PDA

View Full Version : Seriously, how could Sterling be forced to sell something he owns?



BadBrains
04-28-2014, 02:24 PM
Obviously what he did was wrong. 100%. But how could someone be forced to sell something they own based on their personal views? I don't blame the players, fans, or coaches for wanting him out, but they can't really force him, can they?

goingfor28
04-28-2014, 02:26 PM
Id imagine they can force him out when all of the players, coaches, gms, owners, fans, sponsors, etc ALL want him out. Maybe this was just the final straw

abe_froman
04-28-2014, 02:31 PM
because its not like owning your own business,he's a franchisee.which means he owns them conditionally ,he is subject to bylaws that he agreed to when he bought the team.....and one of the bylaws is that the commissioner can force the sale of a team

torocan
04-28-2014, 02:32 PM
They can't force him to sell the operating team per se, but the NBA can revoke his NBA franchise status. They can refuse to schedule games and not include him in the draft. They can force him to take down all signage related to the NBA, and remove all Clippers products from NBA distribution partners. They can erase the Clippers from all NBA related material and remove the Clippers from all national broadcasts. They can absolve all players on the Clippers from all rules and obligations related to the CBA and NBA including media time and promotional events.

Think of it like McDonalds. McDonalds can make you take down the McDonalds signage, and stop you from serving McDonalds products. They can't take away your seats and your kitchen or your employees, but they can effectively make you stop being a McDonalds.

Yes, Sterling would still have a team, but it won't be part of the NBA.

So yes, they can force his removal from the NBA if the 29 other owners REALLY want to force the issue and threaten to destroy the value of the Clippers as a NBA basketball team.

That's assuming they don't already have Master Franchise agreements that allow them to seize control of the Clippers and begin a sale of the Clippers, which they may or may not have depending upon the bylaws of the NBA franchise agreement.

FYL_McVeezy
04-28-2014, 02:34 PM
With the amount of attention this story is getting, this is turning into VERY BAD PR for the league as a whole. The NBA is very "image driven" Trying to avoid some of the things the MLB and NFL have to deal with. That POS Sterling has the right to feel however he feels, and the Clips are his property, but I can see the other 29 owner getting together and pressuring Sterling to sell as a very drastic damage control move.

First things first is proving that's his voice on the tape, which will be tough because it's illegal to record a private conversation w/o the other party's knowledge in CA. Keep in mind Sterling is a lawyer. He will fight till the bitter end.

COOLbeans
04-28-2014, 02:36 PM
It will come down to financial pressures from the free market economy. Money will talk in this situation and the other owners and league will respond.

P&GRealist
04-28-2014, 02:38 PM
They can't oust him out. You can't oust out an owner on the basis of what was said during a PRIVATE CONVERSATION. If his comments were made public by himself on his own power, then we'd be talking.

But as of right now, I don't see how they can force him to sell. And I don't think he will.


Doc will have to ask out of his contract and CP3 will have to demand a trade.

Goose17
04-28-2014, 02:40 PM
He doesn't OWN the team any more than you can OWN a Subway sandwich store. It's a franchise, there are conditions and bylaws he has to be aware of. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579528163324262086)

Legally there is even precedent, Ted Stepien was "forced" out after citing the importance of fielding more white players, believing that would boost attendance. A deal was brokered between him and Stern.


"Requiring the sale of a team would be the most severe sanction," said sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP. "But I believe the NBA would take the position that the commissioner has the necessary authority to take action." He said article 35 of the NBA's constitutional bylaws—which aren't public—gives the commissioner those powers.

Goose17
04-28-2014, 02:41 PM
They can't oust him out. You can't oust out an owner on the basis of what was said during a PRIVATE CONVERSATION.

Yes. They can. Read my last post. It's happened before and there's a bylaw specifically made for this sort thing.

torocan
04-28-2014, 02:42 PM
With the amount of attention this story is getting, this is turning into VERY BAD PR for the league as a whole. The NBA is very "image driven" Trying to avoid some of the things the MLB and NFL have to deal with. That POS Sterling has the right to feel however he feels, and the Clips are his property, but I can see the other 29 owner getting together and pressuring Sterling to sell as a very drastic damage control move.

First things first is proving that's his voice on the tape, which will be tough because it's illegal to record a private conversation w/o the other party's knowledge in CA. Keep in mind Sterling is a lawyer. He will fight till the bitter end.

Proving that it's his voice has nothing to do with whether it was legal to record the conversation or not.

The NBA simply has to hire a voice authentication specialist, compare the audio on the tape to voice samples of Sterling in other interviews. Then they run it through computer audio wave comparisons and look for identifying commonalities in speech, tone, lisps, etc.

They then scan the audio for detectable breaks or gaps in the recording and shifts in audio consistency (evidence of tampering).

They don't require the source to be legal. You can identify whether an audio recording is of a specific person or not with a very high level of accuracy, accurate enough that it would eliminate virtually any reasonable doubt.

And the legality of the source of the recording is irrelevant as the recording became public in nature as soon as it was released to the public. And since it went public, the impact upon the NBA is real will be measurable in lost income and damage to the NBA brand.

The NBA doesn't need to address whether the recording was obtained legally or not once it becomes public. They only have to show to a judge that there is measurable and substantive damage to the revenue and brand of the NBA in order to justify a move to remove Sterling. At that point they are acting to protect the interests of the NBA.

ewing
04-28-2014, 02:45 PM
the owners have given the league a tremendous amount of power. They jointly agreed to giving the league these powers. while the documents that outline the details of the league's power here are not public it is reasonable to assume that if the league can not force Sterling to sell they can apply plenty of pressure. The pressures he will feel from the league, other owners, players, business community, and people within his own organization will likely be to much for him to withstand. I would be very surprised if Donald Sterling had any affiliation with the NBA after this year.

FYL_McVeezy
04-28-2014, 02:51 PM
Proving that it's his voice has nothing to do with whether it was legal to record the conversation or not.

The NBA simply has to hire a voice authentication specialist, compare the audio on the tape to voice samples of Sterling in other interviews. Then they run it through computer audio wave comparisons and look for identifying commonalities in speech, tone, lisps, etc.

They then scan the audio for detectable breaks or gaps in the recording and shifts in audio consistency (evidence of tampering).

They don't require the source to be legal. You can identify whether an audio recording is of a specific person or not with a very high level of accuracy, accurate enough that it would eliminate virtually any reasonable doubt.

And the legality of the source of the recording is irrelevant as the recording became public in nature as soon as it was released to the public. And since it went public, the impact upon the NBA is real will be measurable in lost income and damage to the NBA brand.

The NBA doesn't need to address whether the recording was obtained legally or not once it becomes public. They only have to show to a judge that there is measurable and substantive damage to the revenue and brand of the NBA in order to justify a move to remove Sterling. At that point they are acting to protect the interests of the NBA.

Good point made. Legality is not the issue in regards to the NBA's investigation. Thanks for the clarification. With that being said, I think there's a significant chance that Sterling could be pressure into selling by the league, especially if attendance/merchandise sell go down, and Clips continue to lost sponsorship.

If I were Cp3, BG, and Doc, I would all demand a trade to force his hand....On top of that CP3 is the NBAPA Pres. Yeah this isn't looking good for Sterling right now.

P&GRealist
04-28-2014, 02:59 PM
Yes. They can. Read my last post. It's happened before and there's a bylaw specifically made for this sort thing.

We'll see.

