Stern's affidavit regarding Hawks' ownership situation Published on: 08/11/05 我， DAVID J. STERN 在此正式宣示： 我以 NBA 主席的身分，呈遞此份宣誓書給法院。在 8/9/2005 由 Boston 法院，依據 NBA 協議書第 5(d) 部分所提出的備忘錄與命令，禁止 Belkin 在 Atlanta Hawks 的 NBA Governor 職位被其他合夥人移除，理由為 NBA 主席必須優先認可之。基於以下理 由，我在此批准並以此方式授權 Hawks 移除 Belkin 的職位。 雖然我相信，法院對於協議書第 5(d) 部分，可以簡單解釋為提出撤換 Governor 的請 求必須先經過我的同意，也希望依此獲得本案的最終解決之道。但是我個人的見解，可 以透過第 5.1(k) 部分（ HTPA Holding Company LLC Agreement ），來加以解釋。 我的結論是，在第 5.1(k) 部分提到，如果 Governor 知道他自己正在阻礙大多數經營 者的意志時，他仍利用其職位上的權力在法律上約束球隊運作 -- 例如完成某球員的交 易或阻止交易某位球員 -- 此時罷免他的要求應該被允許。 而關於是否要執行這項五年近 70M 的交易這個議題，與這項交易很有可能對一支球隊帶 來的長期影響 -- 不論成功或失敗 -- 毫無疑問都使其可以屬於第 5.1(k) 的範疇。 在 8/1/2005 ， Belkin 利用其身為 NBA Governor 的權力阻礙 Joe Johnson 的交易。 他違反了總管與其餘大多數合夥人的意志，根據 5(d) ，他約束了球隊正常運作，讓 Suns 與 Hawks 無法完成交易。 當我們在解釋何謂「在法律上約束球隊」時，我不相信完成某項交易與阻止某項交易的 完成兩者間有任何有意義的區別。如果 Belkin 違反大多數經營者的意志去交易來 Joe Johnson 時，他絕對構成在法律上約束了這支球隊且依據 5.1(k) ，他必須面臨被罷免 的命運。如果Belkin 阻礙交易的理由是由於 NBA 經由 5(d) 所直接賦予的權力，這仍 然屬於法律上約束球隊的行為，因為這等於強迫 NBA 當局阻止交易。 當我做出這項結論時，我對於 Johnson 的交易是好是壞並沒有任何的意見。我也沒有暗 示 Belkin 做錯了什麼事情， 5.1(k) 關於移除其職位的標準並不是建立在 Governor 做出錯誤的行為上，而是建立在其是否有構成在法律上地約束球隊並違反大多數經營者 意志的行為上。 故依此標準，我認為 Belkin 阻擋交易 Joe Johnson 的行為以 5.1(k) 來看是在法律上 約束了球隊。所以客觀而言，他應該被其他經營者罷免。 我已經備要求批准 Michael Gearon Jr. 為 Governor 的繼任人選。 NBA 經過調查，認 為 Gearon 符合資格，故我批准之。而 Belkin 將依據 5.1(k) 被撤換。 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 我實在翻得很爛...僅附原文以供參考，請多指教。 I, DAVID J. STERN, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am the Commissioner of the National Basketball Association, and submit this Affidavit, pursuant to the Court's view, as set forth in its August 9, 2005 Memorandum and Order, that under paragraph 5(d) of the NBA Agreement and Undertaking, Mr. Belkin cannot properly be removed as NBA Governor of the Atlanta Hawks absent the prior approval of the NBA Commissioner. For the reason stated below I deem such approval appropriate and hereby grant it. While I believe that paragraph 5(d) can fairly be read as requiring nothing more than my prior approval of the proposed replacement Governor, in light of the Court's reading of that paragraph, and in the interest of assisting the Court in reaching an ultimate determination, I submit herewith my own views on whether the requirements for removal under paragraph 5.1(k) of the HTPA Holding Company LLC Agreement have been satisfied. My conclusion is that, under paragraph 5.1(k) if the Governor knows or reasonably should know that he is acting contrary to the wishes of a majority of the Board of Managers, and he nevertheless proceeds to take an action in connection with a material matter that legally binds the team — such as consummating a player trade or preventing the consummation of a player trade — the requirements for removal have been met. The decision whether or not to trade for a player who is to be paid nearly $70 million over 5 years and who may well have a long-standing impact on the success or failure of the team, is, without doubt, a material matter as that term is used in paragraph 5.1(k). On August 1, 2005, Mr. Belkin acted to block the trade of Joe Johnson by directing the NBA (through a letter sent by his outside counsel) not to proceed with a trade call between the Hawks and the Phoenix Suns that, if held, would have consummated the trade for Mr. Johnson previously negotiated by the Hawks? General Manager and approved by the Hawks? Board of Managers. Mr. Belkin's action — which, pursuant to paragraph 5(d) of the NBA Agreement and Undertaking, was binding on the team — barred the Hawks and the Suns from completing the trade. In interpreting the phrase "action to legally bind" the team, I do not believe there is a meaningful distinction between acting to consummate a trade or acting to prevent the consummation of a trade. There appears to be no dispute that if Mr. Belkin had proceeded to consummate the trade for Joe Johnson against the wishes of the majority of the Board of Managers, he would have acted to "legally bind" the team and faced removal under paragraph 5.1(k). Directing the NBA not to proceed with the trade call was also an "action" that, by reason of the authority conferred on Mr. Belkin by paragraph 5(d) of the NBA Agreement and Undertaking, was no less "legally binding" on the team, in that it compelled the NBA to bar the trade. In reaching this conclusion, I express no view at all as to whether the proposed trade for Mr. Johnson is wise, unwise, well-considered or ill-considered. I also do not mean to suggest that, in preventing the trade, Mr. Belkin has done anything wrong or has acted improperly in any way. The test for removal under paragraph 5.1(k) is not founded upon misconduct; it is based solely on the Governor taking action in connection with a material matter that "legally binds" the team but is at odds with the wishes of the majority of the Board of Managers. Given that standard, it is my view that by blocking the trade of Joe Johnson, Mr. Belkin has acted to legally bind the Hawks within the meaning of paragraph 5.1(k) of the LLC Agreement, and therefore is subject to removal as NBA Governor by the Board of Managers. With respect to my right under paragraph 5(d) of the NBA Undertaking to approve the proposed replacement Governor, I have been asked to approve Michael Gearon, Jr. to replace Steve Belkin as Governor of the Hawks. The NBA has this week conducted an investigation that has failed to reveal any event or circumstance that has occurred or become known that would bring into question Mr. Gearon's qualification to be a controlling owner of an NBA team, and accordingly I would approve Mr. Gearon as the replacement Governor of the Hawks, in the event it is determined that Mr. Belkin has been properly removed in accordance with paragraph 5.1(k) of the LLC Agreement. 資料來源 http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/hawks/0805/12hawksside.html --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 59.121.50.246 ※ 編輯: sssfrost 來自: 59.121.50.246 (08/12 20:50)