet there would be really no case against what he did.

Circumvention requires actual proof. And there is still no proof at all that Balmer knew about it.

I imagine that the league may pass reforms on the types of player endorsements players can take. But players union would probably be strongly opposed to it.

Bottom line: It won't set a precedent because this has always been happening. Teams will just be more careful.

Silver mentioned in one of his interviews that while the NBA doesn't have all encompassing rules, they have some guidelines for endorsements, such as percentage of company owned. He essentially said that since there's a lot of big money in the situations now, that the NBA will have to look into adjusting it's rules in relation to this stuff.

So that's one area we will likely see some sort of changes made.

Disagree that owners don't care, they aren't all Ballmer rich.

NBA can look at adjusting its rule. But good look on getting the PA to agree to scrutinizing player endorsements.

Silver has little power in making actual changes to the rules.

I believe what he was implying is possibly changing the minimum percentage an owner can have in a company that's allowed to give a player endorsements. I mentioned before that eliminating endorsements by companies owners have any ownership in at all isn't likely because a lot of these guys have too many investments.

[manlisten]

I still contend that Kawhi's Aspiration contract itself is the actual "smoking gun". The way it's written is effectively legalese for "we will pay you grossly above fair market value for any services to be rendered (or not) as payment of basketball services, even if such compensation is ostensibly designated as being for non-basketball services, which constitutes a violation of Section 1(a), Article XIII CIRCUMVENTION". That's why Cuban is talking about everything but Kawhi's actual deal, because the deal alone is enough to meet the threshold of a violation with severe penalties. It can't get anymore cut and dry and I'm sure he's aware of this.

What we're witnessing is a disinformation campaign by Cuban and others who are pretty obviously compromised and have habitually leaned pro-Clipper ever since Ballmer hired Lee Jenkins as the executive director of research and identity. Whatever that means. It's all a huge diversion for what is otherwise a straightforward case. It's also pretty ironic that Ballmer fancies himself as a crusader against misinformation.

Billionaire Steve Ballmer talks politics, disinformation and basketball ...https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/disinformation-desk/billionaire-steve-ballmer-talks-politics-elon-musk-and-basketball-with-scripps-news

[The Master]

I still contend that Kawhi's Aspiration contract itself is the actual "smoking gun". The way it's written is effectively legalese for "we will pay you grossly above fair market value for any services to be rendered (or not) as payment of basketball services, even if such compensation is ostensibly designated as being for non-basketball services, which constitutes a violation of Section 1(a), Article XIII CIRCUMVENTION". That's why Cuban is talking about everything but Kawhi's actual deal, because the deal alone is enough to meet the threshold of a violation with severe penalties. It can't get anymore cut and dry and I'm sure he's aware of this.

Yeah. Literally the only scenario it 'works' (but not really, it's still an absurdity) is when Aspiration signed this huge Kawhi deal without telling anything to Ballmer for Clippers to stay competitive or whatever, because Kawhi camp threatened them that he'll leave, but the problem is ... it happened 8 months after Kawhi signed 4-year extension?

And ... Ballmer himself said that Aspiration was introduced to Kawhi on November 2021? Few months after 4-year max extension?

So the only scenario that could work ('Aspiration wanted Clippers to be competitive, so they paid Kawhi heavy endorsement for him to stay, because uncle Dennis threatened them that Kawhi may leave' - I saw this interpretation here and there) - doesn't work at all.

Personally, I thought that they'll go into this direction maybe to scapegoat uncle Dennis, who's formally no one in the NBA*, but then I started to check out timelines and even this scenario just doesn't make any sense.

* It still wouldn't work, why uncle Dennis would go to threaten Aspiration without any knowledge of Ballmer, rather than Ballmer himself? And if so, why wouldn't Aspiration cooperate with Ballmer and just pay 25x market value of Kawhi and hide the whole deal on their own?