Tony_Starks
04-28-2014, 03:35 PM
The real question is if you're Sterling how long do you let this drag on before you just bow out? Is the prestigious title of being a "owner" really worth being a piriah in your own town?

Mind you his ex claims to have hours more of conversation even worse than the stuff we've heard. If its me I'd rather just leave on my own terms than get isolated, humiliated, and effectively forced out.

He's still going to laugh all the way to the bank in the end but he's attended his last Clipper game....

BALLER R
04-28-2014, 03:42 PM
I would think owners and NBA have some kind of bylaw that if you being an owner is hurting the league, something has to happen.

FYL_McVeezy
04-28-2014, 03:53 PM
The real question is if you're Sterling how long do you let this drag on before you just bow out? Is the prestigious title of being a "owner" really worth being a piriah in your own town?

Mind you his ex claims to have hours more of conversation even worse than the stuff we've heard. If its me I'd rather just leave on my own terms than get isolated, humiliated, and effectively forced out.

He's still going to laugh all the way to the bank in the end but he's attended his last Clipper game....

He's a stubborn bastard. I see this dragging out for a considerable amount of time.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 04:01 PM
He's a stubborn bastard. I see this dragging out for a considerable amount of time.

they can't force him to sell, heck I can see a lawsuit heavily favored in Sterling's way. It isn't illegal to voice (recorded or not) a opinion. Heck HR and PR both, no signs of minority differences.

You can change his title from the team but they guy will still be the "silent" owner and fans and advertisers will come back. Players like CP3 and Blake are under contract and under the CBA still are part of the Clippers for a few years. Expect a public apology soon and him going away for a season or two away from the spotlight, but to be fair, he's been this way according to reports for years so that's not hard for him to do.

Snoop, Magic and all the outrage - you'll see them at a Clipper game next season. AND make no question, it's never a FAN'S team with maybe the exception of the Packers, Sterling is going to make money as long as the Clippers are profitable and nothing the league can do about it.

Touchdownboy
04-28-2014, 04:06 PM
The analogy my friend used: This is like you having a party & telling your buddy not to bring over people u dont like. Then being possibly sued for it

KingstonHawke
04-28-2014, 04:08 PM
It will come down to financial pressures from the free market economy. Money will talk in this situation and the other owners and league will respond.

Exactly! This is why I've been saying it's stupid to want the players to not play and jeopardize their livelihoods. If the public really cares, WE will put enough pressure on the league to respond.

If Staples is half empty next time they go back, that will be all the NBA needs to point at to say this guy has to go.

Also... anyone still saying "allegedly" at this point is just being silly. We all know that it's his voice, even his wife acknowledged that much.

KingstonHawke
04-28-2014, 04:10 PM
The analogy my friend used: This is like you having a party & telling your buddy not to bring over people u dont like. Then being possibly sued for it

No... this is like losing all of your friends. No one is suing him, they are all just deciding to distance themselves from him and his ridiculous views.

HeatBBall
04-28-2014, 04:11 PM
The analogy my friend used: This is like you having a party & telling your buddy not to bring over people u dont like. Then being possibly sued for it

Well your friend is completely off base with an anology like that. One thing is to know who you don't want to invite to your personal party based on situations you may have dealt with them in the past, but to state that you don't want a certain race or races attending a game in which is open to the public is completely different.

Goose17
04-28-2014, 04:13 PM
they can't force him to sell,

Yes. They can.


How many times do I need to post this before you people actually ****ing read it?



He doesn't OWN the team any more than you can OWN a Subway sandwich store. It's a franchise, there are conditions and bylaws he has to be aware of. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579528163324262086)


"Requiring the sale of a team would be the most severe sanction," said sports lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn LLP. "But I believe the NBA would take the position that the commissioner has the necessary authority to take action." He said article 35 of the NBA's constitutional bylaws—which aren't public—gives the commissioner those powers.

Legally there is even precedent, Ted Stepien was "forced" out after citing the importance of fielding more white players, believing that would boost attendance. A deal was brokered between him and Stern.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 04:28 PM
Yes. They can.


How many times do I need to post this before you people actually ****ing read it?

Those Bylaws can be challenged in court - Sterling knows it and he's got enough in terms standing that he's got a great chance of winning. So go for it NBA, they know they can't force the sale and it would be more profitable for them to have this situation go away with Sterling being a "silent" owner.

The fans have nothing to do with this because they will still watch, pay tickets and buy merchandise if you spin this right for the PR team and the Clippers. Sterling isn't going away just because he voiced his opinion, has his opinion done anything illegal ... no. It's HIS team ... he can do whatever he wants with it and don't give "false" hope any fan can do things, you can't. The only way he sells this squad much like Frank McCourt is he's broke ... he isn't, he's been known for being a frugal owner for years. As a fan, learn to live with it like you have for many seasons before this ... stop believing you can make a difference, this is bigger than you or the league.

Thumper 88
04-28-2014, 04:35 PM
What happens I'f the clippers win the championship... Does he raise the trophy and hand it off to the players?

Goose17
04-28-2014, 04:41 PM
So go for it NBA, they know they can't force the sale

They can, they've done it before, for racist comments made in a private conversation.



it would be more profitable for them to have this situation go away with Sterling being a "silent" owner.


IMO, they will suspend him, take over the running of it and have him sell it off within a year or two.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 04:42 PM
They can, they've done it before, for racist comments made in a private conversation.



IMO, they will suspend him, take over the running of it and have him sell it off within a year or two.

When did they do that?

Patriot Pride
04-28-2014, 04:44 PM
The analogy my friend used: This is like you having a party & telling your buddy not to bring over people u dont like. Then being possibly sued for it

This logic is so flawed. You and your friend know nothing about business, law, or ethics. Thats what I got from this.

abe_froman
04-28-2014, 04:44 PM
When did they do that?

ted steipen ,who owned the cavs back in the 80's

Goose17
04-28-2014, 04:45 PM
When did they do that?

Read my previous post, it was more of a mutual agreement, but Stepien clearly had his arm twisted.

king4day
04-28-2014, 04:48 PM
They probably can't force him out but it's bad business if he stays.

Players won't want to play there anymore.
Current players will demand trades.
Sponsor's will stop sponsoring (as CarMax did today).
Fans will stop showing up (more likely to begin next season if he's still there).

He's in a hole too deep to dig out of. He needs to sell and move on.

TheMightyHumph
04-28-2014, 04:54 PM
He doesn't OWN the team any more than you can OWN a Subway sandwich store. It's a franchise, there are conditions and bylaws he has to be aware of. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579528163324262086)

Legally there is even precedent, Ted Stepien was "forced" out after citing the importance of fielding more white players, believing that would boost attendance. A deal was brokered between him and Stern.

Stepian sold the team in '83. Stern became commish in '84.

Ted wasn't forced out. He was losing money and everyone hated him and was ignoring his team. Never read a word about his being a racist.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 04:54 PM
Read my previous post, it was more of a mutual agreement, but Stepien clearly had his arm twisted.

That was back in the early 80's when teams were not worth much. They can, but Sterling would have a huge case against the NBA. I just read this:


Q. Why do we keep hearing that the NBA can't force Sterling to sell the team like it did with Cleveland's Ted Stepien in the 1980s?

A: This is a different time. Franchise values have skyrocketed to levels they didn't dare dream of in Stepien's time.
And the Clippers, like it or not, are Sterling's private property, prompting numerous sources to say this week that mandating a sale would be virtually impossible.

