Pablo Torre: Kawhi/Clippers/Ballmer/Aspiration Thread (part 2)

[clippertown]

1. The CBA is designed to avoid lawsuits and franchise agreements often limit what avenues are available to owners so if that is the language of the CBA, then the burden is Ballmer and likely arbitration would be mandated.

2. Any court case would land in acivil court, not criminal court. So lets say somehow Ballmer has the CBA thrown out in civil court on monopoly grounds (other owners would be on a warpath), the reasonable belief standard still applies. So is it 50+1 percent likely that Kawhi and Ballmer had an agreement? If the answer is yes the NBA prevails. Which is why OJ still had to pay a civil judgement despite not being found guilty in his criminal case for the same crime.

With the witnesses. Documented payments. Kawhi agreement with aspiration: It's hard to argue that there are not reasonable grounds for the NBA to believe Ballmer entered into an agreement with kawhi and Aspiration.

3. A lawsuit would open up Ballmer to subpoena and discovery along with the NBA. If you think he is hated now wait until he launches a lawsuit with discovery and argues the CBA should be thrown out.

4. The rest is wishful thinking, which may or may not be true. Silver can come down hard or do very little it really will likely be based on how the other owners want to react to what happened.

Nobody is talking about throwing out the CBA. Its the fact that the CBA never anticipated a situation where a player would get a max deal in addition to a second under-the-table deal. The CBA was written to handle the Joe Smith issue - where a player takes a discount and the team can spend additional monies on improving the roster and getting an unfair advantage. This is the first time a max player is caught in this type of situation.

If the CBA does not specifically refer to this intricacy, then it can be challenged in arbitration or a court of law.

I get the OJ comparison, but this is contract law and in those cases, ambiguity always favors the person who did not write the contract. As for the discovery, I doubt Ballmer was as involved as most think. He has an empire to run after all. The NBA has more risk in discovery as they are very private and rarely air laundry in the public eye. Ballmer can wage a real war and I can't imagine Silver wants any part of that. It's a business after all.

[CS707]

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

If no forced sale is imposed, then what kind of punishment should we expect from this?

The CBA limits financial penalties to $7.5M and I would guess if that is true, a court would enforce it should Silver decide to go over. As Elon Musk stated, "blackmail me with money? Go F yourself". Hitting one of the richest men in the world with a monetary punishment is laughable.

The Clippers don't need any picks to improve. The richest owner in sports, a brand-new stadium and training center and LA weather is enough to attract the very best talent. The Clips don't even own any picks until 2030 so the punishment would not even be paid for years.

Adding the delta to luxury tax payments make little sense and set a dangerous precedent (if it's even legal per CBA). At that point, the league is pretty much sanctioning this activity with a luxury tax cost that many owners will be happy to pay.

Banning Ballmer from the stadium will not really reflect the seriousness of the issue and Ballmer helps the NBA by being an active participant.

Basically, there is little punishment that makes sense and therefore the league will bury the issue internally with updated CBA amendments IMO. Some people will be pissed off, but most of those people are NBA fanatics and will get over it pretty quickly. The rest won't care.

I have no doubt the punishment will be disappointing for the RGM crowd. It is what it is. Maybe we'll see some sort of cap/FA signing related sanctions, but I don't really know what discretion exists for Silver in that regard. You're downplaying the impact of losing picks though, and upselling that the Clippers are some marquee destination that can rely solely on FA. He's owned the team for over a decade now and the only current all-star that's signed with the team is Leonard.

[zimpy27]

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

If no forced sale is imposed, then what kind of punishment should we expect from this?

The CBA limits financial penalties to $7.5M and I would guess if that is true, a court would enforce it should Silver decide to go over. As Elon Musk stated, "blackmail me with money? Go F yourself". Hitting one of the richest men in the world with a monetary punishment is laughable.

The Clippers don't need any picks to improve. The richest owner in sports, a brand-new stadium and training center and LA weather is enough to attract the very best talent. The Clips don't even own any picks until 2030 so the punishment would not even be paid for years.

