Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released

[L.T. Fan]

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.

 

[Smitty]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Cotton]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

~shakes hands, drops mic~

 

[Smitty]

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.

 

[Smitty]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Smitty]

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]

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.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Smitty]

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

 

[L.T. Fan]

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.