Sterling's status as Clippers owner is similar to that of a franchisee in that he has the right to use NBA logos and be a part of the league. But it's considered highly unlikely Silver and his fellow owners would be willing to attempt to revoke his rights as a franchise owner because of the legal ramifications of such a bold decision.


How the NBA goes about determining the authenticity of the tapes, as well as the context in which they were made, could likewise prove difficult without the cooperation of Stiviano, or an admission from Sterling, because the original recordings are in TMZ's hands. A statement from Clippers president Andy Roeser released Saturday implied that Sterling might have been set up to make such comments, or that the tapes might have been doctored. The statement did not directly dispute that it was Sterling's voice on the recordings, except to say that "what is reflected on that recording is not consistent with, nor does it reflect his views, beliefs or feelings."

Yet one league insider insisted to ESPN.com that Sterling is indeed "on his way out if the tape is legit," despite all of the tricky variables to consider.

"Maybe he will be managed out over time, but it could be abrupt," the source said. "The alleged statements are indefensible from the standpoint of the commissioner, players, owners and many fans. Sterling may seek to negotiate, but he has little or no leverage because he will become a pariah.

"Some people are arguing that his statements were private and that he was set up by his girlfriend. This may be true, but it misses the point that the NBA can't and won't associate with a known racist."

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10851145/how-nba-respond-donald-sterling

They can do it, or do it over time, but if Sterling fights it, it will be a long legal battle.

Tony_Starks
04-28-2014, 04:55 PM
Those Bylaws can be challenged in court - Sterling knows it and he's got enough in terms standing that he's got a great chance of winning. So go for it NBA, they know they can't force the sale and it would be more profitable for them to have this situation go away with Sterling being a "silent" owner.

The fans have nothing to do with this because they will still watch, pay tickets and buy merchandise if you spin this right for the PR team and the Clippers. Sterling isn't going away just because he voiced his opinion, has his opinion done anything illegal ... no. It's HIS team ... he can do whatever he wants with it and don't give "false" hope any fan can do things, you can't. The only way he sells this squad much like Frank McCourt is he's broke ... he isn't, he's been known for being a frugal owner for years. As a fan, learn to live with it like you have for many seasons before this ... stop believing you can make a difference, this is bigger than you or the league.

Your delusional bro. Corporate sponsors and leaving. That's money. The nba will more than likely suspend him indefinitely tomorrow. Then when the recordings are finally verified all the owners will have no choice but to turn their backs on him in disgust.

It's not about legally "forcing" him to sell. It's about isolating him and everyone across the nba and corporate saying "we don't want you here."

rhd420
04-28-2014, 04:56 PM
They probably can't force him out but it's bad business if he stays.

Players won't want to play there anymore.
Current players will demand trades.
Sponsor's will stop sponsoring (as CarMax did today).
Fans will stop showing up (more likely to begin next season if he's still there).

He's in a hole too deep to dig out of. He needs to sell and move on.

there has always been silent owners in business ... you spin it right it goes away much like many sports controversies. He apparently has had a great PR team for all these years since this FINALLY has come out but as I said, there has not been any signs of illegal business practices. Demand a trade all they want, they still hold the players rights under the CBA so go for it ... players not playing and voiding contracts, how many years were the Clippers bad, I guarantee you D League players that want to break into the league would jump at this chance on top of compensating the owner you want to punish, funny how that works.

It's the Clippers - fans not showing up, guess what, that's happened alot in their history and they survived, well there was Clipper Daryl. You never give up the goose that lays the golden eggs if you don't need to.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 04:59 PM
Your delusional bro. Corporate sponsors and leaving. That's money. The nba will more than likely suspend him indefinitely tomorrow. Then when the recordings are finally verified all the owners will have no choice but to turn their backs on him in disgust.

It's not about legally "forcing" him to sell. It's about isolating him and everyone across the nba and corporate saying "we don't want you here."

Mentioned this on a post - it's the Clippers, he's been isolating the team for years, if you haven't noticed. Losing records still turned profits. Corporate sponsors, spin it right they'll get others and probably cheaper under the Sterling "isn't involved" in day to day. Seriously, what makes you as a fan think you can do anything about it? It's Sterling's team

Ebbs
04-28-2014, 05:02 PM
He Can't Be Forced to Sell People!!!

Only way that could happen is if he neglected financial responsibility

Tony_Starks
04-28-2014, 05:03 PM
Mentioned this on a post - it's the Clippers, he's been isolating the team for years, if you haven't noticed. Losing records still turned profits. Corporate sponsors, spin it right they'll get others and probably cheaper under the Sterling "isn't involved" in day to day. Seriously, what makes you as a fan think you can do anything about it? It's Sterling's team

If you think so man, so be it. You sound incredibly naive though FYI. You do understand the difference between supporting a losing team and supporting a outed racist right?

There's also a difference between forcing someone out and making it extremely uncomfortable for him...

king4day
04-28-2014, 05:03 PM
there has always been silent owners in business ... you spin it right it goes away much like many sports controversies. He apparently has had a great PR team for all these years since this FINALLY has come out but as I said, there has not been any signs of illegal business practices. Demand a trade all they want, they still hold the players rights under the CBA so go for it ... players not playing and voiding contracts, how many years were the Clippers bad, I guarantee you D League players that want to break into the league would jump at this chance on top of compensating the owner you want to punish, funny how that works.

It's the Clippers - fans not showing up, guess what, that's happened alot in their history and they survived, well there was Clipper Daryl. You never give up the goose that lays the golden eggs if you don't need to.

Good points.

Patriot Pride
04-28-2014, 05:05 PM
He Can't Be Forced to Sell People!!!

Only way that could happen is if he neglected financial responsibility

Which would include PR relations....

To say that these comments are financially responsible is insane. Look at all the sponsors leaving.

abe_froman
04-28-2014, 05:07 PM
Stepian sold the team in '83. Stern became commish in '84.

Ted wasn't forced out. He was losing money and everyone hated him and was ignoring his team. Never read a word about his being a racist.

to be fair sterling isnt liked either.i mean up until this scandal broke,i never heard anyone stick up for him in any way(which is sad that racism has made his popularity rise)

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:08 PM
He shouldn't have said what he said but he shouldn't have been recorded. One thing he should do is bring a bunch of lawsuits against the chick that recorded. Not to get any money from her, but just to make her go broke defending herself. He has some legit cases he can bring against her also.

Patriot Pride
04-28-2014, 05:09 PM
He shouldn't have said what he said but he shouldn't have been recorded. One thing he should do is bring a bunch of lawsuits against the chick that recorded. Not to get any money from her, but just to make her go broke defending herself. He has some legit cases he can bring against her also.

Only if she is lying and I don't think she is.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:10 PM
Which would include PR relations....

To say that these comments are financially responsible is insane. Look at all the sponsors leaving.

But, it is his money, and he still has more than enough to run the team and pay the players. The sponsers are hurting his bottom line, but he still has money to pay the bills. I think his real estate assets are worth more than the Clippers.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:10 PM
Only if she is lying and I don't think she is.

You cant record private convos and make them public in California without the consent of the other party.

Patriot Pride
04-28-2014, 05:13 PM
But, it is his money, and he still has more than enough to run the team and pay the players. The sponsers are hurting his bottom line, but he still has money to pay the bills. I think his real estate assets are worth more than the Clippers.

Right but the NBA as a whole is also losing money from this. Not just the Clips.