Adding the delta to luxury tax payments make little sense and set a dangerous precedent (if it's even legal per CBA). At that point, the league is pretty much sanctioning this activity with a luxury tax cost that many owners will be happy to pay.

Banning Ballmer from the stadium will not really reflect the seriousness of the issue and Ballmer helps the NBA by being an active participant.

Basically, there is little punishment that makes sense and therefore the league will bury the issue internally with updated CBA amendments IMO. Some people will be pissed off, but most of those people are NBA fanatics and will get over it pretty quickly. The rest won't care.

I have no doubt the punishment will be disappointing for the RGM crowd. It is what it is. Maybe we'll see some sort of cap/FA signing related sanctions, but I don't really know what discretion exists for Silver in that regard. You're downplaying the impact of losing picks though, and upselling that the Clippers are some marquee destination that can rely solely on FA. He's owned the team for over a decade now and the only current all-star that's signed with the team is Leonard.

Clippers have 4 FRPs that can be touched.

League could take 30 FRP, 31 FRP, 32 FRP and then push 33 FRP to #30.

Not saying it will be that bad but that's the route the league will go. They may even not take FRP but push them all back to #30.

[madmaxmedia]

If no forced sale is imposed, then what kind of punishment should we expect from this?

The CBA limits financial penalties to $7.5M and I would guess if that is true, a court would enforce it should Silver decide to go over. As Elon Musk stated, "blackmail me with money? Go F yourself". Hitting one of the richest men in the world with a monetary punishment is laughable.

The Clippers don't need any picks to improve. The richest owner in sports, a brand-new stadium and training center and LA weather is enough to attract the very best talent. The Clips don't even own any picks until 2030 so the punishment would not even be paid for years.

Adding the delta to luxury tax payments make little sense and set a dangerous precedent (if it's even legal per CBA). At that point, the league is pretty much sanctioning this activity with a luxury tax cost that many owners will be happy to pay.

Banning Ballmer from the stadium will not really reflect the seriousness of the issue and Ballmer helps the NBA by being an active participant.

Basically, there is little punishment that makes sense and therefore the league will bury the issue internally with updated CBA amendments IMO. Some people will be pissed off, but most of those people are NBA fanatics and will get over it pretty quickly. The rest won't care.

Because the punishment isn't good enough, the solution is not to punish them at all? That doesn't make sense. Punishing Ballmer is not the only goal, they'd also be doing it to deter the other owners from ever doing the same thing.

It's going to be a combination like the Joe Smith punishment (assuming everything is as alleged, Pablo's info is verified by the league, etc.) Something like:
- Ballmer suspended for a year (he's not going to personally like that at all)
- 3 to 5 1st round picks (which still hurts no matter what, even if they're often used as trade fodder)
- Kawhi's contract voided

Retroactively adding the delta to Clipper's is another possibility, and could negatively impact the cap flexibility they've created the last 2 years (but 4 years/$28M total is not that big of an amount compared to the cap.)

[Curmudgeon]

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.

No. The NBA decision is final.

Ballmer has no legal recourse. Only arbitration.

[inonba]

Nobody is talking about throwing out the CBA. Its the fact that the CBA never anticipated a situation where a player would get a max deal in addition to a second under-the-table deal. The CBA was written to handle the Joe Smith issue - where a player takes a discount and the team can spend additional monies on improving the roster and getting an unfair advantage. This is the first time a max player is caught in this type of situation.

If the CBA does not specifically refer to this intricacy, then it can be challenged in arbitration or a court of law.

I get the OJ comparison, but this is contract law and in those cases, ambiguity always favors the person who did not write the contract. As for the discovery, I doubt Ballmer was as involved as most think. He has an empire to run after all. The NBA has more risk in discovery as they are very private and rarely air laundry in the public eye. Ballmer can wage a real war and I can't imagine Silver wants any part of that. It's a business after all.

The answer you're looking for is discussed in detail in Zach Lowes podcast in the second embedded YouTube clip starting 3:30. In summary, the league has broad powers to levy penalties regardless if it's explicitly written in the CBA. Ballmer may try to sue in court, and the results will be the same as James Dolan trying to sue the Raptors in civil court.

There's a reason why no team has attempted to challenge cap circumvention in 25 years. Whatever the punishment is, it will be punitive as the vast majority of the owners fought hard for the salary cap in every CBA negotiation. The punishment will therefore have to be heavy as it will set the precedent.

[Ambrose]

No. The NBA decision is final.

This is not necessarily correct. Whilst the courts respect the NBA as a private organization, there are other factors at play that can escalate this to a regular court. For example, when Donald Stirling was told he has to sell the team, he appealed to a regular court on the grounds that the league breached anti-trust laws. The case was not ultimately successful, but there were a number of factors at play, including his wife and a competency hearing. In the Ballmer situation, was there a specific rule that prohibited outside sponsors in the case where there was no direct cap-circumvention (ie a max deal was paid, and no cap benefit was provided)? Its these intricacies that cause the most problems in a courtroom.

There is a role to play for the federal courts if the punishment is excessive or anti-trust or corporate laws are broken. It could also come into play if Ballmer knows of others in a similar situation who were not punished even though Silver / NBA owners were aware of the issue (disproportionate).

It is correct. You are citing the most extreme example, which won't happen so its pointless to bring up, and even then, you yourself cite precedent. Stop making this into a "Don't pick a fight with my owner because hes rich" argument. It's sad. He cheated and deserves a major punishment for it, that if Silver has the balls to levy, he will not be able to fight. That punishment will not be forced sale of the team.

[Sofia]

If no forced sale is imposed, then what kind of punishment should we expect from this?

The CBA limits financial penalties to $7.5M and I would guess if that is true, a court would enforce it should Silver decide to go over. As Elon Musk stated, "blackmail me with money? Go F yourself". Hitting one of the richest men in the world with a monetary punishment is laughable.

The Clippers don't need any picks to improve. The richest owner in sports, a brand-new stadium and training center and LA weather is enough to attract the very best talent. The Clips don't even own any picks until 2030 so the punishment would not even be paid for years.

Adding the delta to luxury tax payments make little sense and set a dangerous precedent (if it's even legal per CBA). At that point, the league is pretty much sanctioning this activity with a luxury tax cost that many owners will be happy to pay.

Banning Ballmer from the stadium will not really reflect the seriousness of the issue and Ballmer helps the NBA by being an active participant.

Basically, there is little punishment that makes sense and therefore the league will bury the issue internally with updated CBA amendments IMO. Some people will be pissed off, but most of those people are NBA fanatics and will get over it pretty quickly. The rest won't care.

I have no doubt the punishment will be disappointing for the RGM crowd. It is what it is. Maybe we'll see some sort of cap/FA signing related sanctions, but I don't really know what discretion exists for Silver in that regard. You're downplaying the impact of losing picks though, and upselling that the Clippers are some marquee destination that can rely solely on FA. He's owned the team for over a decade now and the only current all-star that's signed with the team is Leonard.

Clippers have 4 FRPs that can be touched.

League could take 30 FRP, 31 FRP, 32 FRP and then push 33 FRP to #30.

Not saying it will be that bad but that's the route the league will go. They may even not take FRP but push them all back to #30.

The Stepian rule only applies to trades - I don’t believe there’s anything stopping the NBA from just applying punishment beyond that rule, for example nullifying all the first rounders the Clippers currently hold between now and 2035, if the NBA was inclined to do so.

[inonba]

It is correct. You are citing the most extreme example, which won't happen so its pointless to bring up, and even then, you yourself cite precedent. Stop making this into a "Don't pick a fight with my owner because hes rich" argument. It's sad. He cheated and deserves a major punishment for it, that if Silver has the balls to levy, he will not be able to fight. That punishment will not be forced sale of the team.

