The NBA gets uppity

By Jason Wojciechowski on July 27, 2008 at 4:55 AM

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 league also claimed in the motion 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 Stern."
(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.