Goose17
04-28-2014, 05:13 PM
You cant record private convos and make them public in California without the consent of the other party.

We've already covered this, the legal side of it is irrelevant to the NBA.

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:16 PM
Per ESPN...


Sterling faces tough challenge
NBA bylaws clear that L.A. Clippers owner must accept commissioner's ruling

Q: Is it possible for Silver and the NBA to terminate Sterling's franchise ownership?

A: Yes. Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely." Silver and the owners could assert that Sterling's statements violated the constitution's requirements to conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level.

Any owner or Silver can initiate the termination procedure with a written charge describing the violation. Sterling would have five days to respond to the charge with a written answer. The commissioner would then schedule a special meeting of the NBA Board of Governors within 10 days. Both sides would have a chance to present their evidence, and then the board would vote. If three-fourths of the board members vote to terminate, then Sterling would face termination of his ownership. It would require a vote of two-thirds of the board to reduce the termination to a fine. Terminating a franchise would obviously be a drastic remedy, but the potential of the termination procedure gives Silver and the other owners vast leverage in any discussion with Sterling about an involuntary sale of his team.

Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

Apparently the NBA has the nuclear option, should they choose to use it.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:17 PM
We've already covered this, the legal side of it is irrelevant to the NBA.

It is relevant. They can't have a change of ownership is there are a bunch of court cases brought on from Sterling open regarding this matter. If they tell him to sell and he sues the NBA, he won't have to sell until the judge rules he has to. The judge could also rule that he doesn't have to and the NBA can't use the tape that was illegally obtained evidence.

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:19 PM
It is relevant. They can't have a change of ownership is there are a bunch of court cases brought on from Sterling open regarding this matter. If they tell him to sell and he sues the NBA, he won't have to sell until the judge rules he has to. The judge could also rule that he doesn't have to and the NBA can't use the tape that was illegally obtained evidence.

Legally They can. The NBA franchise contract include surrendering the right to court resolution, ie, it's treated as arbitration.

It's 100% binding, and can not be appealed in a court of law. Nor would a court of law allow him to appeal it.

Goose17
04-28-2014, 05:19 PM
It is relevant. They can't have a change of ownership is there are a bunch of court cases brought on from Sterling open regarding this matter. If they tell him to sell and he sues the NBA, he won't have to sell until the judge rules he has to. The judge could also rule that he doesn't have to and the NBA can't use the tape that was illegally obtained evidence.

Right but they can suspend him immediately, right this second. And they can take control of the team. No court needed. They would then control the team (with him as the owner/silent partner) until he decides to sell or until they've been through the court crap and are able to force the sale.

There's more than one way to skin this cat.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:24 PM
Right but they can suspend him immediately, right this second. And they can take control of the team. No court needed. They would then control the team (with him as the owner/silent partner) until he decides to sell or until they've been through the court crap and are able to force the sale.

There's more than one way to skin this cat.

Sure there is, but the NBA isn't going to take control of the team, they would make Sterling give up control to his wife or son in law. The franchise isn't broke and the NBA is going to take it over.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:34 PM
Legally They can. The NBA franchise contract include surrendering the right to court resolution, ie, it's treated as arbitration.

It's 100% binding, and can not be appealed in a court of law. Nor would a court of law allow him to appeal it.

But this isn't a cut and dry case. It includes illegally obtained evidence. That is why if the NBA rules he has to sell, it will be a big deal. He might just turn it over to his family and not run the team or have anything to do with it.

Atticus Finch
04-28-2014, 05:35 PM
But this isn't a cut and dry case. It includes illegally obtained evidence. That is why if the NBA rules he has to sell, it will be a big deal. He might just turn it over to his family and not run the team or have anything to do with it.

Do we know it was recorded illegally? Everything I've read says he knew he was being recorded and he's even on tape consenting to being recorded.

Patriot Pride
04-28-2014, 05:36 PM
You cant record private convos and make them public in California without the consent of the other party.

Didn't know that. Doesn't really make any sense to me. I looked it up and there are 11 states with the two party consent laws you mentioned including cali and new hampshire where I live - good to know.

Seems to me like when you use a cell phone these days you pretty much consent to being recorded though.

Vinylman
04-28-2014, 05:37 PM
He doesn't OWN the team any more than you can OWN a Subway sandwich store. It's a franchise, there are conditions and bylaws he has to be aware of. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579528163324262086)

Legally there is even precedent, Ted Stepien was "forced" out after citing the importance of fielding more white players, believing that would boost attendance. A deal was brokered between him and Stern.

pure speculation... the articles out there are 10-1 that they can't "legally" force a sale for anything other than teams not paying their bills..

Your analysis on stepien is revisionist at best... it took a long time for the league to broker a deal to get him to sell. He made the comments in 1979 and sold in 1983. The time period alone shows that the nba really can't do anything other than a "soft" campaign to oust him.

The best case study is marge shott of the reds ... she was fined $200k ( a lot in 1993) and was banned for a year for racist comments about blacks, jews and asians i believe...

She was later banned for a couple of years for making some comments about Hitler being a good guy or something like that... she then sold the team.

Again, It would be shocking if the NBA tried to "legally" force sterling to sell the team... won't happen... not that it shouldn't

goingfor28
04-28-2014, 05:39 PM
Legally They can. The NBA franchise contract include surrendering the right to court resolution, ie, it's treated as arbitration.

It's 100% binding, and can not be appealed in a court of law. Nor would a court of law allow him to appeal it.

Except if the chick is not lying which I don't think she is either, then DTS consented to being recorded. He supposedly asked her to bc he forgets stuff he says

Vinylman
04-28-2014, 05:40 PM
Legally They can. The NBA franchise contract include surrendering the right to court resolution, ie, it's treated as arbitration.

It's 100% binding, and can not be appealed in a court of law. Nor would a court of law allow him to appeal it.


can you post a copy of the "NBA Franchise Contract"

Thanks

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:43 PM
But this isn't a cut and dry case. It includes illegally obtained evidence. That is why if the NBA rules he has to sell, it will be a big deal. He might just turn it over to his family and not run the team or have anything to do with it.

The woman's lawyer has stated that the recordings were done legally, and that she has recorded his consent to those recordings.

Apparently he had her record over 100 hours of tapes.



Donald Sterling to GF:
How Can We Make This Go Away?

Donald Sterling contacted his ex-girlfriend Sunday and asked her flatly, "How can we make this go away?" ... sources connected with Sterling tell TMZ Sports.

Our sources say ... Sterling is keenly aware V. Stiviano is in possession of more than 100 hours of recordings ... some of which are extremely damaging to Sterling's reputation.

Our sources say Stiviano told Sterling to call her lawyer ... and thereby opened the door to settlement discussions. It's obvious the incentive for Sterling is to make sure the rest of the tapes never see the light of day.

TMZ Sports contacted Stiviano's lawyer Mac E. Nehoray ... who had no comment.

We know Stiviano is extremely upset that the Clippers and Donald Sterling publicly embraced a lawsuit filed by Sterling's wife Shelly against Stivianio, claiming she stole $1.8 million from Donald.

As for why Stiviano taped so many conversations ... as TMZ Sports reported, she told friends the Clippers owner WANTED her to record him and he knew he was being recorded ... partly because he frequently forgot what he said and the tapes refreshed his memory ... at least that's her story.

And this is interesting ... on Stiviano's Instagram page, she constantly tagged photos with "#RandomHouse" and "#Simon&Schuster" ... both large book publishing companies.