The league probably won't force Ballmer to sell, but they can levy a lifetime ban for him, Dennis Wong, Lawrence Frank, CFO, etc that will effectively make him want to sell. As it stands, there is a good chance that will happen to settle this nightmare and later reinstatement when the heat dies down.

We are in unprecedented waters right now, but all signs point to a severe penalty that will be reduced later. At least that's how I see it.

[clippertown]

It is correct. You are citing the most extreme example, which won't happen so its pointless to bring up, and even then, you yourself cite precedent. Stop making this into a "Don't pick a fight with my owner because hes rich" argument. It's sad. He cheated and deserves a major punishment for it, that if Silver has the balls to levy, he will not be able to fight. That punishment will not be forced sale of the team.

The league probably won't force Ballmer to sell, but they can levy a lifetime ban for him, Dennis Wong, Lawrence Frank, CFO, etc that will effectively make him want to sell. As it stands, there is a good chance that will happen to settle this nightmare and later reinstatement when the heat dies down.

We are in unprecedented waters right now, but all signs point to a severe penalty that will be reduced later. At least that's how I see it.

None of this will happen. It's just not realistic. I get that Ballmer was caught operating a scam but the damage done is nowhere near the punishment you keep pushing. The Joe Smith issue helped Minnesota field a stronger team. The Kawhi issue is just that Kawhi got some free money without doing anything to deserve it. If he made a couple of adverts, the issue may disappear. The Clippers did not improve their strength as Kawhi had already signed a max by the time he engaged in this deal. Even if there was foreknowledge (likely but not yet proven), the punishment will be half of the Minnesota punishment. Kawhi was going to either the Clippers or Lakers. Had the deal not involved any BS, Kawhi would likely still be a Clipper.

There will be no lifetime bans for anybody - it won't even be proposed. No owner will risk his own rights in order to punish Ballmer.

I have seen absolutely zero about this outside of specific Basketball forums. Most casual fans don't even know what is going on. This is going to get buried and resolved internally. If Kawhi took a deal at less than max, the issue would be much bigger, but not this time.

[ConSarnit]

It feels like any penalty that doesn’t have the league bringing down the hammer on the Clippers is going to open up a can of worms.

If the punishment is money (which is nothing to Ballmer) and 3-4 draft picks then they’ve just made the risk worth it for every other team to try and pay a star under the table.

The upside of signing a top 3 player and not getting caught will outweigh any mid-tier penalty. Best case is you never get caught and win a title. Worst case is you get fined (who cares if you’re a billionaire) and you give up multiple picks (which would have been the price to trade for a top 3 player anyways).

If I’m an owner and Ballmer gets a year suspension, a $50m fine and losses some draft picks then I’m trying to pay everyone under the table from here on out. The upside is way too high not to considering my punishment (long term) is basically paying the trade price for a star instead of the UFA price.

[drekwins]

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.

my guess is all the NBA contracts and agreements have language in them states that "you" agree to arbitration that allows the Commissioner to be the decision maker in these types of circumstances.

I believe there have been legal challenges in the past that substantiate that. Most serious legal challenges against any league usually end up getting settled outside of court because when push comes to shove the league doesn't want either the negative publicity or have to make private docs public in discovery.

Ballmer is SOOO rich that he would actually have the ability to really challenge the NBA in every avenue if he chose too. But in a situation like you're talking about it would probably end up going to state or even federal supreme court decision.

It depends on if the complaint is civil or criminal, in nature. If it's civil, there's little recourse in a court of law except to define the language or intricacies of the CBA. From a criminal perspective, if any criminal/tax laws were broken, the DOJ does not care about the CBA and can prosecute.

[DaPessimist]

With all the crazy **** going on right now, I'm sure the NBA is going to let this play out as long as possible and just hope people stop caring.

[SNPA]

If I’m an owner and Ballmer gets a year suspension, a $50m fine and losses some draft picks then I’m trying to pay everyone under the table from here on out. The upside is way too high not to considering my punishment (long term) is basically paying the trade price for a star instead of the UFA price.

This is Silver’s dilemma.

