লেকার্স মালিকানা উত্তরাধিকারসূত্রে যায় না

##অটুট বিশ্বস্ততা শমস্‌-এর $100B-এর मूल्याङ्कन के खबर पড़াमাত्रे मনे ‘ওয়াও!’-ই नहीं, ‘কীভাবে?’ -এই सवाल आলগা हुआ।

আসলটি ₹হয়নি,পদক্‌ষ्‌টগत ‍‍গঠনই।জেরি বাস্‌-এর children-দেर अभिभावकत्व केंद्रिक दस्ताबेज/উত्तराधिकार केन’t।

মালিকদলটি now unique trust fund-এ संगठित,ছয়জন child-দेर मध्य में समान भाग।

किन्तु,इसका महत्त्वपूर्ण पहलु—कोনও one share inheritable होयना।

##উত্তरপণি,শুধুমাত্‌ر ভোট আমি crystal clear: This family business is not typical.

যদি one of the six pass away? Their share doesn’t go to their kids. It gets redistributed among the living siblings.

So if Dan Woike is right and it’s structured as a “survivor-only” trust—then each death reduces ownership stakes by one piece of pie.

It’s like an NBA roster with no bench players—if you’re out, you’re out, and someone else steps up. Brutal? Yes. Effective? Absolutely.

This wasn’t emotional legacy planning—it was cold, calculated succession engineering.

##Why This Matters More Than You Think You’d think this was just for show—a last wish from a billionaire owner who loved control. But no. This design ensures that selling the team requires unanimous consent from all six siblings. That means even one dissenting voice can block any sale—even at $100B+. In sports finance terms? That’s like having a 95% xG advantage but still losing because your star striker refuses to take the final shot. Think about it: What if one kid hates new owners? Or fears cultural change? They hold all power—not through votes, but through silence. The media calls this ‘family drama.’ I call it organizational integrity under pressure. In my work modeling football clubs using Tableau and Python—where player transfers are forecasted via xA chains—I see parallels:

• A team needs stability when assets grow exponentially;
• Leadership must resist emotional bias;
• Governance rules must survive generational shifts without collapse; The Lakers aren’t just worth $100B—they’re protected by math before emotion ever enters the room.