Sources connected with Stiviano tell us ... she IS in the process of writing a book "about life" -- but she insists it is not about Sterling.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-v-stiviano-settlement-conversation-book-deal-life-clippers-audio-recordings/

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:44 PM
Do we know it was recorded illegally? Everything I've read says he knew he was being recorded and he's even on tape consenting to being recorded.

For his private use because he forgets stuff. It is obvious in this case she took advantage of it and set the questions up a certain way like she was a PI.

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:44 PM
can you post a copy of the "NBA Franchise Contract"

Thanks

Scroll up, ESPN broke out the relative paragraghs.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:46 PM
The woman's lawyer has stated that the recordings were done legally, and that she has recorded his consent to those recordings.

Apparently he had her record over 100 hours of tapes.



http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-v-stiviano-settlement-conversation-book-deal-life-clippers-audio-recordings/

She might have a good lawyer, but when Sterlings lawyers fire back, I would like to see him beat that case or for her to keep paying him and see how long she can afford to fight it.

Vinylman
04-28-2014, 05:50 PM
Which would include PR relations....

To say that these comments are financially responsible is insane. Look at all the sponsors leaving.

omfg... step away from the computer

Vinylman
04-28-2014, 05:53 PM
She might have a good lawyer, but when Sterlings lawyers fire back, I would like to see him beat that case or for her to keep paying him and see how long she can afford to fight it.

she is gonna barter with her lawyer like every other whore

JasonJohnHorn
04-28-2014, 06:06 PM
because its not like owning your own business,he's a franchisee.which means he owns them conditionally ,he is subject to bylaws that he agreed to when he bought the team.....and one of the bylaws is that the commissioner can force the sale of a team


/thread.

TheMightyHumph
04-28-2014, 06:50 PM
/thread.

And yet, this thread will go on, because it is not going to simple.

Kenny Powders
05-12-2014, 08:20 AM
^^ your like Glenn Close in fatal attraction.

slashsnake
05-12-2014, 03:32 PM
But this isn't a cut and dry case. It includes illegally obtained evidence. That is why if the NBA rules he has to sell, it will be a big deal. He might just turn it over to his family and not run the team or have anything to do with it.

It definitely isn't cut and dry. There is a lot of state and federal law to go through.

For example, lets say I am in need of a job badly and minimum wage is 7 bucks an hour in my state. I go in to a company and they say, "we can only afford to pay you $5.50 an hour, so if you sign this waiver that you will work for that, we will hire you". I sign it and start my new job. Lets say a year later I sue them in court for the difference from that wage up to minimum wage... Do I have a case?

That is what is up for debate here. He signed those things that said the NBA can take his team for whatever reason they see fit as long as the other owners agree. But is that legal?

I think a lot will depend on the judge in that case. Lets say you own a McDonalds franchise. You cook your fries in cow fat and call them vegetarian, you make your own big Mac recipe that is half the size of every other McDonalds, and you have a salmonella problem. Does McDonalds deserve the right to take away your franchise because you are giving them a horrible name? I think they do, if you said you would follow their franchisee rules. But that's me.

JEDean89
05-12-2014, 06:24 PM
sterling is a minority business partner, this **** happens to minority business partners all the time

Trwood12
05-12-2014, 07:26 PM
Because the nba is a company and they have to right to disassociate themself with a someone like that. They have to enter into some sort of contract before becomming owners

IndyRealist
05-12-2014, 08:58 PM
Why is this thread still going? Why won't people listen to reason and common sense?

Here's an analogy. A Home Owners' Association is made up of home owners in the neighborhood. You buy a house, pay dues, and the HOA takes care of things for you, like street lights and pot holes and getting the grass of common areas mowed. They do things for you, and you are a part of the community. In general they improve the value of your home and your quality of life.

BUT....the HOA has rules. Like all houses have to have a certain color scheme, and you can't put out your garabage cans except on garbage day. The point of these rules is to protect the value of your home from stupid **** your neighbor wants to do to his house. And it IS his house. He owns it. But if he proceeds to paint his house purple and put five dozen plastic flamingos in his yard, the HOA can fine him, BECAUSE HE SIGNED A CONTRACT GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO. If worse comes to worse, the HOA can take his house from him. Yes, you read that right. A home owners' association can take your house from you and sell it if you violate the rules. Courts have upheld this in every State, because YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT SAYING THEY COULD.

The NBA is structured exactly like a HOA. I don't know if I can explain it any simpler.

Trueblue2
05-12-2014, 09:58 PM
He signed a contract when he bought the team saying a 75 percent vote can kick him out. That's how he can be forced to sell.


/thread

ghettosean
05-12-2014, 10:25 PM
He signed a contract when he bought the team saying a 75 percent vote can kick him out. That's how he can be forced to sell.


/thread

:clap:

Doesn't get any simpler than that!

Crackadalic
05-13-2014, 01:06 AM
Why is this thread still going? Why won't people listen to reason and common sense?

Here's an analogy. A Home Owners' Association is made up of home owners in the neighborhood. You buy a house, pay dues, and the HOA takes care of things for you, like street lights and pot holes and getting the grass of common areas mowed. They do things for you, and you are a part of the community. In general they improve the value of your home and your quality of life.

BUT....the HOA has rules. Like all houses have to have a certain color scheme, and you can't put out your garabage cans except on garbage day. The point of these rules is to protect the value of your home from stupid **** your neighbor wants to do to his house. And it IS his house. He owns it. But if he proceeds to paint his house purple and put five dozen plastic flamingos in his yard, the HOA can fine him, BECAUSE HE SIGNED A CONTRACT GIVING THEM THE RIGHT TO. If worse comes to worse, the HOA can take his house from him. Yes, you read that right. A home owners' association can take your house from you and sell it if you violate the rules. Courts have upheld this in every State, because YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT SAYING THEY COULD.

The NBA is structured exactly like a HOA. I don't know if I can explain it any simpler.


He signed a contract when he bought the team saying a 75 percent vote can kick him out. That's how he can be forced to sell.


/thread

Pretty much. I don't understand how people still don't get it. He sign a contract that even the law can't go against because it's within the nba constitution

People think the nba can make him sell. That's not legally possible

What the nba can do is dissolve the clippers franchise to the point where if sterling doesn't sell he loses so much money that he has no other choice but to sell

mrblisterdundee
05-13-2014, 01:15 AM
He's financially harmed his team and the NBA, which is a money driven organization. That's the philosophical reason. Beyond that, I believe someone's already reminded you that majority league votes can force sales.

sweet-d
05-13-2014, 06:33 AM
No I don't think they'll be able to prove sterling made them lose money. They aren't going to do what they have to do to force Sterling to sell the team and he'll fight to keep it too. The NBA is basically stuck with Sterling unless they can convince him to sell. I'm pretty sure he would win in court also.

ghettosean
05-13-2014, 07:43 AM
No I don't think they'll be able to prove sterling made them lose money. They aren't going to do what they have to do to force Sterling to sell the team and he'll fight to keep it too. The NBA is basically stuck with Sterling unless they can convince him to sell. I'm pretty sure he would win in court also.

