For the Record: Authority of NBA Governor to Veto Trade Authorized by Board of Managers

[DJlaysitup]

The real judges already ruled on this issue. It is no longer being contested which AHF already explained. The ability or inability of the Governor to veto trades is not even part of the current court case.

You might as well say that the Hawks-Detroit game tonight will have an effect on the Western Coference playoff race.

Well the fight turned into a war. Winning a battle is one thing - winning the war is much more important. The crazy BK acqusition of JJ at any cost brought us to where we are today. Had the ASG paid attention to their appointed Governor instead of their GM (who they later fired) they would be in a much better place now and have JJ plus a couple other good players.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight - but I would bet on Belkin.

[exodus]

Well the fight turned into a war. Winning a battle is one thing - winning the war is much more important. The crazy BK acqusition of JJ at any cost brought us to where we are today. Had the ASG paid attention to their appointed Governor instead of their GM (who they later fired) they would be in a much better place now and have JJ plus a couple other good players.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight - but I would bet on Belkin.

That post has no relevance to this thread, your previous post or the court case. You obviously don't know what the current court case is actually about so i don't see how you would feel confident about betting on Belkin.

[DJlaysitup]

That post has no relevance to this thread, your previous post or the court case. You obviously don't know what the current court case is actually about so i don't see how you would feel confident about betting on Belkin.

The current court case - as I have previously stated - is about Belkins refusal to give away Boris (13 points 13 assists last night by the way) Diaw and a first round pick and another first round pick to get JJ (and a max contract to boot). That's it in a nutshell. BK and the other ASG owners were acting like drunken sailors and the Governor had to put a stop to it. They got mad and kicked Belkin out because they agreed with BK (who they later fired).

Edited March 7, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[exodus]

The current court case - as I have previously stated - is about Belkins refusal to give away Boris (13 points 13 assists last night by the way) Diaw and a first round pick and another first round pick to get JJ (and a max contract to boot). That's it in a nutshell. BK and the other ASG owners were acting like drunken sailors and the Governor had to put a stop to it. They got mad and kicked Belkin out because they agreed with BK (who they later fired).

:lol6:

You don't have any understanding of this situation at all. This court case has nothing to do with any of that.

[DJlaysitup]

:lol6:

You don't have any understanding of this situation at all. This court case has nothing to do with any of that.

Of course it does.

This isn't about literal reading of a contract - if it was - Belkin would already own the Hawks. He had the ASG dead-to-rights. It's about logic and there have been 2 rulings (from what I know)....one in Belkin's favor and one that overturned that ruling (or at least put it in doubt). It's certainly not Game-Set-Match at this point.

[exodus]

Of course it does.

This isn't about literal reading of a contract - if it was - Belkin would already own the Hawks. He had the ASG dead-to-rights. It's about logic and there have been 2 rulings (from what I know)....one in Belkin's favor and one that overturned that ruling (or at least put it in doubt). It's certainly not Game-Set-Match at this point.

Did you even read your own post?

The current court case - as I have previously stated - is about Belkins refusal to give away Boris (13 points 13 assists last night by the way) Diaw and a first round pick and another first round pick to get JJ (and a max contract to boot). That's it in a nutshell

Where in this post did you mention the contract? Where does this post mention any previous court rulings? All this post talks about is the JJ trade. The current court case has nothing to do with the JJ trade.

Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

My game,set, match comment was in regards to Belkins inability to veto the trade. That issue was decided long ago and Belkin even conceded the point.

[DJlaysitup]

Isn't it a little early to be drunk?

My game,set, match comment was in regards to Belkins inability to veto the trade. That issue was decided long ago and Belkin even conceded the point.

My drinkin is none of your business ex :jumping11:

Seriously though....you want to make a specific point (like a little battle in a war) - OK you may be right on that specific point. But I never got into this argument to prove a specific point. My argument is to demonstrate that the Belkin Haters are being silly. We would be much better off with an individual owner - a basketball man.

[exodus]

My drinkin is none of your business ex :jumping11:

Seriously though....you want to make a specific point (like a little battle in a war) - OK you may be right on that specific point. But I never got into this argument to prove a specific point. My argument is to demonstrate that the Belkin Haters are being silly. We would be much better off with an individual owner - a basketball man.

Whether or not we would be better off with a basketball man as an owner is a completely separate issue from whether or not Belkin had veto power in the JJ deal. He didn't end of story.

A basketball man who deliberately sabatoges an ownership group over a trade dispute probably isn't the type of guy we want running the team. Besides he never had enough money to own the team himself anyway which is why he needed the rest of the ASG.

[DJlaysitup]

Whether or not we would be better off with a basketball man as an owner is a completely separate issue from whether or not Belkin had veto power in the JJ deal. He didn't end of story.

A basketball man who deliberately sabatoges an ownership group over a trade dispute probably isn't the type of guy we want running the team. Besides he never had enough money to own the team himself anyway which is why he needed the rest of the ASG.

