PDA

View Full Version : Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released



Pages : [1] 2

Iamtdg
04-27-2014, 02:31 PM
Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released

By Steve Almasy, Kevin Conlon and Shelby Lin Erdman, CNN
updated 1:34 PM EDT, Sun April 27, 2014


(CNN) -- The sports gossip website Deadspin released an additional audio recording Sunday from a conversation full of racist comments attributed to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling.

The recording is five more minutes of a conversation that purports to be Sterling talking with girlfriend V. Stiviano earlier this month about her Instagram photo feed. The photos include images of her with African-Americans, including NBA great Earvin "Magic" Johnson.

If authentic, the remarks seem to reflect Sterling's embarrassment and frustration with Stiviano over her associating with African-Americans at Clippers games and for posting such pictures on her Instagram account.

In the longer recording, a man and woman talk about the photos and he tells her he cannot change cultural beliefs, Deadspin reported (http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249).
The woman says she doesn't think Sterling is racist but the people around him have "poison minds."

"It's the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs," the man says.
He says there are white Jews and black Jews, and they are treated 100% differently.
"And is that right?" the woman asks.

"It isn't a question -- we don't evaluate what's right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture," the man replies.

When the woman says she doesn't share the man's views about race, he tells her: "Well then, if you don't feel -- don't come to my games. Don't bring black people, and don't come."

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/140426145101-donald-sterling-file-story-body.jpgShaq, Ba
rkley react to offensive comments
The woman, who says she is mixed race, reminds him most of his team's players are African-American.

"I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have -- Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game?"

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Saturday that Sterling, who has owned the basketball franchise for nearly three decades, is now under investigation over the comments attributed to him.

According to the website TMZ (http://www.tmz.com/), Sterling reportedly made the discriminatory remarks during an argument he had with Stiviano on April 9. TMZ posted a 10-minute recording online Friday, purporting to be the argument.

Clippers President Andy Roeser on Saturday suggested a woman -- whom he doesn't mention by name -- was "getting even" with Sterling over a lawsuit.

According to a report from CNN affiliate KCAL/KCBS last month (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/03/07/wife-of-clippers-owner-sues-woman-she-alleges-had-affair-with-her-husband/#at_pco=cfd-1.0), Rochelle Sterling, the wife of Donald Sterling, filed a lawsuit last month against a woman she said was having an affair with her husband.

Reaction: 'Disturbing and offensive' (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2042761-twitter-reacts-to-racist-rant-allegedly-from-la-clippers-owner-donald-sterling?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t2)
NBA promises speedy investigation
Silver said that the league's investigation will seek to determine whether the tape is authentic and to figure out the context in which these "offensive and disturbing" comments were made.

But he cautioned that Sterling must be afforded due process, so he would not speculate on any possible punishment -- but said that the investigation will move "extraordinarily quickly."

Speaking about the recording, Roeser said, "We do not know if it is legitimate or it has been altered. We do know that the woman on the tape -- who we believe released it to TMZ -- is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million, who told Mr. Sterling that she would 'get even.'"

Neither TMZ nor Deadspin has said who made the recording or how the websites obtained it.

Attempts to reach Stiviano on Saturday were unsuccessful.

The man alleged to be Sterling takes particular exception to a photo she posted to Instagram with Johnson.

"In your lousy f**ing Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with -- walking with black people," the man says.

"If it's white people, it's OK?" she responds. "If it was Larry Bird, would it make a difference?"

Bird, the longtime Boston Celtics star, was Johnson's NBA rival.

"I've known (Magic) well and he should be admired. ... I'm just saying that it's too bad you can't admire him privately," the man on the recording says. "Admire him, bring him here, feed him, f**k him, but don't put (Magic) on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."

Magic's response
Johnson responded Saturday afternoon via his verified Twitter account.

"I feel sorry for my friends Coach Doc Rivers and Chris Paul that they have to work for a man that feels that way about African Americans" read a tweet from @MagicJohnson. "I will never go to a Clippers game again as long as Donald Sterling is the owner," read another.

Even President Barack Obama weighed in.

At a press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak on Sunday, Obama was asked about the comments on the recording.

"When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't really have to do anything, you just let them talk. That's what happened here," the President said.
Obama also said Sterling's alleged comments are an example of how "the United States continues to wrestle with the legacy of race and slavery and segregation."
The president of the California NAACP suggested fans boycott Clippers games.

"We also suggest that African Americans and Latinos should honor his (Sterling's) request and not attend the games," Alice Huffman said in a statement released Saturday.
Sterling was to receive a lifetime achievement award at an event next month to mark the 100th anniversary of the Los Angeles NAACP, but the national organization tweeted Sunday that wouldn't happen.

Team says Sterling upset
Roeser said Sterling is upset and apologizes for sentiments attributed to him about Earvin Johnson. "(Sterling) has long considered Magic a friend and has only the utmost respect and admiration for him -- both in terms of who he is and what he has achieved."

Sterling is "emphatic that what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with, nor does it reflect his views, beliefs or feelings," Roeser said.

"I don't know if I'm surprised or not," Clippers head coach Doc Rivers said at the team's practice Saturday, adding that he "obviously" didn't like the comments
.
Rivers, who is in his first year coaching the team, told reporters that he didn't want the controversy to distract from the playoffs. He said he would be the sole person speaking on behalf of the team.

Miami Heat forward LeBron James was one of several players and former players weighing in on the controversy. James spoke to reporters before the playoff game against the Charlottle Bobcats Saturday night.

"If the reports are true, it's unacceptable. It's unacceptable in our league. It doesn't matter if you're white, black, Hispanic, whatever, all across the races. It's unacceptable and as a commissioner in our league, they have to make a stand, and they have to be very aggressive with it."

"Should this guy continue to be an owner?" asked Shaquille O'Neal, who also called the comments "repugnant."

"We cannot have an NBA owner discriminating against the league," said Charles Barkley. "We're a black league."

Both discussed the issue during the Atlanta Hawks-Indiana Pacers halftime program on TNT, which like CNN is a division of Time Warner.

The players union's response will be led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star. "The reported comments made by Clippers owner Donald Sterling are reprehensible and unacceptable," he said in a statement.

Meantime, Sterling will be conspicuously missing from his usual courtside seats. He's agreed not to attend the Clippers playoff game Sunday in Oakland, California, against the Golden State Warriors.

Will the NBA make Sterling the first owner to give up team? (http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/27/us/nba-clippers-donald-sterling-next/index.html)

boozeman
04-27-2014, 07:10 PM
Wait, a rich white man is racist? Whoa.

NoDak
04-27-2014, 07:50 PM
Wait, a rich white man is racist? Whoa.

So, rich white men are racist?

I know a couple that could be considered rich. I'll have to keep an eye out for their racist tendencies.

boozeman
04-27-2014, 07:55 PM
So, rich white men are racist?

I know a couple that could be considered rich. I'll have to keep an eye out for their racist tendencies.

Don't be obtuse. I was not suggesting all old rich white men are racist. But by and large, I bet there is a good amount from that demographic.

And before you think I give a shit, I don't.

This is just not something that I find to be all that shocking honestly. About the only thing that is weird is that it is from an owner in a predominantly black sports league.

NoDak
04-27-2014, 07:56 PM
:lol

Carp
04-27-2014, 09:27 PM
Your move LT.

L.T. Fan
04-27-2014, 09:43 PM
Your move LT.

Booze needs to hang out with more rich old white guys. He would probably change his mind. I am pleased to know however that there are no young black or white racist.

Clay_Allison
04-27-2014, 11:26 PM
I think how rich we're talking about is a variable. Some guys are so rich they live in an insulated bubble where they don't feel any social stigma for acting like racist assholes.

I don't think a tool pusher in the oil field making 500k is the same kind of rich as a billionaire.

L.T. Fan
04-28-2014, 07:04 AM
I think how rich we're talking about is a variable. Some guys are so rich they live in an insulated bubble where they don't feel any social stigma for acting like racist assholes.

I don't think a tool pusher in the oil field making 500k is the same kind of rich as a billionaire.

Old white guys as a general matter don't work in the oil fields nor are they generally rich by American standards. I think the inference is that if you are old and white you are likely a racist. My point is that there is more likely to be racist views with the youth than the elderly.

Clay_Allison
04-28-2014, 02:10 PM
Old white guys as a general matter don't work in the oil fields nor are they generally rich by American standards. I think the inference is that if you are old and white you are likely a racist. My point is that there is more likely to be racist views with the youth than the elderly.

If you were in your 30s before the civil rights era and thus likely to have formed really stubborn racist opinions you'd be in your 80s or dead by now, so the racist grandpa trope should be slowly retiring from the public mindset.

That said, the rich thing is still a factor IMO. People try not to be offensive because they respond to peer pressure. Billionaires down to people worth tens of millions have few peers and are generally surrounded by yes men so if they have some offensive and unpopular beliefs, who is going to argue with them and tell them they are being a prick?

NoDak
04-28-2014, 03:00 PM
I think how rich we're talking about is a variable. Some guys are so rich they live in an insulated bubble where they don't feel any social stigma for acting like racist assholes.

I don't think a tool pusher in the oil field making 500k is the same kind of rich as a billionaire.

Huh? Who said anything about an oil field worker? This might come as a shock to you, but there are more than just oil field workers here.


And a tool pusher certainly doesn't make anything near 500k.

L.T. Fan
04-28-2014, 03:02 PM
If you were in your 30s before the civil rights era and thus likely to have formed really stubborn racist opinions you'd be in your 80s or dead by now, so the racist grandpa trope should be slowly retiring from the public mindset.

That said, the rich thing is still a factor IMO. People try not to be offensive because they respond to peer pressure. Billionaires down to people worth tens of millions have few peers and are generally surrounded by yes men so if they have some offensive and unpopular beliefs, who is going to argue with them and tell them they are being a prick?

I am trying to understand if this explains whether the racist attitude is more likely to be with older people or if the situation extends to all ages regardless of color. My sense tells me that the actions of individuals who enact hate crimes and racist activities are going to be prevailent with younger people via gangs and peer groups, etc. While all ages of every color will have racist attitudes I rarely see elderly promoting racial issues. I don't see wealth having anything to do with racist behavior or attitudes. To tie together White/Old/Rich to equal racist is as much a sterotyyping as identifying any other racist behavior or suspicion.

NoDak
04-28-2014, 03:04 PM
Billionaires down to people worth tens of millions have few peers and are generally surrounded by yes men so if they have some offensive and unpopular beliefs, who is going to argue with them and tell them they are being a prick?

I am amazed at how in touch you are with rich people.

As an aside, there are a shit ton of people up here now with millions of dollars of worth. I don't know any that are surrounded by yes men or those that have few peers.

Your ass. Stop talking out of it.

Clay_Allison
04-28-2014, 11:26 PM
I've had to work security at a gated community full of the most spoiled, rude, self absorbed super rich people you will ever care to meet. The only people that are more of a pain in the ass to deal with are their damned kids.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 09:05 AM
I think we're losing sight of a very important point here.

Donald Sterling is 100% Jewish. According to modern definitions, he's incapable of racism, because he actually doesn't come from a heritage of advantage, as a slighted minority.

Someone must have just quickly looked at his skin color and forgotten their story.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 09:25 AM
I think we're losing sight of a very important point here.

Donald Sterling is 100% Jewish. According to modern definitions, he's incapable of racism, because he actually doesn't come from a heritage of advantage, as a slighted minority.

Someone must have just quickly looked at his skin color and forgotten their story.

Racism exists with every color and ethnicity and has for centuries. World history will teach you that.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 09:53 AM
Racism exists with every color and ethnicity and has for centuries. World history will teach you that.

I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 10:01 AM
I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

If so then I will say all that in jest and jockularity.

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 11:09 AM
I think we're losing sight of a very important point here.

Donald Sterling is 100% Jewish. According to modern definitions, he's incapable of racism, because he actually doesn't come from a heritage of advantage, as a slighted minority.

Someone must have just quickly looked at his skin color and forgotten their story.

Sterling's just a weird guy. Have you listened to the tape? I listened to some of it and it sounded as if he wasn't even aware that he was dating a minority.

If you've seen pics of his girlfriend you can tell right away that she's a minority. He loathes minorities yet he's dating one??? :shrug

To most of us that doesn't make sense but then I thought of it like this.

The guy clearly has a slave master mentality.

1. The girlfriend who is a minority....even though slave masters hated blacks they notoriously slept with and raped black women.

2. In 2011 Sterling reportedly brought his girlfriend(s) into the locker room to watch the players shower and made comments like "Look at those beautiful black bodies"

3. On this recent tape he makes comments about how he feeds, clothes, and houses the players. Like slave masters he clearly views them as nothing more than property instead of humans.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 11:21 AM
Yeah, I'm not sticking up for Sterling. Guy's a douche.

I was just being snarky.

Kbrown
04-29-2014, 11:36 AM
This is a crazy thought, but does anyone find it weird that Magic Johnson was at the center of the recorded conversation and happens to be the first in line ready to buy the team after Sterling is pushed out? Not saying, just saying.

That isn't to say Sterling should go on in the NBA or isn't a horrendous racist, just strikes me as weird.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 11:41 AM
This is a crazy thought, but does anyone find it weird that Magic Johnson was at the center of the recorded conversation and happens to be the first in line ready to buy the team after Sterling is pushed out? Not saying, just saying.

That isn't to say Sterling should go on in the NBA or isn't a horrendous racist, just strikes me as weird.

Johnson was the subject to a portion of the conversation but are you inferring he had something to do with the conversations being recorded?

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 11:47 AM
Johnson was the subject to a portion of the conversation but are you inferring he had something to do with the conversations being recorded?

Kbrown would be implying. You would be inferring.

NoDak
04-29-2014, 11:59 AM
Double post

NoDak
04-29-2014, 11:59 AM
That's what is being speculated on sports radio. That the recording sounds like a setup, with the way the conversation is worded, and that Magic and his partners would be first in line to benefit if Sterling was forced to sell.