Ballmer has pushed him into a corner. Either he comes down heavy on the richest man associated with the sport, who owns the arena outright, OR he opens up a lane for other owners to do the same circumventing when they think the risk is worth the reward.

TL:DR - Silver is screwed.

[inonba]

None of this will happen. It's just not realistic. I get that Ballmer was caught operating a scam but the damage done is nowhere near the punishment you keep pushing. The Joe Smith issue helped Minnesota field a stronger team. The Kawhi issue is just that Kawhi got some free money without doing anything to deserve it. If he made a couple of adverts, the issue may disappear. The Clippers did not improve their strength as Kawhi had already signed a max by the time he engaged in this deal. Even if there was foreknowledge (likely but not yet proven), the punishment will be half of the Minnesota punishment. Kawhi was going to either the Clippers or Lakers. Had the deal not involved any BS, Kawhi would likely still be a Clipper.

There will be no lifetime bans for anybody - it won't even be proposed. No owner will risk his own rights in order to punish Ballmer.

I have seen absolutely zero about this outside of specific Basketball forums. Most casual fans don't even know what is going on. This is going to get buried and resolved internally. If Kawhi took a deal at less than max, the issue would be much bigger, but not this time.

Couple of things you do not understand.
1. The damage is far more severe than the Joe Smith situation. Joe Smith's punishment isn't the ceiling, it's the floor. It's not even comparable which is why this is an unprecedented situation that ultimately sets the baseline on how future circumvention will be ruled. As many in the media and here have pointed out, this is a cardinal sin.
2. Kawhi just got free money is also downplaying the severity. The issue stretches back to when the Clippers didn't hold the bird rights to Kawhi. Which mean the benefits the Clippers gained was a superstar for cap space below the max. If there was no need for circumvention, then there's no need for payment.
3. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say Kawhi would've gone to the Clippers or Lakers and not the team that held his bird rights. Saying everyone knew isn't evidence as it was his own camp putting that narrative out. Reality was, Kawhi left Toronto and ended up with a team that paid him under the table. All evidence points to Kawhi's camp being greedy over homesick.
4. If Kawhi would have made a couple of ads, the scandal would have been exposed even sooner. Do you think Kawhi's deal could be kept secret? There's a reason why everything was surrounded in secrecy as to not invite scrutiny
5. You have no rights to speak on behalf of the owners. You think the owners won't risk their own rights but you think they'll let owners like Ballmer break the league? Zach Lowe according to his podcast has spoken with many sources around the league and everyone is furious right now. You want to send a message ? Lifetime ban is the punishment you choose. Think Pete Rose in baseball's cardinal sin.

If you don't understand how big of a deal the salary cap is, look back at what happened in the last several CBA negotiations. You think no owners will give up their rights (nonsense), but you think they'll relinquish their power to the players?

[BruttoNostra]

No. The NBA decision is final.

This is not necessarily correct. Whilst the courts respect the NBA as a private organization, there are other factors at play that can escalate this to a regular court. For example, when Donald Stirling was told he has to sell the team, he appealed to a regular court on the grounds that the league breached anti-trust laws. The case was not ultimately successful, but there were a number of factors at play, including his wife and a competency hearing. In the Ballmer situation, was there a specific rule that prohibited outside sponsors in the case where there was no direct cap-circumvention (ie a max deal was paid, and no cap benefit was provided)? Its these intricacies that cause the most problems in a courtroom.

There is a role to play for the federal courts if the punishment is excessive or anti-trust or corporate laws are broken. It could also come into play if Ballmer knows of others in a similar situation who were not punished even though Silver / NBA owners were aware of the issue (disproportionate).

Yes, enough times in the original thread people quoted the CBA, that limits how team sponsors and affiliated parties can financially interact with team players. I'll leave it to lawyers to decide if it's the case here, but in general such a language definitely exists in the CBA.
Also, Kawhi's contract being the max doesn't mean whatever you (hypothetically) pay him under the table isn't a cap circumvention - it still is, as you're paying him way above what CBA allows you, and you don't pay any taxes or take on additional limitations that come with first/second apron.

