Hawks seek Commissioners help

[Mainstreet]

Hawks seek NBA's help in acquiring JJ
Court upholds owner's authority to block trade

Paul Coro
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 10, 2005 12:00 AM

After a familiar loss on a road court, Atlanta Hawks owners who want Joe Johnson are now looking to NBA Commissioner David Stern to help them accomplish what a Boston judge would not Tuesday.

NBA lawyers were exploring eight Atlanta owners' request to remove dissenting co-owner Steve Belkin as the team's NBA governor. If successful, they can proceed with a trade that would send Johnson from Phoenix to Atlanta with a five-year, $69.6 million deal.

"We're currently reviewing the judge's ruling," NBA spokesman Tim Frank said.

Belkin's role as governor allowed him to block the deal that would have brought guard Boris Diaw, two first-round draft picks with lottery protection and a $4.9 million trade exception to Phoenix. Last week, Belkin received a temporary restraining order that stopped the owners from a planned vote to replace him as governor. He sought an indefinite injunction Tuesday in a court in Boston, his hometown.

Judge Allan van Gestel granted the injunction 15 minutes before the restraining order was set to expire. The other owners were prepared to take an immediate vote to remove Belkin and install co-owner Michael Gearon Jr. as governor. They could return to court today if they receive the commissioner's approval to remove Belkin as governor.

Much of van Gestel's written explanation was supported with basketball matters, rather than opinions on the role of a NBA governor or specifics of the owners' partnership contract. However, he did emphasize during the hearing that he was surprised the defendant owners did not oblige with a clause in their franchise purchase contract that requires commissioner approval to remove a governor.

The meeting began with Belkin approaching Hawks General Manager Billy Knight, who refused to shake Belkin's extended hand, and the judge referencing the Red Sox's sale of Babe Ruth to the Yankees.

"The defendants claim devastating results for the Atlanta Hawks if the Joe Johnson trade is not accomplished," van Gestel wrote. "They speak warmly of Johnson's talent. He may not, however, be the only basketball player who can serve his potential role for the Hawks. Nor is it clear that getting Johnson and giving up two first-round picks in the 2006 player draft and another player who was himself a first-round pick, along with the amount of money required, would not equally as well have an equally devastating result for the franchise."

The judge also stated during the hearing that he did not have the NBA knowledge to render basketball judgments.

But in the court documents, van Gestel wrote: "It is hardly apparent on the present record that the deal for Johnson, however talented he may be, given what is needed for the Atlanta Hawks in order to effect it, is in the economic best interest of the franchise. In short, it is not clear that Belkin's action constitutes a removable event. Surely, the commissioner, when asked for approval, will have to consider all of the ramifications of the Johnson trade, not just that the defendants and others want him. Sometimes the cost is just too great."

If Belkin's authority to have final rule on trades is upheld by league lawyers today, other possible resolutions include:


• An ownership buyout, whether it is Belkin leaving the group or gaining more than his 30 percent share.


• A renegotiation of the trade. The Suns have resisted the Hawks' attempts at this.


• A third team is involved to make the trade agreeable to all parties.


• The other owners file a motion to reconsider or take the case to an appellate court.


• The Suns make another attempt to sign Johnson to keep him in Phoenix.

Diaw, excited about the possibility of joining the Suns, has his career on hold while trying to decipher the saga from his native France.

"I think it's just a matter of time," Diaw said of the trade getting finalized. "I think they'll work it out."

________________________________________________


I think this is a very interesting article from Paul Coro of The Arizona Republic dated 8-10-05 listed on azcentral.com.

I bolded what I thought were some key points.

IMO, I still think the Judge strayed from the issue brought before the Court. I thought he would be ruling on: the role of the team Governor, the specifics of the ownerships' partnership contract and their right to remove the team Governor.

The bottom line, this case could be back in court again today and probably will require the Commissiioner's approval to remove the team Governor.

It is interesting that the Judge notes he did not have NBA knowledge to render basketball judgements.

I'm sure Mr. Stern will be quite happy to be forced into this mess.

 

[TucsonDevil]

"After a familiar loss on a road court, Atlanta Hawks owners..."

 

[coloradosun]

Here is a statement from the judge that may side with Belkin;

'defendent owners did not oblige with a clause in their franchise purchase contract that requires commissioner approval to remove a governor'

I bet Belkin's lawyer will glom on to that quote. The league had approved the purchase of the team under the conditions that the co-owners set forth. I do not think Stern has any legal standing to help remove a governor.
Always dot your i's and cross your t's, this was not done here.

 

[Kolo]

Here is a statement from the judge that may side with Belkin;

'defendent owners did not oblige with a clause in their franchise purchase contract that requires commissioner approval to remove a governor'

I bet Belkin's lawyer will glom on to that quote. The league had approved the purchase of the team under the conditions that the co-owners set forth. I do not think Stern has any legal standing to help remove a governor.
Always dot your i's and cross your t's, this was not done here.

The contract between the Hawks' owners (I believe) gives the NBA jurisdiction to remove Belkin as governor, although I'm unsure as to the conditions under which it can. I surmised from an ajc article that if the majority of owners approves and the proposed governor is at least a 10% owner, the NBA has to remove Belkin--but the article was poorly written and I made about a dozen assumptions to come to that conclusion.

 

[devilalum]

Here is a statement from the judge that may side with Belkin;

'defendent owners did not oblige with a clause in their franchise purchase contract that requires commissioner approval to remove a governor'

I bet Belkin's lawyer will glom on to that quote. The league had approved the purchase of the team under the conditions that the co-owners set forth. I do not think Stern has any legal standing to help remove a governor.
Always dot your i's and cross your t's, this was not done here.

Regardless of how the JJ deal turns out something has got to be done about the Hawks organization. The franchise is currently a black eye for the league and I'm sure Stern will do everything in his power to resolve this situation and move forward.

My guess would be a buyout of Belkin. I don't understand why the guy even wants to be an owner. Maybe he's just pulling this franchise down the toliet to get back at the league for not letting him buy the Celtics.

 

[coloradosun]

Regardless of how the JJ deal turns out something has got to be done about the Hawks organization. The franchise is currently a black eye for the league and I'm sure Stern will do everything in his power to resolve this situation and move forward.

My guess would be a buyout of Belkin. I don't understand why the guy even wants to be an owner. Maybe he's just pulling this franchise down the toliet to get back at the league for not letting him buy the Celtics.

I think the way the ownership group was allowed to be formed sets a bad precedence. I don't think there are very many teams owned by a 40/30/30 framework. The owners who represent the 30/30 part think that they have as much power as the 40% owner. There is always a reason you have a majority owner but in most cases it is 50% or greater stake, with a lot of minority partners with very little influence in operations.

 

[Mainstreet]

Here is my brief take on what the Judge may be saying in the following two previously quoted paragraphs:
_______________________________________

But in the court documents, van Gestel wrote: "It is hardly apparent on the present record that the deal for Johnson, however talented he may be, given what is needed for the Atlanta Hawks in order to effect it, is in the economic best interest of the franchise. In short, it is not clear that Belkin's action constitutes a removable event. Surely, the commissioner, when asked for approval, will have to consider all of the ramifications of the Johnson trade, not just that the defendants and others want him. Sometimes the cost is just too great."

But in the court documents, van Gestel wrote: "It is hardly apparent on the present record that the deal for Johnson, however talented he may be, given what is needed for the Atlanta Hawks in order to effect it, is in the economic best interest of the franchise. In short, it is not clear that Belkin's action constitutes a removable event. Surely, the commissioner, when asked for approval, will have to consider all of the ramifications of the Johnson trade, not just that the defendants and others want him. Sometimes the cost is just too great."

______________________________________

I think the above two paragraphs (with reported statements from the Judge) continually push for the NBA Commissioners' involvement which is pivotal. And I think the last sentence from the Judge especially throws the matter back at the Commissioner.

Hopefully, the Judge was made aware that all trades have to be approved by the Commissioner. Thus the JJ sign and trade would have to be approved by the Commissioner. I believe changes in ownership also have to be approved by the Commissisioner.

However, I do indeed find this is a very slippery slope and why the Commissioner wanted the Atlanta Hawks to resolve their own ownership squabble.

If I were the Commissioner and in agreement with this sign and trade transaction and I would support an eventual ownership change in Atlanta, I would make a writen statement for presentation to the court if necessary.

Something to the effect, that the Commissioner would indeed approve the sign and trade agreement regarding JJ if it were approved by the Hawks Governor (Belkin) and that it would also be in the leagues best interest if the team Governor represented the majority view of the Hawks' ownership.

Then, perhaps the Judge would remove the restraining order against the Hawks' majority ownerships' desire for the trade to occur and allow a new Governor that represented the majority of ownership to be elected.

Essentially the commissioner would be clarifying his position in the matter without taking legal action. Almost like an adviser to the court.

This would also greatly diminish Belkin's irreparable harm argument if the Commissioner indicates he is willing to approve the sign and trade agreement regarding JJ and would recommend that the Governor of the Hawks' should represent the majority view of the ownership.