Not saying Sterling isn't racist, or whatever. But if this setup stuff is true, that's pretty shitty.

Kbrown
04-29-2014, 12:02 PM
Johnson was the subject to a portion of the conversation but are you inferring he had something to do with the conversations being recorded?

I'm saying that his "girlfriend" apparently had a vendetta against him and is "close" to Magic. Magic has an interest in the team. They have a mutual interest in goading him into saying something on tape that's going to get him forced to sell. Not outside the realm of possibility.

Not excusing it. Not saying his sentiments aren't real or are anyone else's fault. Just saying.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 12:04 PM
Kbrown would be implying. You would be inferring.

Don't expect an Apple.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 12:10 PM
I'm saying that his "girlfriend" apparently had a vendetta against him and is "close" to Magic. Magic has an interest in the team. They have a mutual interest in goading him into saying something on tape that's going to get him forced to sell. Not outside the realm of possibility.

Not excusing it. Not saying his sentiments aren't real or are anyone else's fault. Just saying.

That's an interesting theory. I hope it's not true. I have always respected Magic, but that would put him in the POS category.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 12:17 PM
I'm saying that his "girlfriend" apparently had a vendetta against him and is "close" to Magic. Magic has an interest in the team. They have a mutual interest in goading him into saying something on tape that's going to get him forced to sell. Not outside the realm of possibility.

Not excusing it. Not saying his sentiments aren't real or are anyone else's fault. Just saying.

Then are you IMPLYING there may be a conspiracy behind all this? (Pay attention Schmitty.):art

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 01:28 PM
Then are you IMPLYING there may be a conspiracy behind all this? (Pay attention Schmitty.):art

Good job.

NoDak
04-29-2014, 01:58 PM
It's being reported Sterling is going to be given an indefinite suspension, and a 5 million dollar fine.

Ridiculous. Even though what he said is wrong, it was still said in a private setting and was recorded without his knowledge. I don't agree with this at all.

NoDak
04-29-2014, 02:19 PM
They now reported the fine has been dropped to 2.5 million, but he has been banned from the league for life.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 02:24 PM
They fined him the max amount allowed. Will urge owners to force him to sell the team.

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 02:35 PM
They fined him the max amount allowed. Will urge owners to force him to sell the team.

The only way that I can see them being successful in forcing him to sell is if the NBA constitution and/or the ownership terms that he agreed to states that owners can be forced out if they violate specific rules.

If that's the case and he agreed to those terms then adios, asshole.

Texas Ace
04-29-2014, 02:38 PM
There's no way he could remain an owner anyway because no one is going to want to play for him.

Him remaining the owner of the Clippers would only result in a debacle. Players would demand to be released from their contracts, other players would ask not to be drafted, etc.....it would be a mess.

So whether they force him out or not, he pretty much has to give up the team now because there is no coming back from this.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 02:39 PM
The only way that I can see them being successful in forcing him to sell is if the NBA constitution and/or the ownership terms that he agreed to states that owners can be forced out if they violate specific rules.

If that's the case and he agreed to those terms then adios, asshole.

It only takes a 3/4 vote from the owners to remove him as an owner according to the NBA's constitution.

Texas Ace
04-29-2014, 02:40 PM
It only takes a 3/4 vote from the owners to remove him as an owner according to the NBA's constitution.

And whether they agree to it or not, all the owners are going to vote to remove him because none of them want to be known as the guy who cut him any slack.

They've already seen how players are protesting against him and the Clippers, so there's no way they are gonna risk having any of that happen to them.

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 02:40 PM
It's being reported Sterling is going to be given an indefinite suspension, and a 5 million dollar fine.

Ridiculous. Even though what he said is wrong, it was still said in a private setting and was recorded without his knowledge. I don't agree with this at all.

I get what you're saying but the cats out of the bag now and the league has no choice but to respond; especially with Sterling's track record.

I think his track record is the reason he was banned for life. If this were a first offense I think he's suspended indefinitely and returns in a year or two a la Marge Schott.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 02:42 PM
I get what you're saying but the cats out of the bag now and the league has no choice but to respond; especially with Sterling's track record.

His track record is the reason that I think he was banned for life. If this was a first time offense I think h'e suspended indefinitely and returns in a year or two a la Marge Schott.

I agree with this.

Texas Ace
04-29-2014, 02:43 PM
I get what you're saying but the cats out of the bag now and the league has no choice but to respond; especially with Sterling's track record.

His track record is the reason that I think he was banned for life. If this was a first time offense I think h'e suspended indefinitely and returns in a year or two a la Marge Schott.

Exactly.

He has a track record of both racist and sexist incidents so there was already a long list of stuff the guy had on his resume.

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 02:48 PM
It only takes a 3/4 vote from the owners to remove him as an owner according to the NBA's constitution.

I haven't read anything from the NBA constitution but it seems highly illegal to be able to force someone to sell their property unless, as I mentioned above, they've previously agreed to some sort of code of conduct.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 02:55 PM
I haven't read anything from the NBA constitution but it seems highly illegal to be able to force someone to sell their property unless, as I mentioned above, they've previously agreed to some sort of code of conduct.

I look forward to the inevitable litigation that is going to arise when he makes the fairly legitimate argument that a lifetime ban from all business dealings is tantamount to deprivation of his ownership rights.

I think Adam Silver overstepped on this one. No matter how repugnant he is, I don't think this flies.

Let the players refuse to sign there and coaches refuse to coach there. Eventually he'll be forced to sell the team or it will become such a mess they'll have other legitimate financial reasons to assume control of the franchise, beyond "We're going to punish him for his comments."

I would agree that the NBA doesn't have to associate with him if they don't want to, ie, it's not a "freedom of speech" issue, but the way the league is set up with ownership in franchises, they can't just lock him out unless they revoke the entire charter to the Clippers franchise.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 02:56 PM
NEW YORK -- Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been banned for life by the NBA in response to racist comments the league says he made in a recorded conversation.

Commissioner Adam Silver said he will try to force the controversial owner to sell his franchise. Sterling has also been fined $2.5 million, and Silver made no effort to hide his outrage over the comments, calling them "deeply disturbing and harmful."

He said a league investigation found that the league's longest-tenured owner was in fact the person on the audiotapes that were released over the weekend.

"We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views," Silver said. "They simply have no place in the NBA."

Sterling acknowledged he was the man on the tape, Silver said.

Sterling is immediately barred from attending any NBA games or practices, be present at any Clippers office or facility, or participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team.

He also cannot participate in any league business going forward.

"This league is far bigger than any one owner, any one coach and any one player," Silver said.

Silver said he would call on the owners to vote to force Sterling to sell the team. Such a move would require approval of three-quarters of the current owners.

The fine will be donated to organizations dedicated to anti-discrimination and tolerance efforts that will be jointly selected by the NBA and the Players Association, Silver said.

Sterling's comments were released over the weekend by TMZ and Deadspin, and the fallout has been swift: current and former NBA players have publicly denounced Sterling, the NAACP is returning donations he has made and canceled a planned award ceremony next month and sponsors have fled.

In the audio recording obtained by TMZ, a man alleged to be Sterling questions his girlfriend's association with minorities.

The man asks the Stiviano not to broadcast her association with black people or bring black people to games. The man specifically mentions Magic Johnson, the former Los Angeles Lakers star and NBA Hall of Famer, saying, "Don't bring him to my games, OK?"

"You can sleep with (black people). You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want," the man says on the tape. "The little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games."

Before Silver took the podium, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban tweeted out a photo of the NBA Constitution, saying "It exists for a reason."

The announcement of the sanctions came just hours before the Clippers will play Golden State in Game 5 of a knotted-up Western Conference first-round playoff series.

Several sponsors either terminated or suspended their business dealings with the team on Monday, though individual deals that some of those companies have with Clippers stars like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin will continue and were not affected. Still, it was a clear statement that companies, like just about everyone inside the league, were outraged.

The issues raised when the tapes were released over the weekend represent just another chapter in Sterling's long history of being at the center of controversy.

In the past, he's faced extensive federal charges of civil rights violations and racial discrimination in his business dealings, and some of his race-related statements would be described as shocking.

He has also been sued in the past for sexual harassment by former employees, and even the woman who goes by the name "V. Stiviano" - purportedly the female voice on the tapes at the center of this scandal - describes Sterling in court documents as a man "with a big toothy grin brandishing his sexual prowess in the faces of the Paparazzi and caring less what anyone else thought, the least of which, his own wife."

Stiviano is being sued by Rochelle Sterling, who is seeking to reclaim at least $1.8 million in cash and gifts that her husband allegedly provided the woman.

In modern professional sports, there is only one precedent for forcing an owner to sell their team for incendiary commentary: Marge Schott, who owned baseball's Cincinnati Reds from 1986 to 1999.

"They could try to force the owner to sell the team, but they'd have huge legal hurdles," CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford told "CBS This Morning." "It'd be tough to go into a court of law and say we're going to force him to give up his property, what he owns, because of his comments."

CBSSports.com's Ken Berger reports there are few parallels between what happened with Schott and what is happening with Sterling.

Schott was only forced to sell "after years of pressure from baseball and fellow owners, and only after General Motors accused her of falsifying car sales with the names of team employees at a Chevrolet dealership she had since sold. Even then, Schott reaped the financial benefit of the sale and retained one ownership share as well as 21 box seats and a luxury suite, according to this story from the Cincinnati Enquirer," Berger wrote.

The league's owners are wary of forcing Sterling to sell his team, even if it would bring him a financial windfall. The league took over the New Orleans Hornets from previous owner George Shinn, but that was because of financial difficulties. The Clippers are a profitable team and Sterling is worth a reported $1.9 billion, so money is not an issue in this case. Plus, taking such measures would almost assuredly bring a lawsuit from Sterling and a long, expensive legal fight.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 03:02 PM
I haven't read anything from the NBA constitution but it seems highly illegal to be able to force someone to sell their property unless, as I mentioned above, they've previously agreed to some sort of code of conduct.

If he refuses to sell they will just remove the team from the league would be my guess.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:17 PM
If he refuses to sell they will just remove the team from the league would be my guess.

I doubt it gets that far.

Blake Griffin and Chris Paul have long term contracts with the Clippers, don't they? The league will cast those players out along with the Donald Sterling to teach an 80 year old racist a vindictive lesson? Sterling could get an injunction to prevent them from playing in the NBA if his team is removed from the league, I'm sure, since he still has a contract with them.

I think the NBA needs to seriously take a chill pill. 1 year suspension, a bigger fine, and mandate that he undergoes counseling or something.

The guy is a horrible human being. We get it.

Do you think any fans actually think he speaks for the league? Do you think that the league's reaction hasn't been strong and swift enough to make it clear that he doesn't speak for the rest of them? Does anyone think the league is run by racists because Sterling, who is a complete laughingstock and has been for decades, made some offhanded racist comments to his girlfriend (who is black, by the way... some racist he is)? Are minorities suffering any actual, demonstrable harm due to his lunatic ramblings?

Let his sponsors abandon him. Punishment enough.

Taking away his property, or forcing him to sell, seems wrong to me.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 03:20 PM
I doubt it gets that far.

Blake Griffin and Chris Paul have long term contracts with the Clippers, don't they? The league will cast those players out along with the Donald Sterling to teach an 80 year old racist a vindictive lesson? Sterling could get an injunction to prevent them from playing in the NBA if his team is removed from the league, I'm sure, since he still has a contract with them.

I think the NBA needs to seriously take a chill pill. 1 year suspension, a bigger fine, and mandate that he undergoes counseling or something.

The guy is a horrible human being. We get it.

Do you think any fans actually think he speaks for the league? Do you think that the league's reaction hasn't been strong and swift enough to make it clear that he doesn't speak for the rest of them? Does anyone think the league is run by racists because Sterling, who is a complete laughingstock and has been for decades, made some offhanded racist comments to his girlfriend (who is black, by the way... some racist he is)? Are minorities suffering any actual, demonstrable harm due to his lunatic ramblings?

Let his sponsors abandon him. Punishment enough.

Taking away his property, or forcing him to sell, seems wrong to me.

I would guess they would let the players loose into FA if that happened. Plus, they couldn't fine him more. That was the max amount allowed.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:25 PM
I would guess they would let the players loose into FA if that happened.

Who would? On what authority can the league void a contract that Chris Paul made with Donald Sterling?

I think the base interpretation of those contracts is going to be that Chris Paul has an obligation to make himself available to suit up for the Los Angeles Clippers for the next X amount of years. If those years is shooting hoops in a dark LA gym with only Donald Sterling watching, that's the obligation Chris Paul has to meet. He can't just go sign elsewhere because the league kicks out his team. Paul's contract is with the Clippers, not with the league.

The league is going to have to get creative to get a judge to toss out basic contract law and void those contracts, so that they can be free agents. If I was a judge, I wouldn't.

I mean, Chris Paul could always just go sign with an NBA team anyway, and the NBA could say "we are not honoring your existing contract with Don Sterling," but then there will be a huge lawsuit by Sterling seeking to hold Paul accountable for every dollar he's been paid by the Clippers, and probably suing the league for tortious interference with contract.

It would be a disaster because Sterling would be legally correct. Does Chris Paul want to take a $50 million stand on principle?

For the league to have a leg to stand on here, someone is probably going to have to invent a new precedent. And the basis for their argument is, "These contracts are void because Don Sterling is a horrible racist." Good luck.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:32 PM
That's another hilarious thing, by the way.... the NAACP is returning donations he's made to them. Yeah, that'll show him. Instead of using his money to prevent racism, we're gonna give it back to him.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 03:32 PM
Who would? On what authority can the league void a contract that Chris Paul made with Donald Sterling?

I think the base interpretation of those contracts is going to be that Chris Paul has an obligation to make himself available to suit up for the Los Angeles Clippers for the next X amount of years. If those years is shooting hoops in a dark LA gym with only Donald Sterling watching, that's the obligation Chris Paul has to meet. He can't just go sign elsewhere because the league kicks out his team. Paul's contract is with the Clippers, not with the league.

