Ownership dispute heads back to court

[exodus]

He's smart - you dumb arse. :lighter:

I knew you would dodge the question.

He objected to the appraisal because he didn't really care about it in the first place. He wasn't interested in anything other than delaying the buyout process as much as possible so that the time limit would be exceeded and then he could claim that he was allowed to buy out the team at cost. That was his entire objective from the day he signed the contract with the ASG.

it had nothing at all to do with JJ or basketball for that matter. It was all about using the ASG to make a windfall.

[DJlaysitup]

C'mon......next

[DJlaysitup]

I knew you would dodge the question.

He objected to the appraisal because he didn't really care about it in the first place. He wasn't interested in anything other than delaying the buyout process as much as possible so that the time limit would be exceeded and then he could claim that he was allowed to buy out the team at cost. That was his entire objective from the day he signed the contract. it had nothing at all to do with JJ.

You are NUTS...the WHOLE THING was about the ridiculous JJ deal.

[HawkItus]

Totally incorrect AHF - Belkin was the "Governor" because he spent much more money than any of the others.....as a "Governor" and a BB guy he had the authority to stop the JJ trade FOUR TIMES.

Then why did Stern not side with Belkin?

[exodus]

C'mon......next

Just because you can't see the elephant in the room doesn't mean the rest of us can't see it.

Belkin never gave a crap about the Hawks in the first place. It was just a money grab for him. Every move he has made proves that.

[DJlaysitup]

Then why did Stern not side with Belkin?

Wha? is it a dictatorial situation? Where does Stern come in?........I don't remember him owning a franchise

Edited February 18, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[exodus]

You are NUTS...the WHOLE THING was about the ridiculous JJ deal.

First of all the JJ deal was one of the few good deals BK made. If the Suns had it to do over they never would have traded JJ in the first place.

Secondly if a disagreement over a trade is enough to make someone want to take over a team it is pretty clear that person was already predisposed to trying to take over the team. After all a "BB guy" should have enough sense to know that disagreements on trades are par for the course.

[DJlaysitup]

First of all the JJ deal was one of the few good deals BK made. If the Suns had it to do over they never would have traded JJ in the first place.

Secondly if a disagreement over a trade is enough to make someone want to take over a team it is pretty clear that person was already predisposed to trying to take over the team. After all a "BB guy" should have enough sense to know that disagreements on trades are par for the course.

Wrong wrong and WRONG....we gave away much too much.

LOL - you will say as how PHX didn't get much

Edited February 18, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[exodus]

Wha? is it a dictatorial situation? Where does Stern come in?........I don't remember him owning a franchise

You have no grasp of the facts at all. the fact that you can't even remember Stern's role just shows how out of touch you really are.

[AHF]

Nope - that is wrong....you can post all you want....but that is incorrect....like it or hate it AHF but we know the truth.

Explain how that is wrong. Specifically, tell me which of these statements you disagree with and why or just give up this frivolous argument:

(a) Belkin and the other owners all agreed to an ownership mechanism by which decisions of the 2/3 vote of would bind the ownership group.

(b) After there was a 2-1 vote on the JJ trade, Belkin tried to block that authorized action by virtue of his position as team governor.

(c.) It was later made clear that Belkin did not have authority as governor to block a trade which was authorized by a 2-1 vote among the ownership groups.

[exodus]

Wrong wrong and WRONG....we gave away much too much.

LOL - you will say as how PHX didn't get much

They got Diaw who they started trying to trade ever since they resigned him. They also got two mid 1st rounders that they traded for cash.

If giving up "too much" in a trade is enough to make an owner want to try a hostile takeover then obviously that owner is mentally imbalanced.

[DJlaysitup]

Explain how that is wrong. Specifically, tell me which of these statements you disagree with and why or just give up this frivolous argument:

(a) Belkin and the other owners all agreed to an ownership mechanism by which decisions of the 2/3 vote of would bind the ownership group.

(b) After there was a 2-1 vote on the JJ trade, Belkin tried to block that authorized action by virtue of his position as team governor.

(c.) It was later made clear that Belkin did not have authority as governor to block a trade which was authorized by a 2-1 vote among the ownership groups.

