As we've mentioned before, there is significant evidence to believe that David Stern and Clay Bennett are good friends (I think actually, it's a fact, if that is a provable statement). This friendship took another convenient twist with the latest news re: hijacking Seattle.How else can you explain the subsequent timeline of events: Bennett signing a settlement that agrees to return the Sonics if Howard Schultz wins his lawsuit followed immediately by the NBA getting elbow deep in that same court proceeding? That's right, the NBA itself is now filing motions to dismiss Schultz' lawsuit.
And yes, there's a pile of legalese in there. But my understanding here is that the NBA has rules in place to avoid a league owned team (that's a good rule) and they're using it to nullify Schultz' suit (that's a pretty malevolent application). And if you think that the NBA's lawyers just managed to come up with this, well, you're wrong.The NBA claims in its motion 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 motion also claims that if a court-appointed receiver were to be appointed, the NBA's constitution allows for the league's owners to put that team "under the management and control" of commissioner David Stern.
"The relief requested by plaintiffs is entirely inconsistent with these reasonable and lawful regulations of the NBA, and the disposition of this action therefore threatens the ability of the League to protect its justifiable interests," attorney Ralph Palumbo wrote in the motion.


