It's even hard to discuss that anymore as no one came out yet with any plausible explanations considering all the timelines and correlation between payments and Kawhi deal / Kawhi payments.

[inonba]

I still contend that Kawhi's Aspiration contract itself is the actual "smoking gun". The way it's written is effectively legalese for "we will pay you grossly above fair market value for any services to be rendered (or not) as payment of basketball services, even if such compensation is ostensibly designated as being for non-basketball services, which constitutes a violation of Section 1(a), Article XIII CIRCUMVENTION". That's why Cuban is talking about everything but Kawhi's actual deal, because the deal alone is enough to meet the threshold of a violation with severe penalties. It can't get anymore cut and dry and I'm sure he's aware of this.

Yeah. Literally the only scenario it 'works' (but not really, it's still an absurdity) is when Aspiration signed this huge Kawhi deal without telling anything to Ballmer for Clippers to stay competitive or whatever, because Kawhi camp threatened them that he'll leave, but the problem is ... it happened 8 months after Kawhi signed 4-year extension?

And ... Ballmer himself said that Aspiration was introduced to Kawhi on November 2021? Few months after 4-year max extension?

So the only scenario that could work ('Aspiration wanted Clippers to be competitive, so they paid Kawhi heavy endorsement for him to stay, because uncle Dennis threatened them that Kawhi may leave' - I saw this interpretation here and there) - doesn't work at all.

Personally, I thought that they'll go into this direction maybe to scapegoat uncle Dennis, who's formally no one in the NBA*, but then I started to check out timelines and even this scenario just doesn't make any sense.

* It still wouldn't work, why uncle Dennis would go to threaten Aspiration without any knowledge of Ballmer, rather than Ballmer himself? And if so, why wouldn't Aspiration cooperate with Ballmer and just pay 25x market value of Kawhi and hide the whole deal on their own?

It's even hard to discuss that anymore as no one came out yet with any plausible explanations considering all the timelines and correlation between payments and Kawhi deal / Kawhi payments.

One aspect not talked about enough is the secrecy in the sponsorship deal, and the share price paid at each round of investment on how it undermines the ignorance defense. In both scenarios, there is clear intent to conceal unless one can explain why no one knows the existence of a "marketing" deal, or why did 2 seasoned investors invested on insane valuations on multiple occasions.

[djsunyc]

i think what scares the nba the most is how widespread this probably is and many more players and teams could be investigated

[inonba]

https://www.essentiallysports.com/nba-active-basketball-news-los-angeles-clippers-quietly-sideline-kawhi-leonard-in-latest-announcement-amid-twenty-eight-m-controversy/

Recently, the Los Angeles Clippers posted a pre-season hype video featuring a montage of its biggest stars: James Harden, Ivica Zubac, Kris Dunn, and Derrick Jones Jr. While watching it the first time around, something felt off, and then it clicked… They didn’t add Kawhi Leonard. Skipping over the Klaw in a pre-season montage means that things are getting serious within the Clippers organization.

So, what are the chances the Clippers trade Kawhi before the league can void his contract?

[jbk1234]

Most fans are going to not care about this. I doubt most owners will care.

A lot of teams do stuff like this and just don't get caught. Its been alleged that Joe Tsai gave KD/Kyrie a ton of perks too.

Balmer didn't set up a dummy corporation. He invested in a business that also gave an endorsement to Kawhi. This type of stuff happens all the time.

The only difference is that Kawhi was stupid enough to not actually do anything to earn the endorsement. If he even did one event or made one Tweet there would be really no case against what he did.

Circumvention requires actual proof. And there is still no proof at all that Balmer knew about it.

I imagine that the league may pass reforms on the types of player endorsements players can take. But players union would probably be strongly opposed to it.

Bottom line: It won't set a precedent because this has always been happening. Teams will just be more careful.

Good to know that after 89 pages of content, there's still someone looking for that signed confession.