OK - first off - you are ignorant ex....

More importantly - what were the authorized actions of the "Governor"??? AHF?

[jhay610]

I normally agree with you ex....but you are DEAD WRONG here.

what of the fact that he accused Bruce of tampering with players under active contracts with other teams? That would have had far-reaching and hugely damaging ramifications for a franchise that was already in the dumps as it were. Why would a guy who presumably had the franchise's best interests at heart make an allegation like that? Regardless of your personal feelings about your co-workers, if that charge had stuck the Hawks would have been set back another 5 years.

For some reason the whole "wanting to be honest with the league" thing doesn't play with me.

[HawkItus]

Wha? is it a dictatorial situation? Where does Stern come in?........I don't remember him owning a franchise

Actually it is. Ownership disputes are to be handled by the League Governors, and the Commissioner. That's why Belkin chose to sue. :computer8: Honestly, do you think the NBA would have taken any action that wasn't correct and risked a sue happy owner getting rich?

Edited February 18, 2009 by sultanofatl

[DJlaysitup]

Actually it is. Ownership disputes are to be handled by the League Governors, and the Commissioner.

There you go - Belkin was the Governor.

[exodus]

Actually it is. Ownership disputes are to be handled by the League Governors, and the Commissioner. That's why Belkin chose to sue. :computer8: Honestly, do you think the NBA would have taken any action that wasn't correct and risked a sue happy owner getting rich?

The "do you think" part is the key question and the answer to it is no. He hasn't done anything but spew nonsensical Belkin propaganda while ignoring all of the facts.

[exodus]

There you go - Belkin was the Governor.

:lol6:

[AHF]

Totally incorrect AHF - Belkin was the "Governor" because he spent much more money than any of the others.....as a "Governor" and a BB guy he had the authority to stop the JJ trade FOUR TIMES.

This is just a frivolous claim.

After Belkin tried to do this, Stern filed an affidavit agreeing it was outside of Belkin's authority as governor and warranted his removal:

In part, the Stern affidavit read: ''My conclusion is that . . . if the Governor knows or reasonably should know that he is acting contrary to the wishes of a majority of the Board of Managers, and he nevertheless proceeds to take an action in connection with a material matter that legally binds the team, such as consummating a player trade or preventing the consummation of a player trade, the requirements for removal have been met.

As expected, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel yesterday dissolved the temporary restraining order he granted Tuesday, preventing the owners of the Atlanta Hawks from removing Steven Belkin as NBA governor.

NBA commissioner David Stern submitted an affidavit Thursday that gave the Hawks permission to remove Belkin and install Michael Gearon Jr.

According to van Gestel, the owners must ''comply strictly with the requirements" in their ownership agreement. That means proper notice must be served to all parties involved. Thus, the seemingly inevitable removal of Belkin as Hawks governor may be delayed until next week.

But there remains one way Belkin can stay on as governor. Since blocking the sign-and-trade deal of Joe Johnson from Phoenix constituted the ''removable action," Belkin has five business days to approve the deal and preserve his current status.

Now provide your authority for the proposition that a governor has the power to block a trade approved by the team's Board of Managers.

[DrReality]

what of the fact that he accused Bruce of tampering with players under active contracts with other teams? That would have had far-reaching and hugely damaging ramifications for a franchise that was already in the dumps as it were. Why would a guy who presumably had the franchise's best interests at heart make an allegation like that? Regardless of your personal feelings about your co-workers, if that charge had stuck the Hawks would have been set back another 5 years.

For some reason the whole "wanting to be honest with the league" thing doesn't play with me.

Good point and well made.

I love these old fashion, hotly contested arguments. Hope more info comes out in the trials. Need some more juicy tidbits to stir the pot.

[DJlaysitup]

The "do you think" part is the key question and the answer to it is no. He hasn't done anything but spew nonsensical Belkin propaganda while ignoring all of the facts.

But really - you folks don't have a leg to stand on.

This edit is made as a moderator for abusive language, not content. Avoid profane insults and stick to the substance of your argument.

Edited February 18, 2009 by AHF