Pretty sure losing over half a dozen sponsors directly after the release will be enough along with direct statements from these sponsors like state farm directly explaining the are cancelling or suspending deals because of the racist remarks by Sterling will be enough to prove the team is losing money because of him.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/28/5661822/donald-sterling-clippers-losing-sponsors-state-farm-kia

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 11:10 AM
No I don't think they'll be able to prove sterling made them lose money. They aren't going to do what they have to do to force Sterling to sell the team and he'll fight to keep it too. The NBA is basically stuck with Sterling unless they can convince him to sell. I'm pretty sure he would win in court also.

Well I am not sure they have to prove that. For them to remove him they just need the vote. According to the deal for franchise owners, he can appeal, but I don't see an NBA appointed appeal panel finding any new idea's to clear him.

If he says removing him is illegal and challenges in court, why they removed him isn't really important now, just if it is legal to force and owner to sell.

Crackadalic
05-13-2014, 11:14 AM
Well I am not sure they have to prove that. For them to remove him they just need the vote. According to the deal for franchise owners, he can appeal, but I don't see an NBA appointed appeal panel finding any new idea's to clear him.

If he says removing him is illegal and challenges in court, why they removed him isn't really important now, just if it is legal to force and owner to sell.

It is legal to dissolve the clippers to not exist any more. He can't make any money if the franchise doesn't exist when the owners vote

It's been repeated countless times in this thread. They can't legally force him to sell. They can leave him no choice but to sell and the nba constitution is within the laws when it was first created

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 11:44 AM
It is legal to dissolve the clippers to not exist any more. He can't make any money if the franchise doesn't exist when the owners vote

It's been repeated countless times in this thread. They can't legally force him to sell. They can leave him no choice but to sell and the nba constitution is within the laws when it was first created

I was wondering about that too. I think that would be interesting. Basically that would be forcing him to sell (here's the name and uniforms, our expansion team is starting up in LA tomorrow, your team can't play in the NBA, and we have free'd all your players from their contracts).


And it may come down to courts if they can legally force him to sell. Like I said earlier, if you own a franchise for McDonalds, and decide you are selling Pepsi products, or making the Big Mac half the size, or sitting there saying you are refusing service to minority customers, McDonalds can come along and pull your franchise. Its happened for bad press too. A guy had his pulled for unfair housing practices (sound familiar). Another wasn't allowed to sell his to his brother (sound familiar) as they can refuse who buys your franchise.

GM would be another, there were dealerships that owned a GM franchise and were forced to shut down.

If those companies can force a franchisee owner to shutter their business or sell, why can't the NBA?

WSU Tony
05-13-2014, 11:49 AM
If you work for the government or an umbrella company (NBA) you're at the mercy of the bylaws. This isn't private business, don't be mistaken.

joeyc77
05-13-2014, 01:10 PM
If you work for the government or an umbrella company (NBA) you're at the mercy of the bylaws. This isn't private business, don't be mistaken.

That's right the NBA has bylaws but those bylaws work both ways.

In order for the owners to vote out a Sterling, he needs to have violated a bylaw in their opinion. The way those bylaws are currently written, it would take some level of interpretation on the part of the owners to state he violated letter a) or d) of those laws, which are the only two that may apply. Since it's not clear cut, if or when the owners do force him out, there are plenty of grounds for Sterling to file an appeal and potentially sue.

In other words, if Sterling chooses to, he can tie this up for a long time. It comes down to whether or not the money matters more to him or whatever principles he believe he stands on.

Tony_Starks
05-13-2014, 01:37 PM
I can't believe people still can't get the concept of what's going on.

Quit getting so hung up on the term "force to sale." At the end of the day the NBA has all the policies in place and on their side. As notoriously cheap as Sterling is there's no way he drags this on for years out of spite. Even if he does the NBA has the ultimate nuclear option of dissolving his team and starting fresh so he's in a no win situation.

He can sell and make a billion, and lose his team. He can fight, pay attorneys fees for years, see the team get dissolved and still lose his team.

Raps08-09 Champ
05-13-2014, 01:48 PM
In the by laws and constitution.


The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner's judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

....


The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

....

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf


He bought the team. He agreed to being subject to those by laws.

futureman
05-13-2014, 01:57 PM
Well if anybody has any controversial beliefs, they will have their property taken from them. That's the message that this leaves. I'm predicting Sterling will get this tied up in court until he dies. But now people are guilty like Mrs. Sterling, who also owns the team, and has made no racial comments whatsoever. She is being forbidden from owning the team for no reason.

Political Correctness is ruining the country. Taking personal property because of beliefs, will be the norm.

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 02:12 PM
Well if anybody has any controversial beliefs, they will have their property taken from them. That's the message that this leaves. I'm predicting Sterling will get this tied up in court until he dies. But now people are guilty like Mrs. Sterling, who also owns the team, and has made no racial comments whatsoever. She is being forbidden from owning the team for no reason.

Political Correctness is ruining the country. Taking personal property because of beliefs, will be the norm.

Yes, Mrs Sterling is a Saint... Oh wait, nope, same kind of bigoted racist stuff attributed to her as her husband. “Oh, my God. This is so filthy. I can’t remodel my apartments the way that I want because Latinos are so filthy.” and "who do you think you are, you black m—f—."

She is being forbidden from running the team because the NBA would first have to vote her in as a controlling owner.

She could be ousted because of the constitution that her husband helped put and keep in place that says if the principal owners interest is terminated all owners interest is terminated.

And I am not too upset that he signed a contract that will take away some power from a racist man who has proven multiple times to use that power to hold back minorities. I'm not going to shed a tear that he's going to be forced to get a billion dollars.

D-Leethal
05-13-2014, 02:19 PM
This thread perfectly epitomizes the average intelligence and reading comprehension level on the NBA forum. Jesus Christ, WTF is so hard to understand about being a franchisee vs owning your own business? Its been perfectly spelled out in elaborate detail, and in layman's terms, and in complete utter kindergarten terms and people still can't grasp it?

I think its time for this thread to be closed, there are enough Sterling threads where we don't need to keep beating a dead horse here.

D-Leethal
05-13-2014, 02:19 PM
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I fear for the future of humanity.

torocan
05-13-2014, 02:28 PM
Well if anybody has any controversial beliefs, they will have their property taken from them. That's the message that this leaves. I'm predicting Sterling will get this tied up in court until he dies. But now people are guilty like Mrs. Sterling, who also owns the team, and has made no racial comments whatsoever. She is being forbidden from owning the team for no reason.

Political Correctness is ruining the country. Taking personal property because of beliefs, will be the norm.

Seriously, that's what you got out of this?.

The message is simple...

IF you form a business partnerships (like sign a Franchise agreement with McDonalds, 7-11, the NBA, etc), then your partners can hold you accountable if you do stuff that hurts that partnerships (like say controversial stuff or have controversial beliefs).

You can have all the free speech you want, as long as it doesn't hurt your employer or your business partners. Otherwise they have very right to either fire your butt or force you out of their business association.

There's no such thing as free speech without responsibility.

thunderdood
05-13-2014, 02:37 PM
Seriously, that's what you got out of this?.

The message is simple...

IF you form a business partnerships (like sign a Franchise agreement with McDonalds, 7-11, the NBA, etc), then your partners can hold you accountable if you do stuff that hurts that partnerships (like say controversial stuff or have controversial beliefs).

You can have all the free speech you want, as long as it doesn't hurt your employer or your business partners. Otherwise they have very right to either fire your butt or force you out of their business association.

There's no such thing as free speech without responsibility.

Does the fact that this conversation was a privately recorded without the other party knowing go into consideration? That just seems pretty messed up that the girlfriend committed a crime and seems like she is off the hook.

Tony_Starks
05-13-2014, 02:42 PM
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I fear for the future of humanity.

I don't think some of these folks are that stupid. Scratch that, I would hope they're not that stupid. I think they're just playing dumb to ultimately defend Sterling and push a "what did he do that was so wrong"....."fight for your right to be racist"...... agenda.

Tony_Starks
05-13-2014, 02:44 PM
Does the fact that this conversation was a privately recorded without the other party knowing go into consideration? That just seems pretty messed up that the girlfriend committed a crime and seems like she is off the hook.

For the millionth time she had his permission to record him. No crime was committed.

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 02:49 PM
Does the fact that this conversation was a privately recorded without the other party knowing go into consideration? That just seems pretty messed up that the girlfriend committed a crime and seems like she is off the hook.

Not really, we aren't talking the legal side of things. If he wants to sue her, IF it was without his knowledge, then that is something he will need to consider.

While I don't agree with how he was outed, it doesn't change what he said. It doesn't change the fact that he is a racist. Two separate issues there.

joeyc77
05-13-2014, 02:49 PM
In the by laws and constitution.



http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf


He bought the team. He agreed to being subject to those by laws.

Correct and the NBA must abide by those bylaws as well.

Sterling can make a strong case as to whether he WILLFULLY violated those bylaws. By all accounts, he was not a willful participant in making those comments public, which is in fact what damaged the NBA.

I'm not saying the NBA will lose but to suggest this case will be cut and dry if Sterling chooses to fight is over simplifying it at best.

torocan
05-13-2014, 02:53 PM
Does the fact that this conversation was a privately recorded without the other party knowing go into consideration? That just seems pretty messed up that the girlfriend committed a crime and seems like she is off the hook.

No, it doesn't. Once your beliefs are hurting my business, whether it was accidental or not, I have the right to protect my property and distance myself. Property rights > free speech rights.

The foundation of free speech is you have the right to say and believe what you wish as long as it doesn't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. You can't say lies about another person, that's slander. You can't print lies about another person, that's libel. You can't say things that harm your employer, that's ground for termination. And you can't say things that harm your business partners. That's grounds for disassociation.

And while you can say it was meant to be private, even the belief of privacy is not a justification. When you take on a job as an employee or sign to be a business partner, you accept a higher level of accountability than if you're self-employed. You are no long just accountable to yourself, you are accountable to others. And if you care that much about it, you will guard your words carefully and make sure that nobody can record what you say.

There's an old rule in business and politics. Never say anything unless you're comfortable with it being broadcast to the world. If you think your views or words will hurt you, then shut the hell up and don't say anything. Otherwise, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you get caught.

Quite simply, nobody has or should have the right to cost me or anyone else millions of dollars because they can't keep their mouth shut or can't choose their affairs wisely.

raiderfaninTX
05-13-2014, 02:53 PM
The legal problem is, this person said this in their own home. This may fall under right to work laws in California. I doubt the state of California would back that.

Look at it like this can Mcdonalds legally remove someone from owning a franchise because they said something they didn't like in their own home? The answer is probably NO

D-Leethal
05-13-2014, 02:57 PM
The legal problem is, this person said this in their own home. This may fall under right to work laws in California. I doubt the state of California would back that.

Look at it like this can Mcdonalds legally remove someone from owning a franchise because they said something they didn't like in their own home? The answer is probably NO

If whatever was said in their own home became public knowledge and damaged the McDonalds brand as a result, the answer is definitely yes.

torocan
05-13-2014, 02:58 PM
Correct and the NBA must abide by those bylaws as well.

Sterling can make a strong case as to whether he WILLFULLY violated those bylaws. By all accounts, he was not a willful participant in making those comments public, which is in fact what damaged the NBA.

I'm not saying the NBA will lose but to suggest this case will be cut and dry if Sterling chooses to fight is over simplifying it at best.

13(a) isn't really the applicable clause that will be used in this case. Though after last night's interview with CNN, it probably applies now.

The case will focus primarily on 13(d).


(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf


The source told CNN that on several occasions since 1981 Sterling has signed other agreements with the NBA -- some within the past decade -- that contained moral clauses.

Sterling's comments, the source explained, puts the 80-year-old owner in violation of Article 13(d) of the NBA constitution, which states that an owner can lose the team if he fails or refuses to "fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversly."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/us/clippers-donald-sterling/

In other words, Sterling violated the constitution by violating the moral clauses that he signed multiple times in other contracts with the NBA.

astonmartin10
05-13-2014, 03:05 PM
Well it's a privilege to own a NBA or any sports team with board of directors voting on you being an owner. They ultimately have to oblige by the by laws of the league.

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 03:06 PM
The legal problem is, this person said this in their own home. This may fall under right to work laws in California. I doubt the state of California would back that.

Look at it like this can Mcdonalds legally remove someone from owning a franchise because they said something they didn't like in their own home? The answer is probably NO


I don't know. I bet they would have a good chance if they had an owner who had been sued for discrimination issues in the past saying how he doesn't want african americans to be served in his McDonalds no matter where or when he said it.

raiderfaninTX
05-13-2014, 03:07 PM
Well it's a privilege to own a NBA or any sports team with board of directors voting on you being an owner. They ultimately have to oblige by the by laws of the league.

It wouldn't be the first time part of a contract was ruled illegal after the fact

joeyc77
05-13-2014, 03:09 PM
13(a) isn't really the applicable clause that will be used in this case. Though after last night's interview with CNN, it probably applies now.

The case will focus primarily on 13(d).



http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf



http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/us/clippers-donald-sterling/

In other words, Sterling violated the constitution by violating the moral clauses that he signed multiple times in other contracts with the NBA.

According to several legal experts, letter d) will take a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the owners as well.

Are you saying this matter is cut and dry and will involve no extra litigation?

D-Leethal
05-13-2014, 03:18 PM
According to several legal experts, letter d) will take a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the owners as well.

Are you saying this matter is cut and dry and will involve no extra litigation?

On CNN last night they said it would go to arbitration and avoid court of law.

P&GRealist
05-13-2014, 03:26 PM
This situation is just a major cluster****. Nobody wins out of this.

torocan
05-13-2014, 04:14 PM
According to several legal experts, letter d) will take a certain amount of interpretation on the part of the owners as well.

Are you saying this matter is cut and dry and will involve no extra litigation?

They can try. The problem is that Sterling signed away his rights to sue, rights to court, and rights of final arbitration. The contract is as close to ironclad as you can possibly get in terms of a legal document.

That shouldn't be the least bit surprising considering that this is supposed to be a binding contract between Billionaires... in other words, this wasn't whipped together off a CD from your local stationary shop -- it was crafted by the best lawyers in the country.

I refer you to the following critical clauses...

Fire, 13(j) - Re termination.


(j) The decisions of the Association made in accordance with the foregoing procedure shall be final, binding, and conclusive, and each Member and Owner waives any and all recourse to any court of law to review any such decision.

And clause 18(e) - re actions authorized by the Board of Governors...


(e) All actions duly taken by the Board of Governors shall be final, binding and conclusive, as an award in arbitration, and enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.

In other words, not only can Sterling NOT sue them, but he can't seek 3rd party arbitration outside of the mechanisms in place as definted within the NBA Constitution (which is the Board of Governors).

In practice, the probability of getting a stay or injunction to prevent the sale of the team is going to be very difficult. Courts are very hesitant to get involved in corporate governance unless it can be shown that the actions don't fall within the powers defined within the NBA Constitution or violate applicable laws outside of the NBA Constitution.