God, pls make Ballmer go to a civil court, and make us also find out how Beal arrived there, and how certain veteran min contracts were handled. It will be pure fun.

[Daddy 801]

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.

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

The owners of small market teams who weren’t circumventing the cap just might want this exact type of thing. Why wouldn’t they? If they ever want to win they can’t have large markets and the richest owners just doing whatever they want.

[JustLucky]

this is not being taken as seriously as I think it should

[Sixers in 4]

1. The CBA is designed to avoid lawsuits and franchise agreements often limit what avenues are available to owners so if that is the language of the CBA, then the burden is Ballmer and likely arbitration would be mandated.

2. Any court case would land in acivil court, not criminal court. So lets say somehow Ballmer has the CBA thrown out in civil court on monopoly grounds (other owners would be on a warpath), the reasonable belief standard still applies. So is it 50+1 percent likely that Kawhi and Ballmer had an agreement? If the answer is yes the NBA prevails. Which is why OJ still had to pay a civil judgement despite not being found guilty in his criminal case for the same crime.

With the witnesses. Documented payments. Kawhi agreement with aspiration: It's hard to argue that there are not reasonable grounds for the NBA to believe Ballmer entered into an agreement with kawhi and Aspiration.

3. A lawsuit would open up Ballmer to subpoena and discovery along with the NBA. If you think he is hated now wait until he launches a lawsuit with discovery and argues the CBA and bylaws should be thrown out.

4. The rest is wishful thinking, which may or may not be true. Silver can come down hard or do very little it really will likely be based on how the other owners want to react to what happened.

Nobody is talking about throwing out the CBA. Its the fact that the CBA never anticipated a situation where a player would get a max deal in addition to a second under-the-table deal. The CBA was written to handle the Joe Smith issue - where a player takes a discount and the team can spend additional monies on improving the roster and getting an unfair advantage. This is the first time a max player is caught in this type of situation.

If the CBA does not specifically refer to this intricacy, then it can be challenged in arbitration or a court of law.

I get the OJ comparison, but this is contract law and in those cases, ambiguity always favors the person who did not write the contract. As for the discovery, I doubt Ballmer was as involved as most think. He has an empire to run after all. The NBA has more risk in discovery as they are very private and rarely air laundry in the public eye. Ballmer can wage a real war and I can't imagine Silver wants any part of that. It's a business after all.

Just because I knew what you were saying was complete and utter bull I investigated the exact process.

1. In cases like this one where the punishment is already spelled out in the CBA and the Silver decision falls under that scope the NBA constitution mandates an appeal process to the board of governors which consists as group of all owners or their representatives. Reversing the Commissioner requires a three-fourths majority vote of the BOG

2. If Silver rules for a punishment outside of the punishment of his authority as an example he must sell the team the NBA bylaws allows for arbitration or referral to an independent panel.

3. An owner could also challenge the decision in court, but that requires invalidating the NBA constitution and CBA in some way since they are treated as legally binding by owners

[Sixers in 4]

Key Sections

Article 24 — Authority and Duties of the Commissioner

Subsection 24(h): States that “any decision emanating” from interpretation of the Constitution, By-Laws, rules, etc., made by the Commissioner, is “final, binding, conclusive, and unappealable.”

Subsection 24(m): For “all actions duly taken by the Commissioner pursuant to this Article 24 or pursuant to any other Article or Section … which are not specifically referable to the Board of Governors,” after giving the affected party notice and an opportunity to be heard, these decisions are final, binding, conclusive, as an award in arbitration, and enforceable in court.

Article 35 — Misconduct
Challenges by a Team to the Commissioner’s decisions under Art. 35 are appealable to the Board of Governors.

Article 18 — Board of Governors
Subsection 18(e): “All actions duly taken by the Board of Governors shall be final, binding and conclusive, as an award in arbitration, and enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.”

https://ak-static-int.nba.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/12/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf