The NBA gets uppity
Just a quick bit from the Sonics mess:
The NBA claimed in its motion to intervene that the transfer of the franchise to a court-appointed receiver and a subsequent transfer back to Schultz would both be prohibited by the league's constitution.(The following could be entirely wrong, but at first blush, this is what crosses my mind.)
Guess what, league's constitution? You can suck it. Does the NBA honestly think the court cares that an order to Bennett to transfer the team back to Schultz, or an order to put the team in receivership, perhaps eventually to be transferred back to Schultz (or to Bennett), would "be prohibited"? If the court finds that some contract was violated by Bennett and that the proper remedy is that Schultz should get the team (i.e. the corporate entity comprising the Sonics and the WNBA team and god knows what else) back, then what does it matter that the constitution says this shouldn't happen? You know what the league's constitution is? It's a contract. You know who's not a party to that contract? The court. The court can't violate the NBA constitution by ordering a transfer of assets because the court isn't a party to the contract. It isn't bound thereby.
Beaneball by Jason Wojciechowski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.