See that's the thing...Belkin "deliberately sabatoges" the team - WTF? What he was trying to do was SAVE the team.

We could have had JJ AND those draft picks (and even Diaw if we were prepared to play serious poker). Many have said "well PHX didn't get much out of those picks so it's OK". That's BS and we all know it. We could have had 2 solid pros (well maybe not with BK picking) - but serviceable guys.

Belkin didn't want to destroy the Hawks - he wanted to make the Hawks better.

I am Stunned that people don't see this.

[exodus]

See that's the thing...Belkin "deliberately sabatoges" the team - WTF? What he was trying to do was SAVE the team.

We could have had JJ AND those draft picks (and even Diaw if we were prepared to play serious poker). Many have said "well PHX didn't get much out of those picks so it's OK". That's BS and we all know it. We could have had 2 solid pros (well maybe not with BK picking) - but serviceable guys.

Belkin didn't want to destroy the Hawks - he wanted to make the Hawks better.

I am Stunned that people don't see this.

Again i say RIF. I didn't say he sabatoged the TEAM. i said he deliberately sabatoged the ownership group.

Whether or not the Suns would have matched JJ's max offer is debatable but it has nothing to do with the current lawsuit or this thread.

[AHF]

I'll just chime in that ex is 100% correct on this.

The JJ trade and subsequent effort to block the trade is 100% irrelevant to the current court case except as background to the current dispute and as potential evidence of bad faith.

The current case is a contract interpretation case. There is ambiguity in the contract which is why the lower court's initial ruling that the ASG had violated the buyout agreement was overturned as a matter of law. This doesn't mean that Belkin can't win...he may well win the case and most likely have the ASG ordered to pay him the money he is seeking. He could end up owning the team.

However, none of that has anything to do with whether he had the power as governor to overturn the decision of ownership. By your logic, any team that has someone other than the owner as governor has the team run by the governor even when the governor is doing something the owner has expressly told him not to do. If Belkin took over the team as the sole owner and appointed DJ as governor, that means Belkin would have no power over the team and DJ could run it as he sees fit regardless of what Belkin, as sole owner, directs. That isn't logical, and it blatantly contradicts Stern's affidavit and the Court's ruling that the governor cannot do something against what he is directed to do by the Board of Managers/ownership.

All this means is that when Belkin pulled his power play and tried to run the team on his own, that he didn't have the authority to do this. In fact, this is why Belkin ultimately resigned as governor and agreed to sell out - because he couldn't achieve the control over the team that he wanted by remaining as governor. As governor, he was faced with the choice of (a) doing what he was told to do with the JJ trade and everything else thereafter or (b) being removed as governor and reduced to only a 30% ownership stake in the team and 1/3 voting rights. He saw both choices as unacceptable and chose to resign instead.

What followed his resignation is the focus of this lawsuit. It is about the contract that was negotiated, what that contract means, whether it is written in a way that is enforceable, and what the facts are surrounding the actions of the parties since then. The JJ trade, the veto, and Belkin's authority as governor are not in dispute in this lawsuit - they are merely background evidence and are surely being introduced by the ASG as evidence of Belkin's bad faith (i.e., if he was willing to violate his duties as governor in bad faith you can infer he was willing to violate his duties in bad faith under the buyout agreement).

If you don't agree, just take me up on the bet I proposed earlier!

[DJlaysitup]

...All this means is that when Belkin pulled his power play and tried to run the team on his own, that he didn't have the authority to do this. In fact, this is why Belkin ultimately resigned as governor and agreed to sell out - because he couldn't achieve the control over the team that he wanted by remaining as governor....

You see there's the rub. Belkin didn't try to "run the team on his own" and there was no "power play". He agreed to mutliple options to get JJ and finally got fed up with BK and his "anything for JJ approach". He wasn't trying to personally run the team - but he happened to be the team Governor and felt he had to do something...things were getting out of hand.

You can't blame a guy who put more of his own money in than any of the others (individually) who thinks "what have I gotten myself into?" These fellas don't seem to understand that we need more than JJ....get him and quality draft picks....(or course getting quality draft picks was a pipe dream with BK as GM for the most part).

So he stood his ground as Governor against the predominately "hockey dudes", who bought everything BK was selling, and got fired. Now it's up to judges.

P.S. - then, once he was fired (or "resigned") they fired BK. WTF?

Edited March 10, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[AHF]

So he stood his ground as Governor against the predominately "hockey dudes", who bought everything BK was selling, and got fired. Now it's up to judges.

