2025-26 Team Developments: Trades / Free Agents / News / Rumors / Ideas

This isn’t technically true. They’ve come out and confirmed it wasn’t a no show deal, it had stipulations of what they wanted him to do. The reason it’s reported as a no show deal, is because it had a clause that said (paraphrasing) he is allowed to avoid things that don’t align with his brand. This kind of clause is common, and it’s in the spirit of protecting Kawhi from having to do ridiculous stuff, the fact that he did nothing is ridiculous, but that’s kind of ridiculous on him and he would only get away with that in a company that was either over their head in a sinking ship and/or was defrauding others.

I’ve had endorsements from adidas that had the same clause in them as Kawhi’s (granted they were valued in the thousands and not millions).

Kawhi never fulfilled his obligations for the 20m stock equity - almost all the celebrity had some kind of stock equity payment structure. I think it’s also important to be clear, this wasn’t 20m of stock at current prices, this was 20m of stock at the valuations of a successful IPO that would have valued the company at billions. So we shouldn’t call it a 48m dollar deal, we should call it a 7m per year endorsement deal, that totalled 21m.

From the 2024 reporting I read, it seems that Ballmer’s 50m came in at a time when Kawhi had already been paid 2.5 out of 3 payments and roughly 29m of Ballmer’s investment went immediately towards green credits the company was behind on.

This is why an investigation should be done, to figure out if this was impropriety or just the appearance of it from a narrowed viewpoint that’s being presented.

 

How is 13.2 not applicable here....?

If the team agreed to pay Kawhi under the books to circumvent the salary cap, that's a violation of 13.2

Or are we just disagreeing on who is at fault here?

There are 3 parties to blame.

1) Aspiration
2) Clippers
3) Kawhi

Aspiration is already dead-on-arrival and have bigger issues to worry about.

They clearly violated both if we're going off what they are accused of.

 

But Kawhi did none of it and still got paid.

What does that tell you?

Let's discuss in good faith.

Do you have any evidence Kawhi did any form of marketing or promotional work, under the agreement, to get paid?

 

I did say in the next sentence that what Kawhi did (or didn’t do haha) is completely ridiculous. As someone who had hopes and aspirations (see what I did there) of one day having meaningful endorsements, I can’t fathom how you wouldn’t do everything you could to appease your endorsement partner. I always believed in giving far more value, working tirelessly and being easy to deal with when it came to these kinds of things - I honestly can’t believe how difficult the Kawhi camp is to deal with. If he wasn’t the closest thing to Jordan since Kobe, no one would put up with his rubbish.

In saying that, when I put my law cap on, there’s many ways that Kawhi can defend himself, some of which could be:

“they weren’t paying me on agreed upon timelines and were practically voiding our contract.”

“they were too busy trying to defraud targets and never came up with any solid campaigns for me to partake in.”

Aspiration will be the fall guy in all of this. Because they’re already in serious trouble, the NBA using them as the scape goat doesn’t change anything to their outcome.

 

Do you have any evidence, that what he didn't do, violated his contract with Aspiration, in a manner that allowed them to void the deal?

 

"Yeah he said that, and you keep skipping over the other part he said. A"

Yeah he said what? What I listed of the multiple things? "He said he wasn't going do anything on simple "appearance" of circumvention and was launching a full and through investigation. And stated the case was not like a criminal or civil case and the LATITUDE he has in his final decision looking at ALL and all TYPES of evidence .... plus pointed out all the penalties he can impose if he finds against them." Thank you. What other part am I skipping over?

You're the one taking the part in red and mis-quoting "simple appearance" to circumstantial evidence, and IGNORING everything else he said and stating as a fact Silver's already told us he's not going to do anything ..... before the investigation even happens.

 

He didn't lose that money if he invested it for the specific purpose of paying Kawhi under the table.

WE haven't seen this document, but it's been reported that it exists. Surely, if this was completely made up, we'd have heard about it by now.

