Additional racist comments attributed to Clippers' Donald Sterling released

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.
 
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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed since the owners are technically employees of the league. It's not anything like the private industry at all.
 
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!
 
Mark Cuban...another owner and smart businessman agrees with Silver. If only he was smarter.
 
Carp said:
Good lord man...the guy has no business owning the team anymore.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
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!
Click to expand...

Carp has no argument so he resorts to sarcasm again! Tired old schtick.
 
mschmidt64 said:
Carp has no argument so he resorts to sarcasm again! Tired old schtick.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Clay_Allison said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Use Google.
 
mschmidt64 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom