Now, if i was working for @PabloTorre , knowing what i know about business/deals/investing and was looking for reasons why this was circumvention some things i would and wouldn't do. The merger document has a ton of information about how Sanberg did business. So does the lawsuit over the 29.5. Reading the DOJ indictment where he put his co-conspirator on the board, and in another doc, he got a board member to vote as he specificed, that meant Joe Sanberg controlled everything. When the numbers werent there for his gravy train, he wasnt going to tell anyone that worked for him the truth, he didnt care what those marketing or finance people or his execs said. Didnt matter. The less they knew the better. Let them gossip all they wanted The timing of the docs, the ability for KL to say no. Not a big deal. Accts Payable calls it critical ? So what. The Aspiration identity is now all tied up with the Clippers.. It makes sense its critical.. Again what finance or marketing or the execs say is meaningless.. Sanberg controls it all. He makes the rules If i had to point to the things that the NBA should look at it, its going to start with whether Dennis and Steve were the only outside investors when the company needed money so badly ? Could they not find anyone else ? Why ? The second thing i would look at was the $50m the Clippers deal for carbon credits. Carbon Credits are a dicey business, to put it mildly. I know, I've loved and lost here.. Great concept. But it isnt something that is simple. Not by a long shot. Did the Clippers pay the money up front or not ? That would be a red flag if they did, specifically because it is a dicey business. My guess is they did, and there is every good chance it was because , like Meta and others, they believed Aspiration could deliver the credits. When they didn't, the Clippers took avail of the contract and became a creditor at bankruptcy for non delivery. But you got to ask why and how did they do their diligence. I would also look at MicroSoft buying credits. I dont know the relationship Steve has with them at this point. but you have to look. If i were creating a script, and as I said, Im still Team Ballmer, the script would have Steve saying to Sanberg nothing more than "Here is the intro to KL's team. I like what you guys are doing. I truly appreciate the sponsorship. I think we can do so much together. Take care of my guy, and I'll take a good long look at your company and how I might be able to help" Sanberg "Sure <sees huge $$$ in his head>, I got you Steve. The sponsorship is just the beginning. We have this merger that your investment folks have all the info on, and I know they absolutely love it. We are partners now Steve. I'm here to help any way i can" Conversations like this happen in almost every big deal. Ive heard those exact words in more deals than i can count. Its basic stuff. But if Sanberg took it to mean to "take care of KL", leading to his contract, and Steve or someone with the clippers didnt qualify what was said, that they couldn't just give money to KL. They have to do a real deal. Then it's something the NBA might be interested in learning more about. (I can't tell you how many times at the Mavs I told someone affiliated with a player, family, whatever, that we can't do this or that because it would be against the cba. That i was the most scrutinized owner in the NBA, they are always just looking for any reason to fuck with me. So we always have been and always will be above board on everything.) Then maybe, Sanberg goes to KL's team, "Hey, we are the Clipper's newest and biggest sponsor, i want you on our team. Standard contract. We want you happy. We will find a way that fits how you work. This is a partnership we want to have last for decades. So we want to be fair with you. 28 over 4.. You in ?" I still dont think this happened, but i could see a possibility that something similar to this happened. Is this a CBA violation ? I doubt it. But that's up to Adam(Mark Cuban)