The league is going to have to get creative to get a judge to toss out basic contract law and void those contracts, so that they can be free agents. If I was a judge, I wouldn't.

I mean, Chris Paul could always just go sign with an NBA team anyway, and the NBA could say "we are not honoring your existing contract with Don Sterling," but then there will be a huge lawsuit by Sterling seeking to hold Paul accountable for every dollar he's been paid by the Clippers, and probably suing the league for tortious interference with contract.

It would be a disaster because Sterling would be legally correct. Does Chris Paul want to take a $50 million stand on principle?

For the league to have a leg to stand on here, someone is probably going to have to invent a new precedent. And the basis for their argument is, "These contracts are void because Don Sterling is a horrible racist." Good luck.

The leagues has the authority to block a contract and void a current contract.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 03:37 PM
Upon a finding of a violation of Section 1 above by the System Arbitrator, but
only following the conclusion of any appeal to the Appeals Panel, the Commissioner shall be
authorized to:

(i) impose a fine of up to $2,500,000 (50% of which shall be payable to
the NBA, and 50% of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected
Charitable Organization (as defined in Article VI, Section 6(a))) on
any Team found to have committed such violation for the first time;

(ii) impose a fine of up to $3,000,000 (50% of which shall be payable to
the NBA, and 50% of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected
Charitable Organization on any Team found to have committed such
violation for at least the second time;

(iii) direct the forfeiture of one first round draft pick;

(iv) void any Player Contract, or any Renegotiation, Extension, or
amendment of a Player Contract, between any player and any Team
when both the player (or any person or entity acting with authority on
behalf of such player) and the Team (or Team Affiliate) are found to
have committed such violation; and/or

(v) void any other transaction or agreement found to have violated Section
1 above.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:38 PM
The leagues has the authority to block a contract and void a current contract.

They claim they do. When David Stern voided the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal, the Lakers were not going to sue because it's cutting off their nose to spite their face. At the end of the day, they are playing a game, and they've kinda implicitly agreed that the Commissioner has the final say on Rule interpretation.

If you remove the Clippers franchise from the NBA, though, Sterling has no more incentive to play by the rules. He's not going to simply lie down and accept the NBA cancelling his contracts on their say-so. It's going to go to a court.

And I'm not so sure a judge would agree that the NBA has the power to do that unilaterally.

Foobio
04-29-2014, 03:38 PM
My first thought is...In 25 years no one has been able to record Jerruh dropping the N bomb?

People, get your shit together and make this happen

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:39 PM
Upon a finding of a violation of Section 1 above by the System Arbitrator, but
only following the conclusion of any appeal to the Appeals Panel, the Commissioner shall be
authorized to:

(i) impose a fine of up to $2,500,000 (50% of which shall be payable to
the NBA, and 50% of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected
Charitable Organization (as defined in Article VI, Section 6(a))) on
any Team found to have committed such violation for the first time;

(ii) impose a fine of up to $3,000,000 (50% of which shall be payable to
the NBA, and 50% of which shall be payable to the NBPA-Selected
Charitable Organization on any Team found to have committed such
violation for at least the second time;

(iii) direct the forfeiture of one first round draft pick;

(iv) void any Player Contract, or any Renegotiation, Extension, or
amendment of a Player Contract, between any player and any Team
when both the player (or any person or entity acting with authority on
behalf of such player) and the Team (or Team Affiliate) are found to
have committed such violation; and/or

(v) void any other transaction or agreement found to have violated Section
1 above.


Can I get the link to that?

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 03:40 PM
Can I get the link to that?

http://www.nbpa.org/sites/default/files/ARTICLE%20XIII.pdf

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 03:41 PM
That's another hilarious thing, by the way.... the NAACP is returning donations he's made to them. Yeah, that'll show him. Instead of using his money to prevent racism, we're gonna give it back to him.

They're a bunch of frauds and hypocrites. Sterling's been a well known racist/bigot for over a decade and they had no problem taking his money even with that track record of his.

Them returning money comes off as phony. The only reason they're doing this is to try to save face because now that Sterling has been punished the next round of hard questions are going to be aimed at individuals and institutions like the NAACP who knowingly enabled Sterling's behavior.

The NAACP could have taken a stand on this issue a long time ago instead of gripping and grinning with a guy who loathes them and everything they stand for.

David Stern is another one who will probably have to answer some tough questions. That is if he comes out of hiding.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 03:42 PM
Never mind, I found it.

http://www.nbpa.org/sites/default/files/ARTICLE%20XIII.pdf

The power to void a contract that you cited there is from a violation of "Section 1" which is talking about the commissioner's power to void contracts due to violations for salary cap circumvention, not racist statements from owners.

Judge Schmidt to NBA: Motion denied.

jsmith6919
04-29-2014, 03:53 PM
461230244083822592

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 04:06 PM
I'm with Schmitty on this as to the reaction by the NBA. They are racking up a lot of potential liabilaties by moving this drastic this quickly. The pressure to punish rapidly for public sentiment may get them in a place to where the wiggle room is gone. I hope they had excellent legal counselor because they appear to have set a lot of prescident moves over the last few days.

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 04:08 PM
461230244083822592

I'm pretty sure at least 60% of Cowboy fans have had that thought cross their mind over the last 96 hours.

Damn Clippers have all the luck. :sad

1bigfan13
04-29-2014, 04:14 PM
Never mind, I found it.

http://www.nbpa.org/sites/default/files/ARTICLE%20XIII.pdf

The power to void a contract that you cited there is from a violation of "Section 1" which is talking about the commissioner's power to void contracts due to violations for salary cap circumvention, not racist statements from owners.

Judge Schmidt to NBA: Motion denied.

Besides the constitution I'd like to see the paperwork that owners agree to when signing on for ownership. Surely Silver and the rest of the league attorneys have something firm in hand that will back up this punishment.

I don't think the head of the NBA would rush to judgment w/o a leg to stand on just to placate the masses. There's got to be some sort of ownership code of conduct that all owners must adhere to and I'm guessing that's what they're banking on to uphold this ruling.

dallen
04-29-2014, 05:01 PM
They claim they do. When David Stern voided the Chris Paul to the Lakers deal, the Lakers were not going to sue because it's cutting off their nose to spite their face. At the end of the day, they are playing a game, and they've kinda implicitly agreed that the Commissioner has the final say on Rule interpretation.

If you remove the Clippers franchise from the NBA, though, Sterling has no more incentive to play by the rules. He's not going to simply lie down and accept the NBA cancelling his contracts on their say-so. It's going to go to a court.

And I'm not so sure a judge would agree that the NBA has the power to do that unilaterally.

What would be the poing of fighting it though? The longer he drags out a fight he has no hope of winning the more he lowers the value of the team. (not winning in a legal sense, winning in a actually being a part of the NBA sense)

dallen
04-29-2014, 05:03 PM
I'm with Schmitty on this as to the reaction by the NBA. They are racking up a lot of potential liabilaties by moving this drastic this quickly. The pressure to punish rapidly for public sentiment may get them in a place to where the wiggle room is gone. I hope they had excellent legal counselor because they appear to have set a lot of prescident moves over the last few days.

Silver is an attorney

Texas Ace
04-29-2014, 05:04 PM
Besides the constitution I'd like to see the paperwork that owners agree to when signing on for ownership. Surely Silver and the rest of the league attorneys have something firm in hand that will back up this punishment.

I don't think the head of the NBA would rush to judgment w/o a leg to stand on just to placate the masses. There's got to be some sort of ownership code of conduct that all owners must adhere to and I'm guessing that's what they're banking on to uphold this ruling.

Right.

UncleMilti
04-29-2014, 05:08 PM
Sterling is a total asshole, but he will add some serious cash to his coffers if the NBA forces him to sell the team over words and statements he made in his own home.

That is the kicker....he can be whatever he wants to be in his own home..racist, bigot...whatever. No court in this country will punish him for his right of free speech.

Cuban basically said the same thing. The NBA is acting like they are the Supreme court, with Silver one of the Justices. :lol

The fallout from players and fans will add up to forcing the guy to give up the team.....to me that is more justice than the NBA pulling a power move on him.

boozeman
04-29-2014, 05:59 PM
I'm with Schmitty on this as to the reaction by the NBA. They are racking up a lot of potential liabilaties by moving this drastic this quickly. The pressure to punish rapidly for public sentiment may get them in a place to where the wiggle room is gone. I hope they had excellent legal counselor because they appear to have set a lot of prescident moves over the last few days.

It was hardly surprising. The "outrage" on Twitter was only equaled by the lauding of Silver for delivering "justice". There are mass murderers who have been judged less quickly and harshly. Just the way our society is now I guess.

BipolarFuk
04-29-2014, 06:03 PM
Forced to sell the team? OH NOES!!

Bought it for 12 mil 20 years ago and now is worth almost 600 mil.

boozeman
04-29-2014, 06:05 PM
Forced to sell the team? OH NOES!!

Bought it for 12 mil 20 years ago and now is worth almost 600 mil.

Hmmm. Lemme think. Yeah, I am going to go with he doesn't get what the team is worth because he's going to be forced to sell.

L.T. Fan
04-29-2014, 07:36 PM
Silver is an attorney

He still needs legal counsel to fall back on if things go sideways for him. I wouldn't take on that chore by myself even if I was a former Chief Justice.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 07:46 PM
Two rap songs already mention Sterling. They are both fucking horrible. Not because of what they are trying to express; they are just really bad.

Needless to say, NSFW.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjgUseWqD-Q


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yzjC4Joq3k

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 07:51 PM
461287502704177152

Ugh.

boozeman
04-29-2014, 07:55 PM
Two rap songs already mention Sterling. They are both fucking horrible. Not because of what they are trying to express; they are just really bad.

Needless to say, NSFW.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjgUseWqD-Q



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yzjC4Joq3k


I gotta tell ya, excellent musical work like that will really aid in making people more racially sensitive.

Carl
04-29-2014, 08:16 PM
I think Silver might be jealous of the real Donalds hair.

BipolarFuk
04-29-2014, 09:33 PM
Too bad one of Teh Jer's whores doesn't get him liquored up and record him.

EZ22
04-29-2014, 09:55 PM
A lifetime ban doesn't seem so bad when you're 81.

EZ22
04-29-2014, 09:57 PM
Freedom of speech in government is worlds different than in private organizations that have conduct/behavior requirements in their contracts.

EZ22
04-29-2014, 09:58 PM
Doesn't surprise me that Schmitty and many others here are defending this guy.

NoDak
04-29-2014, 10:12 PM
Doesn't surprise me that Schmitty and many others here are defending this guy.

Who's defending him? Pretty much everyone has said he's a POS and are only questioning the process and the way it's taking place.

Carp
04-29-2014, 10:17 PM
To me it does not matter how it got out. He said it and admitted to it. If I am another owner I don't want a fellow owner in the league I am invested in to have those views.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 10:44 PM
Doesn't surprise me that Schmitty and many others here are defending this guy.

Doesn't surprise me that you so quickly forget things like due process.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 10:49 PM
Freedom of speech in government is worlds different than in private organizations that have conduct/behavior requirements in their contracts.

Yes, but private organizations can dictate what their employees say and do. A television network can dictate what their show hosts say and do. A commercial sponsor can withdraw their funding if they don't like the message that is being sent.

When you are the owner, though, you own something. You have property rights that are just as sacred as the right to the house you own. Donald Sterling owns the property that is the LA Clippers. I have a hard time believing the league can actually take it away from him or force him to sell it to them if he doesn't want to.

And a lifetime ban is very similar. Oh, so I can't make personnel decisions for the team I own, eh Adam Silver? Kindly go F yourself, I own this team, I'll sign whoever I want.

In the end the league will slog him down with litigation and they will come to some sort of agreement that he turns over control, like what happened with Marge Schott, but I'd be shocked if you ever see a Court actually order that they have the unilateral power to deprive him of the right to run the team that he owns.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 10:53 PM
Oh and for the record, I'm completely supportive if Doc Rivers says he doesn't want to coach there or if players refuse to sign there. When his team becomes so unprofitable by boycott that it makes no sense for him to own it anymore, then he'll sell it.

That is the correct way to punish Donald Sterling, by the free market imparting it's judgement on him.

Stripping away something he owns by force is wrong and it's not going to be legal.

Carp
04-29-2014, 11:12 PM
Good lord man...the guy has no business owning the team anymore. Glad he is being forced out and there is nothing your posts can do to save him. There are guidelines and a code of ethics in owning a team in the NBA. You act as if Silver is being a cowboy here, but there is no way in hell he'd push this if he did not have legal back up to do so. He's a lawyer just like you, but he just so happens to be so super successful that he was named commissioner of a major sports league.

Let the free market sort it out...meanwhile you alienate African Americans and completely blow up a franchise because you want to posture.

Iamtdg
04-29-2014, 11:17 PM
Yes, but private organizations can dictate what their employees say and do. A television network can dictate what their show hosts say and do. A commercial sponsor can withdraw their funding if they don't like the message that is being sent.

When you are the owner, though, you own something. You have property rights that are just as sacred as the right to the house you own. Donald Sterling owns the property that is the LA Clippers. I have a hard time believing the league can actually take it away from him or force him to sell it to them if he doesn't want to.

And a lifetime ban is very similar. Oh, so I can't make personnel decisions for the team I own, eh Adam Silver? Kindly go F yourself, I own this team, I'll sign whoever I want.

In the end the league will slog him down with litigation and they will come to some sort of agreement that he turns over control, like what happened with Marge Schott, but I'd be shocked if you ever see a Court actually order that they have the unilateral power to deprive him of the right to run the team that he owns.

Your logic is flawed since the owners are technically employees of the league. It's not anything like the private industry at all.

mschmidt64
04-29-2014, 11:52 PM
Your logic is flawed since the owners are technically employees of the league.

That is not true.

Carp
04-29-2014, 11:53 PM
Schmitty is ok with Rivers walking away from 2 years/14 million and from coaching a really good team because his owner is a racist piece of shit. That will really teach Sterling a lesson. Free market!

Carp
04-29-2014, 11:56 PM
Mark Cuban...another owner and smart businessman agrees with Silver. If only he was smarter.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:00 AM
Good lord man...the guy has no business owning the team anymore.

Actually he does have business owning it... since... he owns it. It's his business. He has a very vested interest in owning the team.


Glad he is being forced out and there is nothing your posts can do to save him.

I'm not trying to save him, just posting my opinion.


There are guidelines and a code of ethics in owning a team in the NBA. You act as if Silver is being a cowboy here, but there is no way in hell he'd push this if he did not have legal back up to do so.

Not necessarily, people overstep their authority sometimes.

And my guess is that they know they really can't do this legally, but that they'll litigate him so far that eventually everything will settle and he'll agree to step down, which is what happened with Schott.

Doesn't make it right though.


Let the free market sort it out...meanwhile you alienate African Americans and completely blow up a franchise because you want to posture.

How would supporting athletes who say they don't want to sign there or coaches who don't want to coach there be "alienating" African Americans? Did the league alienate African Americans by supporting him even though he was a well known racist before this incident? No?

You could still turn Sterling and his franchise into a pariah until he decided to sell for financial reasons. I don't buy that African Americans are going to feel betrayed if the league came down with any harsh punishment that fell short of depriving him of his property rights.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:01 AM
Schmitty is ok with Rivers walking away from 2 years/14 million and from coaching a really good team because his owner is a racist piece of shit. That will really teach Sterling a lesson. Free market!

Carp has no argument so he resorts to sarcasm again! Tired old schtick.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:02 AM
Mark Cuban...another owner and smart businessman agrees with Silver. If only he was smarter.

Didn't Cuban say they should be wary about stripping away ownership?

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:04 AM
Carp has no argument so he resorts to sarcasm again! Tired old schtick.

Did I change any of your words? You are fine with him walking away and that is what he would lose. It's truth...a tired schtick indeed.

Clay_Allison
04-30-2014, 12:05 AM
Yes, but private organizations can dictate what their employees say and do. A television network can dictate what their show hosts say and do. A commercial sponsor can withdraw their funding if they don't like the message that is being sent.

When you are the owner, though, you own something. You have property rights that are just as sacred as the right to the house you own. Donald Sterling owns the property that is the LA Clippers. I have a hard time believing the league can actually take it away from him or force him to sell it to them if he doesn't want to.

And a lifetime ban is very similar. Oh, so I can't make personnel decisions for the team I own, eh Adam Silver? Kindly go F yourself, I own this team, I'll sign whoever I want.

In the end the league will slog him down with litigation and they will come to some sort of agreement that he turns over control, like what happened with Marge Schott, but I'd be shocked if you ever see a Court actually order that they have the unilateral power to deprive him of the right to run the team that he owns.

Just because you own a sports team, it doesn't guarantee you get to be part of a sports league if the members want to vote you out. Iamdg already linked you to the part that says that he can void all of the players' contracts. Whether the NBA can force him to sell the name "Clippers" or not, they can basically make it moot by making it worthless to him if he refuses to sell.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:07 AM
Did I change any of your words? You are fine with him walking away and that is what he would lose. It's truth...a tired schtick indeed.

Didn't say you changed my words, I said you resorted to sarcasm. And yeah, that is what he should do. Rivers should step away and never coach for them again, if he feels that strongly about it. Rivers is the one who signed on to coach for a well known racist.

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:07 AM
I don't buy that African Americans are going to feel betrayed if the league came down with any harsh punishment that fell short of depriving him of his property rights.

They wouldn't? The Warriors were going to walk off the court in protest after warm ups if things did not end up the way they did.

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:10 AM
Didn't say you changed my words, I said you resorted to sarcasm. And yeah, that is what he should do. Rivers should step away and never coach for them again, if he feels that strongly about it. Rivers is the one who signed on to coach for a well known racist.
It is the truth...you are fine with a guy walking away from 14 mil based on actions outside his own. You are fine with the Clippers being retarded as a franchise so you can sit back and watch things burn. Cool.

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:12 AM
Didn't Cuban say they should be wary about stripping away ownership?

Cuban tweeted his full support. Apparently he changed his mind...you can too.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:13 AM
Just because you own a sports team, it doesn't guarantee you get to be part of a sports league if the members want to vote you out.

No, but what would make more sense is them removing the "Clippers" franchise from the league by vote, moreso than stripping away his ownership, if he refuses to sell. If you kick the franchise that he owns out of the league, he still owns the rights to the name, the logo, the lease to play in the stadium, etc. Those things have become worthless because of his own stupid actions and he'll suffer for it.

But then you have the issue with the existing contracts that I mentioned.


Iamdg already linked you to the part that says that he can void all of the players' contracts.

No, he did not. He linked me to part of a document that said the league can void a player contract when the player or the team violates something called "Section 1."

Section 1 was about circumvention of the salary cap. What Iamtdg linked me to gave the league no power to void contracts for owner racism.


Whether the NBA can force him to sell the name "Clippers" or not, they can basically make it moot by making it worthless to him if he refuses to sell.

Yes, agreed. And that is within their prerogative.

But that also means they are potentially banishing Chris Paul and Blake Griffin to no mans land until their contracts with the Clippers expire, or opening themselves up to serious lawsuits for circumventing those contracts.

Maybe the league's proper response should be to do that and then pay whatever lawsuits they incur for violating those contracts. It will be expensive though. But apparently everyone is taking a moral stand right now, so put their money where their mouth is.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:15 AM
They wouldn't? The Warriors were going to walk off the court in protest after warm ups if things did not end up the way they did.

Really? The Warriors were not going to play unless the league banned him for life and called a vote to strip him of ownership? Please link me to where someone said that.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:16 AM
It is the truth...you are fine with a guy walking away from 14 mil based on actions outside his own. You are fine with the Clippers being retarded as a franchise so you can sit back and watch things burn. Cool.

I don't want to watch things burn, I want to respect people's property rights even if they are racists. This is America, we have rights. Even the bad people.

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:18 AM
Really? The Warriors were not going to play unless the league banned him for life and called a vote to strip him of ownership? Please link me to where someone said that.

Use Google.

Clay_Allison
04-30-2014, 12:21 AM
No, but what would make more sense is them removing the "Clippers" franchise from the league by vote, moreso than stripping away his ownership, if he refuses to sell. If you kick the franchise that he owns out of the league, he still owns the rights to the name, the logo, the lease to play in the stadium, etc. Those things have become worthless because of his own stupid actions and he'll suffer for it.

But then you have the issue with the existing contracts that I mentioned.



No, he did not. He linked me to part of a document that said the league can void a player contract when the player or the team violates something called "Section 1."

Section 1 was about circumvention of the salary cap. What Iamtdg linked me to gave the league no power to void contracts for owner racism.



Yes, agreed. And that is within their prerogative.

But that also means they are potentially banishing Chris Paul and Blake Griffin to no mans land until their contracts with the Clippers expire, or opening themselves up to serious lawsuits for circumventing those contracts.

Those contracts aren't personal services contracts made between Sterling and those players outside the purview of the NBA. I doubt they would be enforceable if the league owners voted to declare them invalid under the circumstances.

They signed those contracts to play basketball, I don't think Sterling can hold them hostage because I would bet you can't force players to sit at home and ride out their deals any more in the NBA than you could in the NFL.

Also, how is Sterling going to PAY them if the league folds the Clippers. Does he have so much cash on hand that he could actually pay their salaries and not breach their contracts with no revenue?

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:25 AM
Those contracts aren't personal services contracts made between Sterling and those players outside the purview of the NBA. I doubt they would be enforceable if the league owners voted to declare them invalid under the circumstances.

They signed those contracts to play basketball, I don't think Sterling can hold them hostage because I would bet you can't force players to sit at home and ride out their deals any more in the NBA than you could in the NFL.

Doesn't the NFL do that all the time? Pays players not to play. I've seen players dismissed from teams before.

I don't know if the contract says "Void if the team gets kicked out of the league" though because I doubt that was ever contemplated.


Also, how is Sterling going to PAY them if the league folds the Clippers. Does he have so much cash on hand that he could actually pay their salaries and not breach their contracts with no revenue?

Well, that's up to him. If he can't pay, he breaches, they are free to move on.

Carp
04-30-2014, 12:33 AM
OMG...even the Bulls were not going to play tonight. Nope, no backlash at all. :lol

LOS ANGELES -- The Warriors players were prepared to boycott Game 5 of their first-round series against the Los Angeles Clippers on Tuesday had they been dissatisfied by sanctions announced by NBA commissioner Adam Silver.

Guard Stephen Curry said that had Silver merely announced an indefinite suspension and fine, every Warriors player planned to walk off the court as the jump ball was tossed for the opening tipoff.

"It would have been our only chance to make a statement in front of the biggest audience that we weren't going to accept anything but the maximum punishment," Curry said. "We would deal with the consequences later but we were not going to play."

NBA players association vice president Roger Mason Jr. said outside Staples Center that he spoke with Warriors center Jermaine O'Neal about a possible boycott.

"He said specifically that if they don't make that man sell his team or their recommendation isn't that, that they would be prepared to boycott the game and not play," Mason Jr. said.

Silver announced that Sterling would be banned for life from any association with the Clippers or the NBA while also that he would urge the league's Board of Governors to exercise its authority to force a sale.

"If the league didn't come down as harsh as it did, I think you would have seen not only the Golden State Warriors, but players leaguewide do something about it," Mason Jr. said.

Warriors coach Mark Jackson, who had said the previous day it was best for his team to play, acknowledged that a boycott was possible had Silver not acted.

"It was a real discussion amongst the players, and I think they were sitting, listening very closely to the tone and the words that came out of the mouth of the commissioner," Jackson said. "And so it was a real option."

With the NBA authorizing closed locker rooms for both teams before the game, citing an overwhelming amount of media requests, Warriors guard Stephen Curry released a statement before the game.

"I was pleased in the matter in which the NBA and Commissioner Silver handled this unfortunate situation -- promptly and decisively," Curry said. "There is no place for such hatred in the world or in the workplace. I think the message delivered today sends a strong but fair statement that such behavior will not be tolerated in our society, regardless of your stature. I hope we can put this behind us and move forward."

For more on the Warriors, see the Inside the Warriors blog at ibabuzz.com/warriors. Follow Diamond Leung on Twitter at twitter.com/diamond83.
-----------
Did the bold, historic punishment NBA Commissioner Adam Silver meted out to Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling avert a players’ boycott of Tuesday night playoff games?

Roger Mason Jr., the first vice-president of the National Basketball Players Association, said it did. Players were so outraged by Sterling’s racist comments that they were prepared to stage a walkout if Sterling’s punishment didn’t measure up.

“I heard from our players and all of our players felt like boycotting the games tonight,” Mason said. “We’re talking about all NBA players. We’re talking about the playoff games tonight.”

In a late-afternoon press conference in Los Angeles, Mason said he spoke to player representatives from every playoff team and there was no dissent. Games between the Chicago Bulls and Washington Wizards, the Memphis Grizzlies and Oklahoma City Thunder and the Golden State Warriors and Clippers would have been affected.

“I reached out to other players around the league and made it clear the players were ready to boycott the games if this type of action was not something that Adam Silver felt was necessary,” Mason said. “I’m happy to come here today and say that, as players, we’re very happy with the decision, but we’re not content yet. We want immediate action. We want a timetable from the owners as far as when this vote is going to happen. We feel confident that with Adam Silver’s urging and obviously we’ve heard from a lot of the owners around the league, we think this is something that can be handled quickly.”

Over the weekend, players had been buoyed by strong comments from several of their leaders, past and present: Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan (also an owner), LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. The Clippers protested before Game 4 Sunday afternoon, removing their shooting shirts with the big Clippers logo and leaving them at midcourt. Instead, they wore inside-out shirts with the smallest of logos on their warmup pants. During the game, they wore black armbands. On Monday, players in two playoff games wore black socks in a gesture of solidarity. No doubt that got the owners’ attention.

“We were prepared in the event that this decision [to ban and remove Sterling] didn’t come down to move forward that way. We didn’t think this was just a Clippers issue, so we didn’t want to put the pressure on Chris Paul and Blake Griffin and that team. We wanted to band behind our brothers to do the right thing and that would have been to communicate with the other teams in our league and let them know what we were going to do.”

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 12:42 AM
Interesting. Still don't think the league's reputation would have been irreparably harmed, though. There are so many other ways to act in unison to condemn the guy and put pressure on him.

Clay_Allison
04-30-2014, 12:46 AM
Doesn't the NFL do that all the time? Pays players not to play. I've seen players dismissed from teams before.

The last time a team got away with that was when the Bucs sent Keyshawn Johnson home for the rest of the year, in 2003. There is now an upper limit to how many games a player can be suspended by the team. It came up when the Eagles suspended T.O. in 2005.

L.T. Fan
04-30-2014, 07:04 AM
Get real folks. Questioning a legal due process does not equate to supporting racism. If you can make that leap then I can only question that logic as knee jerk. I have questions as well about whether Silver's actions can be challenged from a legal standpoint so does that make me a racist? The very heart of the judicial system is predicated on presenting legal points of view.
How about this. Some folks on the board support the legalization of marijuana. Does that mean they support the Mexican drug cartel?

Carp
04-30-2014, 08:24 AM
Get real folks. Questioning a legal due process does not equate to supporting racism. If you can make that leap then I can only question that logic as knee jerk. I have questions as well about whether Silver's actions can be challenged from a legal standpoint so does that make me a racist? The very heart of the judicial system is predicated on presenting legal points of view.
How about this. Some folks on the board support the legalization of marijuana. Does that mean they support the Mexican drug cartel?
Nobody is calling you or Schmitty a racist. I hope it does go through a legal process so there is a resolution everyone is comfortable with.

Deuce
04-30-2014, 08:44 AM
Nobody is calling you or Schmitty a racist. I hope it does go through a legal process so there is a resolution everyone is comfortable with.

That won't happen. Silver acted quickly which made me think he did what was in his power. If he overstepped those bounds, there's going to be a lot of angry people who feel cheated from justice just because they were teased with such huge penalties to begin with.

Carp
04-30-2014, 09:01 AM
That won't happen. Silver acted quickly which made me think he did what was in his power. If he overstepped those bounds, there's going to be a lot of angry people who feel cheated from justice just because they were teased with such huge penalties to begin with.

I was listening to Lester Munson and he said that there is basically no due process in the NBA constitution...so they didn't do anything out of line per the parameters that owners agreed to when they bought an NBA franchise.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 09:17 AM
I was listening to Lester Munson and he said that there is basically no due process in the NBA constitution...so they didn't do anything out of line per the parameters that owners agreed to when they bought an NBA franchise.

That has been my point all along. They did what was within their contractual and NBA constitutional rights. And, if they vote him out, they will still be well within their rights.

NoDak
04-30-2014, 09:36 AM
ESPN is reporting that the Clippers are worth around 650-700 million dollars. What happens if the best offer that comes in for the Clippers is 250 million. Is he forced to take it?

NoDak
04-30-2014, 09:41 AM
Cuban tweeted his full support. Apparently he changed his mind...you can too.

Cuban also said this:

"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

Carp
04-30-2014, 09:42 AM
ESPN is reporting that the Clippers are worth around 650-700 million dollars. What happens if the best offer that comes in for the Clippers is 250 million. Is he forced to take it?

No idea...if the Board of Governors vote him out I am sure he and the league will have a timetable to change ownership. Let's not act like he won't get a fair price...this is a highly popular team that plays in LA....in the Staples Center...he'll get plenty of bids.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 09:44 AM
That has been my point all along. They did what was within their contractual and NBA constitutional rights. And, if they vote him out, they will still be well within their rights.

Those contracts were written by the NBA and now the NBA is saying they are enforceable. The league is going to say they have the power to do what they did? What a shock!

You know, the NFL once said it had the power to fine Jerry Jones for stepping out of line and signing a marketing contract with Pepsi when the league had an agreement with Coke. The Commissioner said they had the power and all the league's multitude of attorneys backed the Commissioner up.

Until a Judge told them they were wrong.

That's my point, the NBA "Constitution" can say whatever it wants. There will be litigation over that Constitution now. The NBA Constitution does not trump other US law, necesssarily. We don't know if it will hold up, until it's been tested.

I don't think it's gonna hold up.

Carp
04-30-2014, 09:45 AM
Cuban also said this:

"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

Right...he did say that, then he Tweeted he fully supported Silver's decision. He'll have his chance to vote against them forcing a sale. Besides, this has nothing to do about America and everything to do with the NBA constitution.

Carp
04-30-2014, 09:46 AM
I bet Sterling just walks away, so this will all be moot.

Again, props to Adam Silver...great move IMO. Now he just has to finish.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 09:47 AM
Cuban also said this:

"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that."

And regardless of whether Cuban "changed his mind" (as if he can't see the writing on the wall and wants to curry favor with his own players), that statement is the truth.

I have a very hard time believing the NBA is going to be successful at this.

Like I said, it's going to be litigated for years and it will end with a settlement.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 09:47 AM
Those contracts were written by the NBA and now the NBA is saying they are enforceable. The league is going to say they have the power to do what they did? What a shock!

You know, the NFL once said it had the power to fine Jerry Jones for stepping out of line and signing a marketing contract with Pepsi when the league had an agreement with Coke. The Commissioner said they had the power and all the league's multitude of attorneys backed the Commissioner up.

Until a Judge told them they were wrong.

That's my point, the NBA "Constitution" can say whatever it wants. There will be litigation over that Constitution now. The NBA Constitution does not trump other US law, necesssarily. We don't know if it will hold up, until it's been tested.

I don't think it's gonna hold up.

And, like I said before, if the forced sell of the team doesn't hold up they will just kick the organization out of the league.

NoDak
04-30-2014, 09:48 AM
No idea...if the Board of Governors vote him out I am sure he and the league will have a timetable to change ownership. Let's not act like he won't get a fair price...this is a highly popular team that plays in LA....in the Staples Center...he'll get plenty of bids.

I'm not acting like anything. Just asking if the best offer is below fair market value if he'd be forced to take it.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 09:48 AM
I bet Sterling just walks away, so this will all be moot.

Again, props to Adam Silver...great move IMO. Now he just has to finish.

This would be my guess as well. Sterling already openly admitted it was him on the recording, so he has admitted his guilt and my guess is he will just walk off.

Carp
04-30-2014, 09:50 AM
I'm not acting like anything. Just asking if the best offer is below fair market value if he'd be forced to take it.
No idea. That'll be left to the league and Sterling's team.

mschmidt64
04-30-2014, 09:52 AM
And, like I said before, if the forced sell of the team doesn't hold up they will just kick the organization out of the league.

And I think that is actually the right way to do it.

Though then you are left with the issue of, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are under contract with the Clippers, not the the NBA, and if Donald Sterling wants to be a real jerk, he can try to prevent them from playing for other teams in the NBA. He could try to get an injunction to order them to stop playing, or at the very least, he could come after them for millions of dollars in damages and sue the league as well for inducing Paul and Griffin to violate their contracts with him.

Down the line, might a judge decide that those contracts are void? Maybe. But that would be a new decision, there is not precedent to be able to predict that at this point. He could certainly be a fly in the ointment for a very, very long time, and that would be the equivalent of really throwing Paul and Griffin and all the Clippers' players under the bus, on the NBA's part.

They have to tread lightly. It's not open and shut "the league can do whatever it wants to Sterling."

Deuce
04-30-2014, 10:18 AM
And, like I said before, if the forced sell of the team doesn't hold up they will just kick the organization out of the league.

It's stupid to keep saying this because that will never, ever happen.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 10:20 AM
It's stupid to keep saying this because that will never, ever happen.

You're stupid.

Deuce
04-30-2014, 10:31 AM
You're stupid.

At times, yes. But I'm not stupid enough to believe the NBA will contract a franchise because the owner made some racist comments. And they certainly won't do it to one that's the best team in a top 2 market.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 12:39 PM
At times, yes. But I'm not stupid enough to believe the NBA will contract a franchise because the owner made some racist comments. And they certainly won't do it to one that's the best team in a top 2 market.

So, you think if they vote to force him to sell the team and he says no they will just go "Okay, you win, nevermind"?

Deuce
04-30-2014, 12:50 PM
So, you think if they vote to force him to sell the team and he says no they will just go "Okay, you win, nevermind"?

I think if they decide that but can't legally force him to, they will make life extremely difficult for him and his team til he does. The league took control of Charlotte/New Orleans to assist in selling the team so I assume that will be the end game should he not be compliant. Either way, the league won't drop them. Good team, great market, and they don't want to drop down to an odd number of teams per division/conference again.

L.T. Fan
04-30-2014, 01:45 PM
And I think that is actually the right way to do it.

Though then you are left with the issue of, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are under contract with the Clippers, not the the NBA, and if Donald Sterling wants to be a real jerk, he can try to prevent them from playing for other teams in the NBA. He could try to get an injunction to order them to stop playing, or at the very least, he could come after them for millions of dollars in damages and sue the league as well for inducing Paul and Griffin to violate their contracts with him.

Down the line, might a judge decide that those contracts are void? Maybe. But that would be a new decision, there is not precedent to be able to predict that at this point. He could certainly be a fly in the ointment for a very, very long time, and that would be the equivalent of really throwing Paul and Griffin and all the Clippers' players under the bus, on the NBA's part.

They have to tread lightly. It's not open and shut "the league can do whatever it wants to Sterling."

Yep. It will be U.S. law administered through the judicial system that adjudicate s the final say so not the NBA constitution. My sense tells me that Sterling overstepped his boundaries when he ordered Sterling to divest himself of the team. I think Silver can administer punishments that are in the bylaws such as the fines but I am not sure the league can seize control of property and that is essentially what they did in the order to divest the team.

Clay_Allison
04-30-2014, 01:53 PM
'
And I think that is actually the right way to do it.

Though then you are left with the issue of, Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are under contract with the Clippers, not the the NBA, and if Donald Sterling wants to be a real jerk, he can try to prevent them from playing for other teams in the NBA. He could try to get an injunction to order them to stop playing, or at the very least, he could come after them for millions of dollars in damages and sue the league as well for inducing Paul and Griffin to violate their contracts with him.

Down the line, might a judge decide that those contracts are void? Maybe. But that would be a new decision, there is not precedent to be able to predict that at this point. He could certainly be a fly in the ointment for a very, very long time, and that would be the equivalent of really throwing Paul and Griffin and all the Clippers' players under the bus, on the NBA's part.

They have to tread lightly. It's not open and shut "the league can do whatever it wants to Sterling."

He'd have to spend how much of his personal money to pay their salaries to do that? I think that's a pretty wild fantasy.

Iamtdg
04-30-2014, 06:44 PM
Vivek Ranadive expects 29-0 vote
Updated: April 30, 2014, 2:05 PM ET
ESPN.com news services

Sacramento Kings owner Vivek Ranadive anticipates that his fellow NBA owners will vote unanimously to force Donald Sterling to sell the Los Angeles Clippers.

Commissioner Adam Silver wants Sterling to sell the franchise as part of the extremely stiff sanctions brought against the NBA's longest-tenured owner in response to racist comments the league determined he made in a recorded conversation.

Ranadive, who emphatically supported Silver's ruling Tuesday, reiterated his stance Wednesday morning on ESPN Radio's "Mike & Mike."

"I would be surprised if this was not a unanimous vote," Ranadive said during the interview. "The owners are amazing people -- they're color-blind -- and I fully expect a unanimous vote."

Silver banned Sterling for life, fined him $2.5 million and said he will press the other teams to support his desire to make Sterling sell.

"I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners to remove him,'' Silver said.

The NBA owners' advisory and finance committee will hold a meeting Thursday to discuss the next steps Sterling's removal.

Minnesota owner Glen Taylor chairs the committee, which also includes Miami's Micky Arison, the Lakers' Jeanie Buss, Oklahoma City's Clay Bennett, New York's James Dolan, Boston's Wyc Grousbeck, San Antonio's Peter Holt, Phoenix's Robert Sarver, Indiana's Herb Simon, and Toronto's Larry Tanenbaum.

"There's still a process that the NBA has to go through," Ranadive said Wednesday. "I expect that they'll have a sub-committee that examines this issue and takes it to the entire board.

"The commissioner has shown that he can act quickly, so I expect him to continue acting quickly."

For Sterling to be forced to sell, 75 percent of the teams would have to vote in favor of such a move. That means if 29 teams vote, Silver would have to get 22 yes votes. If all 30 clubs have a vote, the number needed for passage rises to 23.

While only a handful of teams indicated publicly Tuesday that they would follow Silver's recommendation, a source close to the situation told Stein that the vote is expected to be 29-0 against Sterling.

As teams and owners issued statements or tweets after Silver's news conference Tuesday, most chose to say they supported the commissioner's ruling without addressing a potential vote. The Associated Press contacted 24 teams on the specific question of whether Sterling should be forced to sell, and 16 ownership groups said yes, while another eight declined to reveal their stance.

Ranadive, a native of India, said he was shocked and outraged by Sterling's comments, which were revealed over the weekend as part of an audio recording.

In the taped conversation with his girlfriend, Sterling specifically objected to photos that the woman posted of herself with Hall of Famer Magic Johnson.

"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?" Sterling asks the woman on the tape.

"I have had overwhelming support for this position," Ranadive said. "People were outraged by these comments. This is really a global game -- you have people from all parts of the world, all skin colors, all religions. The only thing we care about is if you have game.

"So these comments were insulting to everyone. One of my favorite quotes is from Ghandi, and he liked to say that, 'If you slight one person, you slight the whole world.' I feel that the whole world was slighted."

Ranadive said Tuesday in a phone interview with ESPN.com that he thought Silver's discipline against Sterling "sent a very clear, unequivocal and decisive message that we will have zero tolerance" for racist behavior in the NBA.

Ranadive also conducted an interview Wednesday with ABC's "Good Morning America," saying he would urge Sterling to "do the right thing" by selling the Clippers.

"What I would say to Mr. Sterling is, 'Mr. Sterling, do the right thing now,'" he said. "'Apologize to Magic Johnson. Apologize to the NBA, the fans, the black community, the world at large. And respect the wishes of the NBA -- put the team up for sale. Take some of the profits and donate them to a good cause.'"

BipolarFuk
05-01-2014, 09:35 AM
http://i62.tinypic.com/2ez6b7d.jpg

UncleMilti
05-01-2014, 11:27 PM
So, I'm waiting to see what Silver does when one of the NBA players drops the N word during a lunch get together, or at another players house party.

Does that player get banned for life?

Clay_Allison
05-01-2014, 11:29 PM
So, I'm waiting to see what Silver does when one of the NBA players drops the N word during a lunch get together, or at another players house party.

Does that player get banned for life?
I'm guessing probably not.

Carp
05-02-2014, 08:23 AM
I seem to remember a time when this entire board left because an owner said some racially insensitive remarks. That same person was an asshole like Sterling was...and was basically forced out. Everyone felt pretty good about that, but now some have bleeding hearts for Sterling. Good times.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 08:28 AM
I see a key difference in that EZ actually gave up his own ownership, and was willing to walk away himself, in order to get away from the racist as opposed to forcing the racist the give up his share. That was at least principled on the offended party's part.

And that's exactly what I'm saying.

Carp
05-02-2014, 08:47 AM
I see a key difference in that EZ actually gave up his own ownership, and was willing to walk away himself, in order to get away from the racist as opposed to forcing the racist the give up his share. That was at least principled on the offended party's part.

And that's exactly what I'm saying.