Implication for Salary Cap Circumvention:
Disproportionate size of Kawhi's contract
No deliverables
Timing with Contract Events
Prioritized disbursement
Timing of Dennis Wong investment

I haven't encountered anyone even come close to providing a reasonable explanation for the above list without implicating a larger crime, not to mention the mountain of evidence surrounding it.

If anyone wants to try, be my guest, but in both criminal and civil investigations, the law often infers intent from behavior and timing, especially when: “No other plausible explanation fits the facts.”

For example, in regards to the Dennis Wong investment: If the league were to try to prove cap circumvention or similar wrongdoing, the alignment (due payment date → missed payment → owner infusion → payment made) is exactly the sort of “temporal correlation + financial flow” evidence they’d want. It doesn’t prove definitively that the infusion was solely for that payment, or that intent to circumvent was admitted, but it's strong circumstantial evidence that it's exactly what happened.

A signed confession? How about any proof at all that Balmer knew or directed any of the money going to Kawhi?

Do you not understand how evidence works?

The law doesn't "infer" things without proof. Please don't tell me how it works or you will look foolish

Everything you have mentioned is purely circumstantial. 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.

There is simply no way that the NBA is going to give Balmer a serious punishment for something they can't prove he was involved in at all. It won't happen.

The Joe Smith, Donald Sterling and Robert Sarver situations all required direct evidence.

Juries are absolutely permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. It's a standard jury instruction given by a judge.

[mojomarc]

Silver mentioned in one of his interviews that while the NBA doesn't have all encompassing rules, they have some guidelines for endorsements, such as percentage of company owned. He essentially said that since there's a lot of big money in the situations now, that the NBA will have to look into adjusting it's rules in relation to this stuff.

So that's one area we will likely see some sort of changes made.

Disagree that owners don't care, they aren't all Ballmer rich.

NBA can look at adjusting its rule. But good look on getting the PA to agree to scrutinizing player endorsements.

Silver has little power in making actual changes to the rules.

I believe what he was implying is possibly changing the minimum percentage an owner can have in a company that's allowed to give a player endorsements. I mentioned before that eliminating endorsements by companies owners have any ownership in at all isn't likely because a lot of these guys have too many investments.

I'm late to the thread, so apologies, but...

The NBA absolutely has all-encompassing rules, and Silver is either gaslighting or referring to something else that is being misinterpreted here. The NBA Constitution outlines rules, among them that all NBA teams must follow all agreements such as the non-circumvention clause in the CBA. And it provides a mechanism where Silver, as the Commissioner, can both investigate teams for things like circumvention. It also provides rules for how team officials and owners can be judged guilty of violating the Constitution, which includes a provision for termination of ownership for willfully violating any provisions of the "agreements of the Association." That, unfortunately, will be a high bar as 3/4ths of the other owners would have to vote Ballmer out, but there are rules explicitly laid out for this. And the non-circumvention rule is pretty clear:

b) It shall constitute a violation of Section 1(a) above for a Team (or
Team Affiliate) to enter into an agreement or understanding with any
sponsor or business partner or third party under which such sponsor,
business partner, or third party pays or agrees to pay compensation for
basketball services (even if such compensation is ostensibly designated as
being for non-basketball services) to a player under Contract to the Team.
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; and (ii) the Compensation in the Player Contract between the player
and the Team is substantially below the fair market value of such Contract.

I think it's really, really hard to argue that a no-show endorsement contract is well above fair market value. Now whether that's a smoking gun in this case, or whether they would want some communication between Ballmer or Wong or Uncle Dennis or Kawhi and Aspiration before it would be determined to be a smoking gun, who knows? But it seems quite likely that based on what has been reported that there would be enough to take it to an ownership vote.

Whether that makes sense given "when you try to shoot the king you better not miss" kind of logic, or whether owners will participate in jury nullification of a sort--that's for Silver to decide and it seems that until his hand is forced he won't decide. But these rules are pretty all-encompassing unless I'm completely misunderstanding the context of his comment.