Hearsay can be used as evidence, under several well known exceptions. Mostly notably, statements from a party to the proceeding. In other words, any hearsay statements from Balmer or Kawhi would be admissible, if this was a court proceeding. I don't know what rules of evidence the NBA is operating under, but I can't imagine they are MORE restrictive than federal rules of evidence. The NBA can consider whatever they want. "It's all hearsay!" is the standard battle cry of people with no real defense.

Lastly, you don't need a smoking gun. The whole reason we have juries is to judge people's credibility and call BS on people's laughable claims that their heads were tragically buried in the sand, so how could they know. The NBA doesn't have to play dumb.

Slick, your post does a nice job of listing all the points that the Clippers and Balmer will likely make in their defense, assuming any of it is correct. But at the end of the day, their defense still needs to sound credible. And right now, the notion that Balmer invested $50 million in a non-profit, innocently chose not to monitor how that money was being spent, and had no idea that the non-profit might pay his golden goose $28 million to do jack ****, is just not credible.

 

That's a huge IF that hasn't been substantiated in any shape, form or fashion. Yet your entire argument, rests on this somehow being a proven fact.

 

There's been (15) things that stink and defy common sense about this whole mess, that you claim are completely plausible in each and every one of them. Just talking about did they do it.

 

Well technically he did since Kawhi only got 21m. First you’d have to prove that the goal was to circumvent the cap.

Whereas all Ballmer has to say in his defence is; I invested 62m and never got my capital or a return back.

It’s a good point, but Silver is acting on the innocent until proven guilty concept. So evidence has to be provided that’s better than what’s come to date. What is the evidence so far?

Kawhi got paid 21m and didn’t do anything - it’s ridiculous but not illegal

Ballmer invested 62m and lost all his money - it’s stupid but not illegal

Employees believed Kawhi’s endorsement wasn’t good for the company - sure, the company was sinking and they were paying endorsements, once again, not illegal

For the kind of punishment some fans are baying for, you’d need to prove that the clippers intent was to circumvent the cap and that’s what allowed them to land Kawhi or that this payment allowed them to circumvent the cap and sign other players to improve their team (which it didn’t since Kawhi earned the max already). Even if they find something close, they won’t find a link between 2019 and him signing there.

So they’ll just get fined and that’ll be that.

 

Isn't showing up against Kawhii's brand?

 

Silver said he was going to do an investigation and that he had wide ranging powers yes, but I think you’re leaving out a critical part here LT.

He said he would be hesitant to act on the mere appearance of impropriety. He even then said that many fans in the past have made their minds up on a subject only for it to be proven false later and that he wouldn’t act on what the media and fans wanted without proof.

That to me paints the picture that he doesn’t have the appetite himself to do anything major unless the investigation is clear cut and owners and/or players are asking for it.

 

Who invests, endorses or supports any business, of any kind, for any reason, without some sort of contract? If, in fact, there are no contracts at all, this looks like fraud all the way around.

 

1.If they had documents, the Feds would have investigated the Hyena for labor fraud. That's what no show contracts are. They already have all the documents relating to the financial dealings, this is why the CEO pleaded guilty. You noticed that labor fraud was not one of his charges?

2. How does Ballmer as an investor, have access to Aspiration's real financial statements? Or any of the other investors? They were a private company, the investors relied on the statements they were given. This is how these scams operate. If it was that simple, why didn't any of the other investors that got scammed, do the same? They stole 250M, Ballmer wasn't the only one that got scammed.

3. You actually need proof, that Ballmer specifically invested 60M, for the express purpose of funding a 28M endorsement. Folks are moving forward as if this was some kind of no brainer. I'm not seeing the evidence, I totally understand that people can feel that he's capable of such, but feelings aren't Facts.