You were the one sticking around, so your take means jack shit.

pdom
05-02-2014, 09:33 AM
You were the one sticking around, so your take means jack shit.

oh snap

pdom
05-02-2014, 09:36 AM
I see a key difference in that EZ actually gave up his own ownership, and was willing to walk away himself, in order to get away from the racist as opposed to forcing the racist the give up his share. That was at least principled on the offended party's part.

And that's exactly what I'm saying.

I don't think I've seen pictures of EZ's wife sitting with other Mexicans...hmmmmmmm

Iamtdg
05-02-2014, 09:40 AM
It's being reported now that Sterling has been fighting cancer for a while now. Doesn't change my opinion of him, just figured I would throw that out there.

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 09:49 AM
I seem to remember a time when this entire board left because an owner said some racially insensitive remarks. That same person was an asshole like Sterling was...and was basically forced out. Everyone felt pretty good about that, but now some have bleeding hearts for Sterling. Good times.

For clarity, if you are including people who questioned the possibility of the legality of some of the NBAs actions then I will just say this. I don't side with Sterling's views nor do I think questioning the NBA actions defaults me to siding with Sterling.

UncleMilti
05-02-2014, 10:16 AM
I seem to remember a time when this entire board left because an owner said some racially insensitive remarks. That same person was an asshole like Sterling was...and was basically forced out. Everyone felt pretty good about that, but now some have bleeding hearts for Sterling. Good times.


I don't see anyone defending Sterling for being racist. I know I'm not.

But the guy is being crucified for things he said in his own home. Its more about that than anything else.

And honestly, if people here want to stick their head in the sand and act like that same conversation doesn't happen in other homes across America every single day then they are not living in the real world.

Does it make it OK? Hell no it doesn't. Racism in any form shouldn't be tolerated.

But when we stop defending the basic freedoms we have, this country is fucked.

Texas Ace
05-02-2014, 10:30 AM
I don't see anyone defending Sterling for being racist. I know I'm not.

But the guy is being crucified for things he said in his own home. Its more about that than anything else.

And honestly, if people here want to stick their head in the sand and act like that same conversation doesn't happen in other homes across America every single day then they are not living in the real world.

Does it make it OK? Hell no it doesn't. Racism in any form shouldn't be tolerated.

But when we stop defending the basic freedoms we have, this country is fucked.

Yea, but you as a successful business owner know this probably better than all of us - people will not want to be publicly associated with you when something of this magnitude becomes public knowledge, regardless of how it came to be known.

So whether it was you or a potential business partner of yours, if word got out in the local news about either party making comments like this, I would imagine that you would hesitate to conduct business with that person/company and vice versa......am I right? Because you don't need the negative reputation hit on your business and neither do they.

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business and perception in the business world matters as does public opinion in the uber-politically correct era that we live in. So because of that, I don't really see the point of defending his right to basic freedom. Sucks for him that this side of him was exposed in the manner that it was, but it still warrants removing him from his position as owner of the team.

dallen
05-02-2014, 10:48 AM
Yea, but you as a successful business owner know this probably better than all of us - people will not want to be publicly associated with you when something of this magnitude becomes public knowledge, regardless of how it came to be known.

So whether it was you or a potential business partner of yours, if word got out in the local news about either party making comments like this, I would imagine that you would hesitate to conduct business with that person/company and vice versa......am I right? Because you don't need the negative reputation hit on your business and neither do they.

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business and perception in the business world matters as does public opinion in the uber-politically correct era that we live in. So because of that, I don't really see the point of defending his right to basic freedom. Sucks for him that this side of him was exposed in the manner that it was, but it still warrants removing him from his position as owner of the team.

It comes down to a different set of rules for people in the public eye. If you have a "name" then you have to protect it at all times.

http://i.imgur.com/sDblUkE.gif

Texas Ace
05-02-2014, 10:51 AM
It comes down to a different set of rules for people in the public eye. If you have a "name" then you have to protect it at all times.

http://i.imgur.com/sDblUkE.gif

Exactly

And nice .gif too. :lol

Isn't that the part when he gets pissed because he realizes Chris and Snoop weren't telling him about how Omar was calling him out in the streets?

NoDak
05-02-2014, 11:02 AM
Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business.

I noticed you mentioned landscaping first...



Wait. That's not racist, is it?
:tippytoe

Texas Ace
05-02-2014, 11:04 AM
I noticed you mentioned landscaping first...



Wait. That's not racist, is it?
:tippytoe

I'm going to release this post in the local paper in North Dakota so that no one will want to conduct business with you.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

dallen
05-02-2014, 11:10 AM
Exactly

And nice .gif too. :lol

Isn't that the part when he gets pissed because he realizes Chris and Snoop weren't telling him about how Omar was calling him out in the streets?

Yeah

Deuce
05-02-2014, 11:16 AM
I'm going to release this post in the local paper in North Dakota so that no one will want to conduct business with you.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

Unless he's calling people redskins, I think North Dakoatans won't give a shit.

NoDak
05-02-2014, 11:49 AM
Unless he's calling people redskins, I think North Dakoatans won't give a shit.

We don't care about that, either.

In fact, we're still pissed they made us change our hockey team's name from UND Fighting Sioux.

Fuckers.

pdom
05-02-2014, 12:08 PM
Rights and freedom go out the window if it affects money.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 12:38 PM
You were the one sticking around, so your take means jack shit.

Actually, I'm just telling you the difference in facts, not giving you my take.

So your take on my take means jack shit.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 12:41 PM
And I totally 100% agree that you shouldn't have to associate with people you don't want to.

However, that doesn't mean you can take away someone else's property.

As Carp helpfully pointed out, when EZ was offended by racism, he didn't sue sbk to give up control. He walked away himself.

Note the difference.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 01:16 PM
NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

Iamtdg
05-02-2014, 01:18 PM
While we are at it, let's investigate NFL owners as well. :unsure

Deuce
05-02-2014, 01:36 PM
NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

The Orlando Sentinel wrote an article yesterday wondering if the NBA was going to look into other owners for their remarks. Magic Owner Rich De Voss has made comments numerous times about being anti-gay marriage. I don't remember specific quotes so I don't know if it went to the point to the point of flat out bigotry, but it's an interesting question.

UncleMilti
05-02-2014, 01:42 PM
Yea, but you as a successful business owner know this probably better than all of us - people will not want to be publicly associated with you when something of this magnitude becomes public knowledge, regardless of how it came to be known.

So whether it was you or a potential business partner of yours, if word got out in the local news about either party making comments like this, I would imagine that you would hesitate to conduct business with that person/company and vice versa......am I right? Because you don't need the negative reputation hit on your business and neither do they.

Whether it's landscaping, construction, insurance, or something as huge as a professional sporting league, business is business and perception in the business world matters as does public opinion in the uber-politically correct era that we live in. So because of that, I don't really see the point of defending his right to basic freedom. Sucks for him that this side of him was exposed in the manner that it was, but it still warrants removing him from his position as owner of the team.


That's a great point, and one that I pointed out earlier. He will suffer the fallout of advertisers and promoters ditching him because of his statements. The fans wouldn't have come to the games. The players wouldn't want to play for him. He would have his own issues far greater than the NBA.

I'm only defending his right to free speech, which is directly tied to the NBA trying to strip him of his PROPERTY because of something he said. He's a racist, no doubt about it. His wife has a shitty history of it too.

If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

UncleMilti
05-02-2014, 01:46 PM
NBA Fears Sterling Could File Suit Leading To Questioning If Other Owners Made Racist Remarks
May 01, 2014 6:56 PM EDT

There is a growing fear in NBA offices that Donald Sterling will file a lawsuit and begin to depose league and team personnel.

Sterling's attorneys could ask team personnel if their owner ever made remarks of a racist nature.

The NBA never attempted to oust Sterling as owner of the Clippers until his recorded racist comments surfaced, at least in part because of fears for how ligitious he has exhibited himself to be in the past.

Via Chris Mannix/Sports Illustrated

You called it. Anyone who thinks Sterling is going away quietly is in for a big surprise.

Sterling has been the only gay hating, black hating, racist comment-making owner in the NBA, ever...? :lol


If anyone buys that, NoDak has a sunny beach in North Dakota he wants to sell them.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 01:50 PM
That's a great point, and one that I pointed out earlier. He will suffer the fallout of advertisers and promoters ditching him because of his statements. The fans wouldn't have come to the games. The players wouldn't want to play for him. He would have his own issues far greater than the NBA.

I'm only defending his right to free speech, which is directly tied to the NBA trying to strip him of his PROPERTY because of something he said. He's a racist, no doubt about it. His wife has a shitty history of it too.

If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

This post should end the debate, but the thought police are out in force and do not tolerate dissension from their PC agenda. They'll stop at nothing, including taking away your property, to make you fall in line.

Though obviously "free speech" only protects Sterling's rights against government action, he still cannot be deprived of his property in contravention to the laws of the United States.

So like I said, no matter what little documents the NBA may have drawn up to bind themselves, we'll see what a court has to say about it.

Or, each side will litigate each other into exhaustion and Sterling will eventually relent because he doesn't want to pay to defend his rights anymore. We'll see.

Clay_Allison
05-02-2014, 02:39 PM
Doesn't matter how they do it, the NBA has enough leverage to twist his arm very hard. When it comes right down to it, if you alienate your business partners and employees to the extent that none of them want to do business with you it will be very difficult for you to remain in that business.

I do think the secret recording in his own home thing is shitty. But it's like a sex scandal in that it's an invasion of privacy, but one that changes people's perception of you nonetheless.

Texas Ace
05-02-2014, 03:35 PM
If you achieve your dream of a business, would you want it taken away from you because of something you said in the privacy of your own home?

Of course not, but being the owner of a restaurant or an art gallery is a whole lot different than being the owner of a professional sports team.

It's the old argument of how professional sports compares to regular jobs.....the fact is, they don't. You can't compare the two because they are nothing alike.

And being as athletes, coaches, and owners/GM's operate on a different set of rules, for better or worse (worse in this instance), we simply cannot use any real world stuff to compare it with.

If I say what he said as the owner of a bar, then maybe some people decide not to show up anymore and that's the end of it. But he's the owner of a pro sports team which also happens to be a very public business where how one conducts himself is one of the most important aspects of the "job". A black eye for you is a black eye for the league, and you know this when you come into that environment.

In other words, I believe they have full right to punish him the way they have regardless if what he said was in a private conversation. That conversation is no longer private, and for the sake and reputation of the entire league, they have to act accordingly and I think they've done that.

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 03:40 PM
Of course not, but being the owner of a restaurant or an art gallery is a whole lot different than being the owner of a professional sports team.

It's the old argument of how professional sports compares to regular jobs.....the fact is, they don't. You can't compare the two because they are nothing alike.

And being as athletes, coaches, and owners/GM's operate on a different set of rules, for better or worse (worse in this instance), we simply cannot use any real world stuff to compare it with.

If I say what he said as the owner of a bar, then maybe some people decide not to show up anymore and that's the end of it. But he's the owner of a pro sports team which also happens to be a very public business where how one conducts himself is one of the most important aspects of the "job". A black eye for you is a black eye for the league, and you know this when you come into that environment.

In other words, I believe they have full right to punish him the way they have regardless if what he said was in a private conversation. That conversation is no longer private, and for the sake and reputation of the entire league, they have to act accordingly and I think they've done that.

Your position will gain a lot ground in the ethical and moral arena but in a legal setting not so much.

Texas Ace
05-02-2014, 03:43 PM
Your position will gain a lot ground in the ethical and moral arena but in a legal setting not so much.

That may be true, but I'm not arguing about what I think is right or wrong from a legal perspective.

I'm just giving my opinion on why I believe the punishment was the appropriate one.

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 03:51 PM
That may be true, but I'm not arguing about what I think is right or wrong from a legal perspective.

I'm just giving my opinion on why I believe the punishment was the appropriate one.

I understand and that is where the rub is in this topic. Legally it isn't appropriate to take control of one's property with an arbitrary self help method. Even the government can't do this except for existing laws set forth by congress and sanctioned by the supreme court. The NBA commissioner of his own volition arbitrary moved to put this in motion.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 04:27 PM
Doesn't matter how they do it, the NBA has enough leverage to twist his arm very hard. When it comes right down to it, if you alienate your business partners and employees to the extent that none of them want to do business with you it will be very difficult for you to remain in that business.

I do think the secret recording in his own home thing is shitty. But it's like a sex scandal in that it's an invasion of privacy, but one that changes people's perception of you nonetheless.

Yeah, they'll fight him enough that I think he'll eventually step aside, that's what Schott did, right?

Carp
05-02-2014, 05:04 PM
And I totally 100% agree that you shouldn't have to associate with people you don't want to.

However, that doesn't mean you can take away someone else's property.

As Carp helpfully pointed out, when EZ was offended by racism, he didn't sue sbk to give up control. He walked away himself.

Note the difference.

There are similarities whether you want to acknowledge them or not. You've been defeated, take your lumps and move on.

Carp
05-02-2014, 05:24 PM
I don't see anyone defending Sterling for being racist. I know I'm not.

But the guy is being crucified for things he said in his own home. Its more about that than anything else.

And honestly, if people here want to stick their head in the sand and act like that same conversation doesn't happen in other homes across America every single day then they are not living in the real world.

Does it make it OK? Hell no it doesn't. Racism in any form shouldn't be tolerated.

But when we stop defending the basic freedoms we have, this country is fucked.

He is a piece of shit...he's done worse than this, so if this is how he gets banned, fine.

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 05:46 PM
He is a piece of shit...he's done worse than this, so if this is how he gets banned, fine.

I have no problems with him being banned and fined from an association he is party to and helped to set the guidelines but I stop short of the same association thinking the have the right to control the ownership of his property.

Iamtdg
05-02-2014, 06:13 PM
Doesn't matter how they do it, the NBA has enough leverage to twist his arm very hard. When it comes right down to it, if you alienate your business partners and employees to the extent that none of them want to do business with you it will be very difficult for you to remain in that business.

