Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released

D

Deuce

Guest
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

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
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

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
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

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
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.
 
D

Deuce

Guest
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

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
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

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If the Clipper players boycotted I don't think he would be obligated to pay them would he?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
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.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
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.
Pretty easy for them to argue that their careers would still suffer potentially irreparable harm by being forced to sit for a year plus, and they would be a third party, not part of the dispute between Sterling and the NBA. I'd be surprised if a judge buried them like that.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Pretty easy for them to argue that their careers would still suffer potentially irreparable harm by being forced to sit for a year plus, and they would be a third party, not part of the dispute between Sterling and the NBA. I'd be surprised if a judge buried them like that.
Who would force them to sit for a year? Plus their action would be against the league not Sterling.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Who would force them to sit for a year? Plus their action would be against the league not Sterling.
If the NBA declared them free agents after voting out the Clippers, it was suggested Sterling might seek an injunction preventing them from playing for the remainder of their contracts because they would still be under contract to the Clippers Organization (even though it would no longer be an NBA franchise) in a power play to screw the NBA out of two all stars.
 
D

Deuce

Guest
If the NBA declared them free agents after voting out the Clippers, it was suggested Sterling might seek an injunction preventing them from playing for the remainder of their contracts because they would still be under contract to the Clippers Organization (even though it would no longer be an NBA franchise) in a power play to screw the NBA out of two all stars.
The NBA won't declare them free agents. The most likely scenario is they take control of the team and spearhead the sale to someone who will take over the franchise as is. That's basically what the league did to the NO Hornets and MLB did with the Expos.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If the NBA declared them free agents after voting out the Clippers, it was suggested Sterling might seek an injunction preventing them from playing for the remainder of their contracts because they would still be under contract to the Clippers Organization (even though it would no longer be an NBA franchise) in a power play to screw the NBA out of two all stars.
Precisely. That is why I say the NBA could place themselves in a responsible party position by their actions. If the players were deemed free agents it would be done by the NBA and it is possible that the could incurr a liability if some of the players didn't land a job. They could potentially place the blame for being unemployed at the feet of the actions of the commissioner and the league. Not saying it would happen but there are some slippery slope nuances in all this.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
The NBA won't declare them free agents. The most likely scenario is they take control of the team and spearhead the sale to someone who will take over the franchise as is. That's basically what the league did to the NO Hornets and MLB did with the Expos.
In that case there's precedent for them being able to do that and it makes perfect sense. I wish they wouldn't let Magic be the owner though. I think he has unclean hands in this deal.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Pretty easy for them to argue that their careers would still suffer potentially irreparable harm by being forced to sit for a year plus, and they would be a third party, not part of the dispute between Sterling and the NBA. I'd be surprised if a judge buried them like that.
If that were the case basketball players on a bad team would just go play for a good team and say that their careers would suffer irreparable harm being forced to play on a terrible team. If you're expect a court to not enforce an enforceable contract you are barking up the wrong tree.

Truth be told the NBA is just going to force Sterling to sell his team under some contractual clause he agreed to at some point as an owner. He can fight it but government tends to agree with the sports organizations on these issues. They give professional sports a lot of perks other industries don't enjoy.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
If that were the case basketball players on a bad team would just go play for a good team and say that their careers would suffer irreparable harm being forced to play on a terrible team. If you're expect a court to not enforce an enforceable contract you are barking up the wrong tree.

Truth be told the NBA is just going to force Sterling to sell his team under some contractual clause he agreed to at some point as an owner. He can fight it but government tends to agree with the sports organizations on these issues. They give professional sports a lot of perks other industries don't enjoy.
I think it remains to be seen if a contract to play basketball is still enforceable if the team can't provide any basketball for them to play, turning it into a contract not to play basketball. Your "bad team" analogy is apples and oranges. If you are doing your job, making a living in you're profession, saying you don't like the conditions is one thing. Not being allowed to work in your field is another thing entirely and you are losing a quantifiable thing, time on the job, not some nebulous "quality" issue.

On the other issue, I agree with you. They've already done it with the Hornets so they'll go down the familiar road and do it to the Clippers.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
I think it remains to be seen if a contract to play basketball is still enforceable if the team can't provide any basketball for them to play, turning it into a contract not to play basketball. Your "bad team" analogy is apples and oranges. If you are doing your job, making a living in you're profession, saying you don't like the conditions is one thing. Not being allowed to work in your field is another thing entirely and you are losing a quantifiable thing, time on the job, not some nebulous "quality" issue.

On the other issue, I agree with you. They've already done it with the Hornets so they'll go down the familiar road and do it to the Clippers.
They can still play basketball. They could practice just as much as any other NBA team.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
They can still play basketball. They could practice just as much as any other NBA team.
I refer you to Allen Iverson on the difference between practice and games. That would be like telling a programmer he could write strings of meaningless code but no programs or telling a welder that they could weld random pieces of metal together but not anything that had value.

As long as you are working in your field while under contract it can be argued that by doing your job well, even under poor conditions you can retain and enhance your market value when your contract is up. You can even argue that performing well under adverse conditions can enhance your value further. It's hard to get hired in any industry when you've been inactive for 3 years. In the NBA it could probably reduce a max contract guy to a mid-level exception guy.

Unless he moved the team to Europe and had them playing teams there or something they still wouldn't be working in their field.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,730
 
Top Bottom