@BillRM,
Quote:That bring up another interesting question while the NBA is claiming the right to placed whoever they care to in charge of the Clipper finances unless there is a court order why would banks and so on honor their claimed rights to take control of Clipper assets?
Seem that would result in placing such financial institutions in harm way if the courts would later ruled against their right to have seized control of the team in the first place.
Would they need to placed a bond with the banks to do so?
You really should read the articles that have been posted that explain what "owning" an NBA team means--it's not like ownership of wholly private property, it's not like owning a piece of real estate. The NBA does control the rights to ownership of teams.
No one can "seize control" of this team--the way a bank can repossess a house. The entire issue here is about forcing
a sale.
And, until a transfer of ownership is made, Sterling still owns the team, and he has to honor his financial responsibilities, like meeting payroll. If he fails to do that, and causes financial harm, the other owners have even more clear-cut reason, under the NBA constitution, to approve a forced sale of his team.
The new interim CEO of the Clippers, Richard Parsons, will run the team and handle that aspect of it.
You continue to display your ignorance about this situation.