4. Yes..Hearsay can be used, in addition to actual documentation, but it's never enough to make a finding, without any other corroborating evidence. The Commissioner has already said, the burden of proof is on the NBA, to find hard evidence of wrong doings. And that the mere appearance of such is not enough. I'm still not seeing this hard evidence. I see a bunch of stuff that folks are pointing to, that is either hearsay or at best, circumstantial, which again, all have plausible explanations. I pointed out facts, the counter argument relies on ignoring those facts, and making assumptions.

 

Right...Who said there wasn't a contract? This is my point, how do people come up, with this stuff about what he did or didn't do, without a contract to refer to. The reporter posted a document about company exes being against the deal, which means that a deal actual occurred. That's income tax evasion if he simply got paid without a contract.

 

This isn't about legalities. It's whether or not Kawhi/The Clipper circumvented the CBA. It doesn't have to be illegal.

I'm sorry but these statements about labor laws have no basis in reality, nor any relevance to the issues at hand.

 

I didn't say it wasn't, I'm just saying the two separate sections have two different penalties. I don't really know how it works if they find this was a three-way arrangement, could they levy fines under each section (so a max of like $12 million)? But I bring it up because I doubt that a lot of people who seem to have strong opinions on this have actually taken the time to read these CBA provisions.

For example - the bit about being able to prove a violation with circumstantial evidence that people always quote is specific to Section 13.2, whereas the part about drawing an inference where the compensation under the third-party contract is way more than FMV is specific to Section 13.1. So does that mean the only way to prove a violation of 13.1 is either with direct evidence (a piece of paper between the team and a third-party), or through the inference provision (13.1(b))? But the inference provision suggests you don't violate 13.1 unless the player's value under his NBA contract is also way under his FMV. Some would say that's too narrow a reading of 13.1, but why wouldn't they just put the same bit about being able to use circumstantial evidence that's in 13.2 in 13.1?

Another example - the bit about a contract provision "that cannot be rationally explained" is specific to Player Contracts (i.e., the player's actual NBA contracts with their teams).

When you actually read 13.1 and 13.2, its obvious they're meant to target situations where the actual cap number of the player under their NBA contract has been lowered due to some outside arrangement. The Joe Smith situation. That's why the inference provision has the two prongs in 13.1, and 13.2 (the team/player section) carries the heavier penalties and seemingly allows for a broader consideration of evidence. I don't think these rules lend themselves well to this situation - where we're talking about a guy on a maximum salary contract that might have required these arrangements to sign there at all. Which is why I'm skeptical the Clippers/Kawhi are going to get a heavy punishment.

 

"stating as a fact Silver's lready told us he's not going to do anything ..... before the investigation even happens.[/QUOTE

I didn't say that. Thats your interpretation of what I said. Where did I say that, point it out. Explain to me the difference in appearance and circumstantial, in this situation. What do you consider to be an example of both then.[/[/QUOTE]

 

You’re correct, but like I said, silver is operating in Innocent until proven Guilty.

So let’s look at the thought experiment; you have to prove one of two things to circumvent the cap right?

1 - like the Joe smith case, the team benefited from paying below market rates for a player to assist in building a better roster. Kawhi was paid the max and there was no benefit. So this is kind of a dead end.

2 - Kawhi specifically went to the clippers in 2019 due to this endorsement and they benefitted by getting a player they normally wouldn’t have unless they circumvented the cap. Well this is going to be hard to prove since this deal is for 2022 onwards when he was already being paid the max that anyone else could pay him. You’d have to establish a link between 2019 and 2022, which is going to be near impossible unless they have a smoking gun.

What makes this all the more difficult is that the company in question was committing fraud, so they’re an easy fall guy. They basically stole 250m worth of funds from reputable people. It’s not so cut and dry.

 

How? You are proposing that a person got paid 21M in an endorsement contract. for doing nothing. That is both a violation of the labor laws, and income tax invasion. People have been sent to prison for decades for doing that. How is this not based in reality or relevant to the issue at hand? You are implying that he recived 21M as a gift, and lied about it, by claiming that it was a legal endorsement contract. Throw in money laundering to his charges. That's what that is considered to be too.