If Sterling has any kind of case, it will most likely be for damages after a sale has been forced. And even then it's a dodgy proposition. It's more likely that the team is sold, and then he has to decide his odds in terms of seeking some sort of damages if he had a viable case.

In no realistic scenario do I see Sterling or his wife retaining ownership of the team in any fashion. He really doesn't have the legal grounds to prevent the NBA from seizing the franchise and taking it to sale.

There's a reason why you should always read and understand the fine print.

utl768
05-13-2014, 04:19 PM
two points here for me

one this whole thing is so blown out of proportion, people are way too sensitive in this country

second point is it doesnt matter if he refuses to sell because he will have no team as soon as this season is over because doc rivers is quitting and all the players are going to refuse to report to the team until he sells, they were ready to walk off on a playoff run unless he was suspended the players wont tolerate it if he fights

Vinylman
05-13-2014, 04:42 PM
13(a) isn't really the applicable clause that will be used in this case. Though after last night's interview with CNN, it probably applies now.

The case will focus primarily on 13(d).



http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf



http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/07/us/clippers-donald-sterling/

In other words, Sterling violated the constitution by violating the moral clauses that he signed multiple times in other contracts with the NBA.

D in the agreement has nothing to do with anything other than paying your bills... your analysis is incorrect ...

however, after his comments last night he probably HAS NOW allowed action under A

oh the irony

slashsnake
05-13-2014, 04:46 PM
They can try. The problem is that Sterling signed away his rights to sue, rights to court, and rights of final arbitration. The contract is as close to ironclad as you can possibly get in terms of a legal document.


He signed something that says he did that. If he feels that the NBA overstepped its bounds, he can sue that the contract is not legal.

IE. I make someone sign a contract that is "binding", and "waives any recourse to any court of law" where I hire them for life in exchange for food and a hut to live in, basically making them a slave. They can come back and take me to court if they feel that my contract wasn't legal in the first place.

Just because you sign a paper stating you won't seek legal recourse doesn't allow someone to break the law.

They stay or injunction I think will all depend on the judge, if he feels the contract violates law, it doesn't matter if it says he can't seek legal recourse or not. If he feels it is a legal contract, it gets thrown out. No matter what though I don't see the team being allowed to be sold until every appeal is finished.

torocan
05-13-2014, 05:00 PM
D in the agreement has nothing to do with anything other than paying your bills... your analysis is incorrect ...

however, after his comments last night he probably HAS NOW allowed action under A

oh the irony

Wrong.

Section 13 covers a number of possible scenario's including gambling, finance, damage to the NBA and its operations, attempts to sell the team, game fixing and misrepresentation of information. Section 13 is NOT just about insolvency and bankruptcy.

This is the actual pre-amble to section 13....


ARTICLE 13
TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf

Nowhere does it say it only applies to situations of insolvency or bankruptcy. And 13(d) is explicitly broad and designed to be interpreted broadly, which is why they use the following language...


Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations... in such a way as to affect the Association or its members adversely.

Note that it doesn't say fail to pay or failure to meet its financial obligations. It's worded specifically to apply to any situation where a contract violation adversely affects the NBA or its members.

Yes, there are clauses that deal with insolvency and bankruptcy, but there are clauses that do not relate to insolvency or bankruptcy under Section 13 such as 13(a) and 13(d). The only way you could argue that clause 13 was designed only for cases of bankruptcy and insolvency is if it was actually defined specifically to apply in those situations. The preamble and Section heading does neither.

Vinylman
05-13-2014, 05:18 PM
Wrong.

Section 13 covers a number of possible scenario's including gambling, finance, damage to the NBA and its operations, attempts to sell the team, game fixing and misrepresentation of information. Section 13 is NOT just about insolvency and bankruptcy.

This is the actual pre-amble to section 13....



http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf

Nowhere does it say it only applies to situations of insolvency or bankruptcy. And 13(d) is explicitly broad and designed to be interpreted broadly, which is why they use the following language...



Note that it doesn't say fail to pay or failure to meet its financial obligations. It's worded specifically to apply to any situation where a contract violation adversely affects the NBA or its members.

Yes, there are clauses that deal with insolvency and bankruptcy, but there are clauses that do not relate to insolvency or bankruptcy under Section 13 such as 13(a) and 13(d). The only way you could argue that clause 13 was designed only for cases of bankruptcy and insolvency is if it was actually defined specifically to apply in those situations. The preamble and Section heading does neither.

You are hilarious ... all you do is start spewing and not reading what people posted...

I will try to explain one more time

Section D has nothing to do with ANYTHING other than not paying your bills... PERIOD

Section A is now easier to invoke because he ran his mouth on CNN

Nowhere did i say section 13 had to do with Bankruptcy. If you are going to quote my posts at least take the time to read them

joeyc77
05-13-2014, 05:34 PM
They can try. The problem is that Sterling signed away his rights to sue, rights to court, and rights of final arbitration. The contract is as close to ironclad as you can possibly get in terms of a legal document.

That shouldn't be the least bit surprising considering that this is supposed to be a binding contract between Billionaires... in other words, this wasn't whipped together off a CD from your local stationary shop -- it was crafted by the best lawyers in the country.

I refer you to the following critical clauses...

Fire, 13(j) - Re termination.



And clause 18(e) - re actions authorized by the Board of Governors...



In other words, not only can Sterling NOT sue them, but he can't seek 3rd party arbitration outside of the mechanisms in place as definted within the NBA Constitution (which is the Board of Governors).

In practice, the probability of getting a stay or injunction to prevent the sale of the team is going to be very difficult. Courts are very hesitant to get involved in corporate governance unless it can be shown that the actions don't fall within the powers defined within the NBA Constitution or violate applicable laws outside of the NBA Constitution.

If Sterling has any kind of case, it will most likely be for damages after a sale has been forced. And even then it's a dodgy proposition. It's more likely that the team is sold, and then he has to decide his odds in terms of seeking some sort of damages if he had a viable case.

In no realistic scenario do I see Sterling or his wife retaining ownership of the team in any fashion. He really doesn't have the legal grounds to prevent the NBA from seizing the franchise and taking it to sale.

There's a reason why you should always read and understand the fine print.

Yes and no. One can also claim the NBA signed away their rights as well. Sterling has several legal avenues he can peruse IF the owners oust him (and I'm not sure they will). Since many of the bylaws pertain to financial obligations (in particular section d) he can start by claiming the NBA didn't act in good faith for starters.

The truth is no one really knows if the NBA is within there rights to oust Sterling over comments he made in private. It's going to be decided though. Until then, the legal opinions vary. Here's just another example of it:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/10/opinion/cevallos-nba-sterling-endgame/?c=&page=1

_medium_rare_
05-13-2014, 06:37 PM
It won't happen. Sterling will hire an attorney

_medium_rare_
05-13-2014, 06:40 PM
No thread on James threatening to quit if Sterling isn't outed?

P&GRealist
05-13-2014, 06:49 PM
I prefer my steak to be cooked medium well. Sorry.

_medium_rare_
05-13-2014, 06:55 PM
I prefer my steak to be cooked medium well. Sorry.
And toppled with excess of BBQ sauce I imagine

P&GRealist
05-13-2014, 06:58 PM
And toppled with excess of BBQ sauce I imagine

yuck, i hate bbq sauce!