I do think the secret recording in his own home thing is shitty. But it's like a sex scandal in that it's an invasion of privacy, but one that changes people's perception of you nonetheless.

He had her record him. Every day. He liked to be able to go back and listen to their conversations again because he had a horrible memory. It's not like she was recording him without his knowledge.

Carp
05-02-2014, 07:18 PM
I have no problems with him being banned and fined from an association he is party to and helped to set the guidelines but I stop short of the same association thinking the have the right to control the ownership of his property.

I don’t...he is bad for the and should not have the privilege of owning a team.

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 08:05 PM
I don’t...he is bad for the and should not have the privilege of owning a team.

Lady Justice is blind to personal persuasions. The law treats everyone equally in its ideal application.

Carp
05-02-2014, 08:08 PM
Lady Justice is blind to personal persuasions. The law treats everyone equally in its ideal application.
So what if the owners vote him out?

L.T. Fan
05-02-2014, 08:13 PM
So what if the owners vote him out?

They can probably do that. They just cannot take control of the team and force him to sell it. The team is his personal property. The association in the league is an agreement that can be revoked.

Carp
05-02-2014, 08:15 PM
~shakes hands, drops mic~

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 10:26 PM
There are similarities whether you want to acknowledge them or not. You've been defeated, take your lumps and move on.

There are similarities in that a racist received his comeuppance which is apparently what you want to see at any cost.

There are differences in how it was administered, which is what I am interested in, because there is a right way and a wrong way.

mschmidt64
05-02-2014, 10:28 PM
They can probably do that. They just cannot take control of the team and force him to sell it. The team is his personal property. The association in the league is an agreement that can be revoked.

Right, they could remove the Clippers from the league. They may not be able to remove his ownership but keep the Clippers in the league.

And I'd argue a lifetime ban is essentially the same as stripping his ownership, so I'd argue that.

Carp
05-02-2014, 11:16 PM
There are similarities in that a racist received his comeuppance which is apparently what you want to see at any cost.

There are differences in how it was administered, which is what I am interested in, because there is a right way and a wrong way.

I hope this works out for you.

Clay_Allison
05-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Right, they could remove the Clippers from the league. They may not be able to remove his ownership but keep the Clippers in the league.

And I'd argue a lifetime ban is essentially the same as stripping his ownership, so I'd argue that.

I'd argue that as long as he still receives his share of the profits he still has ownership of the team. I'd also argue that the league needed to remove him from the day to day operations because his racist behavior brings any actions he takes regarding most of his employees under threat of litigation for racial discrimination and that liability would extend to the NBA as well.

mschmidt64
05-05-2014, 08:09 AM
I'd argue that as long as he still receives his share of the profits he still has ownership of the team.

I can't see any judge buying that, ownership implies control, unless you are a minority share owner (meaning percentage, not race).


I'd also argue that the league needed to remove him from the day to day operations because his racist behavior brings any actions he takes regarding most of his employees under threat of litigation for racial discrimination and that liability would extend to the NBA as well.

The league (and when I say "the league" I mean the other owners he signed the contracts with) is not his employer. Like the owner of a small business, that owner is free to make racist decisions that carry liability that bring down his business. A more accurate analogy is that Adam Silver is actually Donald Sterling's employee, not vice versa.

The only power the league has over him is pursuant to what amounts to a series of contracts that he signed with the rest of the owners.

The league wrote up those contracts and had him sign them. However, there are many reasons why any two entities could write up a "contract" and then have it fail to be enforceable.

Yes, the NBA has very smart lawyers who undoubtedly wrote those contracts so as to make them as enforceable as they could, but at the end of the day they are writing them to favor the NBA and they are just guessing based on the closest precedents they have in court decisions. Since there has never been a case exactly like this before, it's new ground.

I see the argument the league can make. I'm just not sure if it can overcome stripping him of ownership.

L.T. Fan
05-05-2014, 08:41 AM
I can't see any judge buying that, ownership implies control, unless you are a minority share owner (meaning percentage, not race).



The league (and when I say "the league" I mean the other owners he signed the contracts with) is not his employer. Like the owner of a small business, that owner is free to make racist decisions that carry liability that bring down his business. A more accurate analogy is that Adam Silver is actually Donald Sterling's employee, not vice versa.

The only power the league has over him is pursuant to what amounts to a series of contracts that he signed with the rest of the owners.

The league wrote up those contracts and had him sign them. However, there are many reasons why any two entities could write up a "contract" and then have it fail to be enforceable.

Yes, the NBA has very smart lawyers who undoubtedly wrote those contracts so as to make them as enforceable as they could, but at the end of the day they are writing them to favor the NBA and they are just guessing based on the closest precedents they have in court decisions. Since there has never been a case exactly like this before, it's new ground.

I see the argument the league can make. I'm just not sure if it can overcome stripping him of ownership.

Yep. It's a league of owners not a league of teams.

Iamtdg
05-12-2014, 10:23 AM
465821341837688832

mschmidt64
05-12-2014, 10:28 AM
465821341837688832

The players are gonna have to get a dose of reality here at some point.

L.T. Fan
05-12-2014, 10:31 AM
465821341837688832

He may feel that way but as a legal matter there will likely be a different outcome. As of this moment it appears that this is property that is subject to the divorce courts if I heard correctly that an action has been filed.

mschmidt64
05-12-2014, 10:35 AM
Apparently the wife owns 50% of the team.

L.T. Fan
05-12-2014, 11:03 AM
Apparently the wife owns 50% of the team.

And she indicates she will continue to try to retain it.

L.T. Fan
05-12-2014, 11:05 AM
What bothers me about James position is he wants all Sterling's out. Why does he think he can take that position only Donald made any statements.

Cowboysrock55
05-14-2014, 11:27 AM
The players are gonna have to get a dose of reality here at some point.

Yeah that's ridiculous. You can't hold the statements of one man against every single person he is related to. Hell we all probably have a family member that we wouldn't be the most proud of and certainly wouldn't stand by their opinions and views.

mschmidt64
05-14-2014, 01:53 PM
Arenas accepts Sterling apology; Magic fires back

Possibly sensing a need for healing, former NBA guard Gilbert Arenas made it known Tuesday that he is willing to forgive embattled Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for his racially insensitive comments.

Meanwhile, Magic Johnson called the situation sad and said he would pray for Sterling after the former Los Angeles Lakers guard was criticized in an interview with CNN that aired Monday night,

And Roger Mason Jr., vice president of the NBA Players' Association, said during an interview on Tuesday with "Jim Rome on Showtime" that Miami Heat forward LeBron James would lead a boycott next season if Sterling were still in place as an owner.

"If it's not handled by ... the start of next season, I don't see how we're playing basketball," Mason said. "I was just in the locker room with LeBron. ... At the end of the day, you know we have leaders. We have player reps, we've got executive committee members ... leaders of the teams, they're all saying the same thing, 'If this man is still in place, we ain't playing.'"

In the CNN interview, Sterling said he is not a racist and that he made a mistake with his remarks about African-Americans.

"I'll be the first to accept ur apology," wrote Arenas, a three-time NBA All-Star, on Instagram. "As a man who's made a mistake or two in life, I know how hard it is to look at your self in the mirror when you let so many ppl down but for anybody who can't and won't accept his apology u need to look in the mirror because were not perfect. forgiveness will destroy racism not more hatred"

After Sterling's initial remarks to a girlfriend were made public earlier this month by TMZ, Sterling was hit with a lifetime ban from the NBA for his conduct. He also is facing the possibility of a forced sale of the team that he has owned since 1980.

In the CNN interview, Sterling incorrectly stated that Johnson had AIDS and also that he was not a good role model for the community because of his past transgressions. Johnson fired back on Tuesday, defending his work and singing his own praises.

"It's very disturbing. I think when you come on, No. 1 you should have your facts straight," Johnson told TMZ. "I don't have AIDS, I have HIV. I've been living with HIV for 22 years. That's his opinion if he thinks I'm not a role model. I know the things that I've done in urban America and for people."

Johnson, in an interview set to air Tuesday night on CNN, said he has spoken with Sterling but added that he has not received an apology.

"Donald Sterling reached out to me, I took the call," Johnson told TMZ. "I'm the one, when he wanted me to go on Barbara Walters with him and try to save him and his reputation, I told him I would not go on the show with him and I told him you should seek the advice of your attorney and try to make this thing go away.

"Whether that's making a deal with (girlfriend V Stiviano) or whatever the case may be. And, No. 1, you've got to apologize not only to me but all minorities out there because you haven't apologized yet. He said, 'Oh, I'm gonna get to that. I'm gonna get to that.' Not once, even today, has he has never apologized to me or the other minorities he offended."

Arenas last played in the NBA for Memphis during the 2011-12 season. He averaged 20.7 points and 5.3 assists during his 11-year career.

In 2009, he was convicted on felony gun charges in connection with a locker-room incident while playing for the Washington Wizards. He was sentenced to a halfway house and suspended for 50 games by then-commissioner David Stern before returning to the NBA with the Orlando Magic and then going back to the Wizards.

The NBA also announced that its Advisory/Finance Committee met Tuesday afternoon via conference call and discussed recent media appearances by Sterling and his wife, Shelly Sterling. It also was updated on the hiring of Dick Parsons as Clippers interim CEO and his meeting with Clippers employees.

In addition, league spokesman Mike Bass said, the committee "reviewed the status of the charge for termination of the Clippers' ownership. The Committee will reconvene next week."

mschmidt64
05-14-2014, 01:55 PM
If I was the league, I'd start fining these guys for these comments.

This is a league matter. It is not the place of the players to have any say in who owns the teams. You want to not play? You want to boycott your contracts? You have a legal obligation, so have fun handing back over all that money we paid you.

Clay_Allison
05-15-2014, 01:33 AM
If I was the league, I'd start fining these guys for these comments.

This is a league matter. It is not the place of the players to have any say in who owns the teams. You want to not play? You want to boycott your contracts? You have a legal obligation, so have fun handing back over all that money we paid you.

I'm not sure if the league can fine the union or fine union leaders for threatening to strike. Seems like that's a labor issue.

Carp
05-17-2014, 02:32 PM
If I was the league, I'd start fining these guys for these comments.

This is a league matter. It is not the place of the players to have any say in who owns the teams. You want to not play? You want to boycott your contracts? You have a legal obligation, so have fun handing back over all that money we paid you.

Freedom of speech...only when convenient.

Iamtdg
05-17-2014, 02:39 PM
Freedom of speech...only when convenient.

Boom.

L.T. Fan
05-17-2014, 03:35 PM
I saw a news blurb that Sterling has decided to take on the league in a legal battle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Carp
05-17-2014, 03:41 PM
Absolutely...he's been a train wreck since, so it'd be good TV.

Deuce
05-17-2014, 03:53 PM
I saw a news blurb that Sterling has decided to take on the league in a legal battle. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

That came out a few days ago and the legal analyst on ESPN radio pretty much said that if he signed the league Constitution that prohibits certain behaviors, violated it and the punishment was within the parameters set in the Constitution, no judge will rule in his favor. Judge's don't want to challenge the agreed on rules of voluntary associations.

L.T. Fan
05-17-2014, 04:33 PM
That came out a few days ago and the legal analyst on ESPN radio pretty much said that if he signed the league Constitution that prohibits certain behaviors, violated it and the punishment was within the parameters set in the Constitution, no judge will rule in his favor. Judge's don't want to challenge the agreed on rules of voluntary associations.

Well that is the question at hand. He counsel says he did not violate any league rules so I guess the contest is on. That's why there is courts I guess. we shall see. As I said it will be an interesting and potentially precident setting exercise.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 01:15 PM
Freedom of speech...only when convenient.

Freedom of speech only applies to government action.

The league is not a government entity and can fine it's employees just like any private employer and there is nothing hypocritical about that in the slightest.

Only someone who is a doofus would imply that there is.

Iamtdg
05-18-2014, 01:26 PM
Freedom of speech only applies to government action.

The league is not a government entity and can fine it's employees just like any private employer and there is nothing hypocritical about that in the slightest.

Only someone who is a doofus would imply that there is.

Your shit is getting really old. You can't be involved in any discussion whatsoever without resorting to name calling. It's fucking childish.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 01:40 PM
Your shit is getting really old. You can't be involved in any discussion whatsoever without resorting to name calling. It's fucking childish.

First of all, that is not true in the slightest. Second of all, I get it from you guys just as much as I give it, so take a look in the mirror before calling someone else a baby.

Sorry that you have a personal problem with me but I'm not breaking any rules.

Iamtdg
05-18-2014, 01:41 PM
First of all, that is not true in the slightest. Second of all, I get it from you guys just as much as I give it, so take a look in the mirror before calling someone else a baby.

Sorry that you have a personal problem with me but I'm not breaking any rules.

I didn't say you were breaking any rules, just that your shit is getting old.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 01:43 PM
I didn't say you were breaking any rules, just that your shit is getting old.

Well I'm tired of you and Carp's shit, so we're even.

Carp
05-18-2014, 02:17 PM
Freedom of speech only applies to government action.

The league is not a government entity and can fine it's employees just like any private employer and there is nothing hypocritical about that in the slightest.

Only someone who is a doofus would imply that there is.

Earlier you did not think the league should be able to take his team away, now because players in the league are speaking out against him, you think the league has jurisdiction. Again, just pick and choose what you support to fit your argument.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 06:50 PM
Earlier you did not think the league should be able to take his team away, now because players in the league are speaking out against him, you think the league has jurisdiction. Again, just pick and choose what you support to fit your argument.

That's not picking and choosing, it is indisputable that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players (and coaches, and owners) for saying things the league does not want them to say. It happens every season in every one of the major sports in this country. And if the league simply fined the shit out of Sterling you wouldn't have heard me say jack shit on the subject, ever. I not only acknowledge that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players and owners, I support that jurisdiction.

The league taking away Sterling's ownership interest is (1) not something that happens every season; (2) not something that the league indisputably has the right to do; and (3) is still not a matter of free speech. The issue with Sterling isn't his right to speech, it's an issue of whether someone else has the right to strip away his owned property without due process in a court of law.