To be accurate, he "stood his ground" then went and filed a lawsuit to try to prevent the other owners from removing him as governor. The NBA Commissioner filed an affidavit saying he did not have the power to stop the JJ trade as governor and that he could be removed for that kind of misconduct. Then a Judge ruled that Stern was right and trying to block the JJ trade was grounds for removal as Governor as long as the other owners gave him notice as required under the ownership agreement which would allow Belkin to remain as Governor if he caved in and let did whatever the Board of Managers (on which he had 1/3 voting rights) said. Belkin realized he had no chance of winning that case and chose not to appeal. At that point he still didn't get fired, he chose to resign and signed a buyout agreement.

None of that is up to judges. If you think any of that is up to judges please tell me what aspect of it is up to judges. The Judge already ruled on the legality of Belkin "standing his ground" and ruled that Belkin did not have power to stop the JJ trade. Again, to be clear, Belkin "standing his ground" is not up for review or ruling by any Judge as far as I am aware and has already been decided against Belkin. If you know something more, I would sincerely be very interested to hear.

What is up to judges now is the aftermath of all that. It is about the meaning of the contract, whether it is enforceable, and whether any of the parties to the buyout contract breached the agreement (and, if so, what remedy is appropriate).

[DJlaysitup]

What is up to judges now is the aftermath of all that. It is about the meaning of the contract, whether it is enforceable, and whether any of the parties to the buyout contract breached the agreement (and, if so, what remedy is appropriate).

and if the early contract (with it's duties) is in fact "enforceable" ...then Belkin will win. If the middle ground is taken (which looks likely) the ASG and Belkin will have to settle.

and if the ASG wins totally (which would be a breach of hundreds of years of contract law) ...Belkin loses.

[AHF]

and if the early contract (with it's duties) is in fact "enforceable" ...then Belkin will win. If the middle ground is taken (which looks likely) the ASG and Belkin will have to settle.

and if the ASG wins totally (which would be a breach of hundreds of years of contract law) ...Belkin loses.

Agreed. We could see any of those outcomes. I am not saying Belkin couldn't win or ultimately get paid by the ASG through a settlement or buyout.

We just will never see an outcome where the Judge rules that Stern had the power to block the JJ trade by virtue of his status as Governor. That issue has already been definitively decided and isn't up for debate. Belkin breached his responsibilities as governor when he pulled that stunt and irrevocably fractured the ownership group.

[DJlaysitup]

... Belkin breached his responsibilities as governor when he pulled that stunt and irrevocably fractured the ownership group.

I agree to some degree...but I wouldn't call Belkin's action as a "stunt". It's not like Belkin didn't want JJ....he just felt that the price was getting too high and likely lost confidence in his negotiator....who seemed to be giving away the whole farm.

That person being BK.....................................who the ASG later fired.

P.S. - there is an option where Belkin just flat wins ownership of the Hawks. It's still out there :hush:

Edited March 20, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[Dsinner]

I think both of you are right. Belkin obvkously didn't have the legal right to do what he did. Emotionaly, however, I can see why he did it. But you also have to look at the fact he should have done his homework on exactly what he could or could not do, in regards to the team, before he invested all of that $$$. Bottom line is he got himself into that mess and unfortunatly for him the ASG is one helluva mess. So DJ, would you really want someone who isn't smart enough to forsee what happened running the Hawks? Sure he might be better than the ASG but is that really good enough?

[exodus]

I think both of you are right. Belkin obvkously didn't have the legal right to do what he did. Emotionaly, however, I can see why he did it. But you also have to look at the fact he should have done his homework on exactly what he could or could not do, in regards to the team, before he invested all of that $$$. Bottom line is he got himself into that mess and unfortunatly for him the ASG is one helluva mess. So DJ, would you really want someone who isn't smart enough to forsee what happened running the Hawks? Sure he might be better than the ASG but is that really good enough?

I disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote.

I think Belkin knew very well what he was doing all along. he knew he didn't have the authority as Governor to block the trade. He knew he would get booted over it.

Why do i believe this? Because of the contract. he had it put in there that he could buy out the other owners at cost if the appraisal process took too long. That is why he objected to the appraisal of his own appraiser before he even read the appraisal.

I don't think Belkin is dumb at all. I think he planned his power play all along and just used the JJ situation to get it started.

Belkin is not in a financial mess at all. He hasn't had to pay any of the Hawks expenses during this whole process. Even in the worst case scenario i don't think he will lose any money at all.

[DJlaysitup]

I think Belkin knew very well what he was doing all along. he knew he didn't have the authority as Governor to block the trade. He knew he would get booted over it.

That's a bit of a stretch for me (and I'm a conspiracy buff). I think Belkin wanted to be the "basketball guy" of the ASG and hoped that the others would be happy watching the puck-slappers.

P.S. - to DSINNER - you are probably right....circumstances evolve, and money turns friends.

Edited March 21, 2009 by DJlaysitup

[DJlaysitup]

....That is why he objected to the appraisal of his own appraiser before he even read the appraisal.

I bet he read it - he may even have authored it :hush:

Edited March 22, 2009 by DJlaysitup