bajaden
Hall of Famer
The Maloofs are pounding that over and over again because this is what they want everybody to believe. Voisin, who talks to the Maloofs, said no at first, but actually went the other way later. She said no express term, but the league could try to use the "best interest of the league clause", which is in the bylaws. I'm only seen two people come out and say "no way" they can force them to sell. Grant and Scoop. Scoops takes in the past month on this are pure Maloofs BS.
The fact is its unclear whether the owners can take the Kings back right now. Grant is laying down - nope, not possible. Don't talk about this. They either have to miss playroll or break the law. It's not that clear, and he's wrong. Of course this is the same man that would not just tell fans it didn't make any sense to remodel arco, but would sometimes slip up and say "the place is falling appart" and imply that soon it won't even be structurally sound. Now, he's selling a 10 year remod. If he gets the talking points, he will repeat them.
I'm sure Grant has never seen the NBA bylaws and he doesn't know anything about anti-trust law or the history of court cases breaking down the "best interest of the league" clause. He's just repeating what the Maloofs are saying. So is Scoop.
Other than these clowns, I haven't seen anybody break down the league's power over the Kings.
I've heard the "Best interest of the League" rule mentioned several times. Of course I haven't seen it in black and white, but if I'm going to believe someone, it won't be the Maloof's. So if we assume it does exist, then what are the parameters? What exactly do owners have to do, or not do, in order for that rule to be applied? Is it spelled out exactly, or is it a subjective decision on the part of the other owners. I suspect its not the latter, since I doubt that would stand up on a court of law. I'd sure like to be able to read the by laws.