A better analogy to what Sterling is going through would be if I was advocating the league fining Roger Mason, banning him for life, and then trying to foreclose on his house. And in that case I would side with Mason. The league can fine him, but it can't take away stuff he owns.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 06:57 PM
That's not picking and choosing, it is indisputable that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players (and coaches, and owners) for saying things the league does not want them to say. It happens every season in every one of the major sports in this country. And if the league simply fined the shit out of Sterling you wouldn't have heard me say jack shit on the subject, ever. I not only acknowledge that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players and owners, I support that jurisdiction.

The league taking away Sterling's ownership interest is (1) not something that happens every season; (2) not something that the league indisputably has the right to do; and (3) is still not a matter of free speech. The issue with Sterling isn't his right to speech, it's an issue of whether someone else has the right to strip away his owned property without due process in a court of law.

A better analogy to what Sterling is going through would be if I was advocating the league fining Roger Mason, banning him for life, and then trying to foreclose on his house. And in that case I would side with Mason. The league can fine him, but it can't take away stuff he owns.
Yes there are seperate issues involved in this process. To me it has always been a question of what actions can the league take within their jurisdiction. Attempting to take control of his team certainly seems to overstep their authority. Sterling as an individual is subject to the rules and policies to which he contracted to abide with but I don't think he is obligated to subject personal property to the league's control.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:00 PM
Yes there are seperate issues involved in this process. To me it has always been a question of what actions can the league take within their jurisdiction. Attempting to take control of his team certainly seems to overstep their authority. Sterling as an individual is subject to the rules and policies to which he contracted to abide with but I don't think he is obligated to subject personal property to the league's control.

Boom.

:unsure

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:01 PM
Owners can lock out players over revenue sharing...acceptable. Players talking about a boycott because an owner in the in the league they play in is a racist...unacceptable.

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:05 PM
Also, what Mason said is not true...Lebron said he fully supports Silver and if they continue the process there will not be an issue.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 07:06 PM
Owners can lock out players over revenue sharing...acceptable. Players talking about a boycott because an owner in the in the league they play in is a racist...unacceptable.

No disagreement that owners can lockout players. No disagreement that players can boycott.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:06 PM
Correct.

You can't have the players making threats about boycotts and strikes every time they don't like what the league is doing. In this case, Mason is advocating the league doing something they may not even be legally able to do, and saying they're all gonna strike if the league doesn't do it.

He's getting waaaaaay out in front of any official, lawyer-approved statements or actions that the league may want to, or need to, take. Sterling's lawyers may find a way to use those comments against the league as well, moving forward.

The league has the power to silence those players with fines, and would be justified in doing so, just like they were justified in fining Sterling for his comments.

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:07 PM
No disagreement that owners can lockout players. No disagreement that players can boycott.

Right...both lose income either way, but I don’t see calls for owners being fined due to a lockout.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:07 PM
Also, what Mason said is not true...Lebron said he fully supports Silver and if they continue the process there will not be an issue.

So just another reason to tell Mason to shut up, he doesn't even know what he's talking about. He's just running his mouth making empty threats.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:08 PM
Right...both lose income either way, but I don’t see calls for owners being fined due to a lockout.

Pretty sure I've seen owners fined for talking about plans for lockouts though.

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:09 PM
Pretty sure I've seen owners fined for talking about plans for lockouts though.

Link?

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:10 PM
Link?

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/n-h-l-fines-red-wings-executive-for-lockout-remarks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/02/nhl-to-contact-sens-owner-after-lockout-comments/

http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7175679/nba-lockout-miami-heat-owner-micky-arison-fined-500000-twitter-comments-labor-talks-sources-say

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6961508/michael-jordan-charlotte-bobcats-fined-100k-talking-lockout-sources-say

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:15 PM
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/22/n-h-l-fines-red-wings-executive-for-lockout-remarks/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/11/02/nhl-to-contact-sens-owner-after-lockout-comments/

http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7175679/nba-lockout-miami-heat-owner-micky-arison-fined-500000-twitter-comments-labor-talks-sources-say

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/6961508/michael-jordan-charlotte-bobcats-fined-100k-talking-lockout-sources-say
Not quite the same...this was speaking about details of a lockout, not about boycotting a racist owner.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 07:19 PM
Not quite the same...this was speaking about details of a lockout, not about boycotting a racist owner.

Well I didn't say I've seen examples of fines for talking about boycotting a racist owner, I said I've seen owners fined for talking about lockouts. There are no examples of the league fining an owner for talking about boycotting another racist owner. This is the first time it's ever happened.

But there are multiple examples of leagues fining owners for making non-sanctioned statements about labor relations. It would not be hypocritical for the league to also fine a player for making comments about either going on strike, or boycotting. The league wants to control all that dialogue, and that is a fair expectation of the league IMO.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 07:22 PM
Right...both lose income either way, but I donít see calls for owners being fined due to a lockout.

Players are under contract with the owner. If they breach the contract they can be fined. Owners are not under contract to the players.

Carp
05-18-2014, 07:29 PM
Players are under contract with the owner. If they breach the contract they can be fined. Owners are not under contract to the players.

Yeah...I'm sure those fines will make up for the lost income of no games.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 07:35 PM
Yeah...I'm sure those fines will make up for the lost income of no games.

I have no position on that. That is something that happens when private enterprise and unions become at odds with each other. Everyone loses. The only ones that seem to be unscathed is the union officials.

Deuce
05-18-2014, 08:26 PM
Owners can lock out players over revenue sharing...acceptable. Players talking about a boycott because an owner in the in the league they play in is a racist...unacceptable.
Don't the owners only lock out during CBA negotiations? This isn't a time where a work stoppage is warranted. It's just knee jerking threats by pissed off players.

Carp
05-18-2014, 08:46 PM
Don't the owners only lock out during CBA negotiations? This isn't a time where a work stoppage is warranted. It's just knee jerking threats by pissed off players.

When the owners don't get what they want, they lock out the players. The players are doing the same thing here, for moral and social reasons.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 09:43 PM
Well Roger Mason can go on strike all he wants. Obviously Lebron James has confided off the record to someone that as long as the league is going about the legal process he's going to play, which is the smart stance to take no matter what his personal convictions about Sterling are.

But that doesn't effect the issue of whether the league can fine, and would be justified in fining, Mason for running his mouth. They fine owners for talking about lockouts, they can fine players for talking about boycotts.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 09:44 PM
Don't the owners only lock out during CBA negotiations? This isn't a time where a work stoppage is warranted. It's just knee jerking threats by pissed off players.

Yup. And like I said -- even if I'm not personally issue-spotting a statement by Mason that could hurt the league -- he might end up saying something that Sterling could use against them if it goes to litigation.

If he was smart he'd be quiet. And if I were the league I'd get him to shut up about it.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 09:46 PM
When the owners don't get what they want, they lock out the players. The players are doing the same thing here, for moral and social reasons.

Owners are owners. Players are employees. They do not have the privilege of that decision. No more than you have the privilege to decide whether you will come to work. The issue here is not about who is morally right it is about who has the right to make decisions about team and league functions. It's a given that Sterling is a racist but he doesn't forfeit his right to make decisions of ownership nor does it convey rights to players to over rule his ownership rights.

Carp
05-18-2014, 09:48 PM
Owners are owners. Players are employees. They do not have the privilege of that decision. No more than you have the privilege to decide whether you will come to work. The issue here is not about who is morally right it is about who has the right to make decisions about team and league functions. It's a given that Sterling is a racist but he doesn't forfeit his right to make decisions of ownership nor do it convey tights to players to over rule his ownership rights.
The players can boycott...just like they have had strikes in the past. They are employees, but yeah, they can boycott.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 09:51 PM
The players can boycott...just like they have had strikes in the past. They are employees, but yeah, they can boycott.

Of course they can boycott but at the risk of their job or breach of contract.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 09:51 PM
They are employees, but yeah, they can boycott.

No one ever said they can't.

Carp
05-18-2014, 09:52 PM
If he was voted out by the owners, then he can sue and do whatever he wants. He should walk away though, him being in the league weakens it.

Carp
05-18-2014, 09:54 PM
No one ever said they can't.

Read LTs post...he says just that. "They do not have the privilege of that decision."

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 09:55 PM
If he was voted out by the owners, then he can sue and do whatever he wants. He should walk away though, him being in the league weakens it.

I don't disagree with that but he has decided to litigate the matter so that's apparently what will decide the issue.

mschmidt64
05-18-2014, 09:56 PM
Read LTs post...he says just that. "They do not have the privilege of that decision."

My bad.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 09:57 PM
Read LTs post...he says just that. "They do not have the privilege of that decision."

I said they don't have the right to boycott without being subject to possible repercussions

Carp
05-18-2014, 09:58 PM
I said they don't have the right to boycott without being subject to possible repercussions

Not what you said, but it's not important.

L.T. Fan
05-18-2014, 10:01 PM
Not what you said, but it's not important.

Go back and read the follow up sentence which said no more than you have the right to decide if you will come to work. If you don't show up you are AWOL. Sure you can not show up but there is a penalty involved.

Carp
05-18-2014, 10:04 PM
Go back and read the follow up sentence which said no more than you have the right to decide if you will come to work. If you don't show up you are AWOL. Sure you can not show up but there is a penalty involved.

Wonderful. I am bowing out of this one.

Clay_Allison
05-18-2014, 11:49 PM
The NBA should just go to the mattresses with Sterling, dissolve the Clippers, declare the team free agents (taking the position that the players' contracts were with a defunct franchise, not with Sterling) then let him sue and keep the case tied up in the court system until he dies.

L.T. Fan
05-19-2014, 06:37 AM
The NBA should just go to the mattresses with Sterling, dissolve the Clippers, declare the team free agents (taking the position that the players' contracts were with a defunct franchise, not with Sterling) then let him sue and keep the case tied up in the court system until he dies.

I am not sure they can make that move. The team is the property of Sterling and the players are under contract to him. That's what will likely be part of the litigation.

Iamtdg
05-19-2014, 03:08 PM
468466201753292800

Iamtdg
05-19-2014, 03:19 PM
468470195120377856

Iamtdg
05-19-2014, 03:30 PM
468470976762896384

Deuce
05-19-2014, 07:46 PM
468470976762896384
If the vote is public he'll lose in a landslide. If it's not, it might be closer than the players and league want it to be.

Carp
05-19-2014, 08:09 PM
If for some reason this does not get the required votes the backlash over the entire league would be crazy.

L.T. Fan
05-19-2014, 08:45 PM
Even with the required vote it will be challenged in my opinion.

Deuce
05-19-2014, 08:58 PM
Even with the required vote it will be challenged in my opinion.
Probably, but that would be a lost cause.

I just oust think Sterling has been around long enough and built enough good will with fellow owners that a private vote may give him a chance. But if the results have even the slightest chance to leak, nobody will risk their players and the fans knowing they supported a racist.

L.T. Fan
05-19-2014, 09:25 PM
Probably, but that would be a lost cause.

I just oust think Sterling has been around long enough and built enough good will with fellow owners that a private vote may give him a chance. But if the results have even the slightest chance to leak, nobody will risk their players and the fans knowing they supported a racist.

The other side of the coin could be however, that the owners could wonder if they might ever be in a position for the league to sanction them also for who knows what reason. Again it is an interesting circumstance to observe.

Carp
05-19-2014, 09:41 PM
The ill will not voting him out far outweighs any possible sanctions. Easy choice if I was an owner...would not want to be associated with him in any way.

Clay_Allison
05-20-2014, 02:03 AM
I am not sure they can make that move. The team is the property of Sterling and the players are under contract to him. That's what will likely be part of the litigation.

The Clippers payroll is set to be 73 million next year. NBA salaries are guaranteed, so if he takes the position that the contracts are still binding he's still on the hook for the full 73 million. Does he have 73 million that he can blow on that? How about 57 million for next year or 50 for the next?

If he wants to assume responsibility for the contracts, he's assuming responsibility for 226 million dollars in salary for which he could be sued by the players.

Deuce
05-20-2014, 04:43 AM
The Clippers payroll is set to be 73 million next year. NBA salaries are guaranteed, so if he takes the position that the contracts are still binding he's still on the hook for the full 73 million. Does he have 73 million that he can blow on that? How about 57 million for next year or 50 for the next?

If he wants to assume responsibility for the contracts, he's assuming responsibility for 226 million dollars in salary for which he could be sued by the players.
He's worth $1.9B. So yes, he can blow that much.

Clay_Allison
05-20-2014, 02:23 PM
He's worth $1.9B. So yes, he can blow that much.

He's worth that including the estimated value of the Clippers franchise. He doesn't necessarily have 226 million in cash lying around. I doubt he'd be willing to liquidate a ton of personal assets to pay a bunch of black people to sit on the couch instead of playing basketball (probably his personal nightmare).

Regardless, I don't think any judge in California will sign an injunction that would bar the players from signing with another team. IIRC Cali has pretty clear laws about people being barred from making a living, which is why non-competes in employee contracts are unenforceable there. So the more likely event would be that the players would go sign up with another team and Sterling would simply sue the league for the value of the contracts.

L.T. Fan
05-20-2014, 02:34 PM
If the Clipper players boycotted I don't think he would be obligated to pay them would he?

Clay_Allison
05-20-2014, 03:26 PM
If the Clipper players boycotted I don't think he would be obligated to pay them would he?

no, but I was discussing league action rather than player action.

Cowboysrock55
05-20-2014, 03:37 PM
Regardless, I don't think any judge in California will sign an injunction that would bar the players from signing with another team. IIRC Cali has pretty clear laws about people being barred from making a living, which is why non-competes in employee contracts are unenforceable there. So the more likely event would be that the players would go sign up with another team and Sterling would simply sue the league for the value of the contracts.

The problem is you aren't talking about preventing people from making a living. You are talking about the owner still abiding by the terms of the contract. The players would thus still be making a living. It's a far different example then a non-compete case.