PDA

View Full Version : When should a league try to/be allowed to force an owner out



PhillyFaninLA
04-28-2014, 02:34 PM
The topic say it all.

We all know the Sterling situation, but if Russia uses Ukraine to start a War (that would most likely turn into WWIII) then what happens to Prokhorov.

Simply put what are your thoughts on how and when a league should be allowed revoke control of a franchise (these are franchises not private companies) and put it up for sale?

abe_froman
04-28-2014, 02:44 PM
when it because detrimental to the health of the league.

the nba is a business and when something is hurting them,they should be allowed to cut the cancer out to ensure that prosperity.

torocan
04-28-2014, 02:45 PM
when it because detrimental to the health of the league.

the nba is a business and when something is hurting them,they should be allowed to cut the cancer out to ensure that prosperity.

/thread.

Touchdownboy
04-28-2014, 05:18 PM
when it because detrimental to the health of the league.

the nba is a business and when something is hurting them,they should be allowed to cut the cancer out to ensure that prosperity.
"health of the league"

So much grey area

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:33 PM
"health of the league"

So much grey area

No gray area at all. Advertisers put behavior clauses on athletes all the time.

The NBA bylaws fully allow them to terminate Sterling's franchise.


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

The NBA can basically shut the Clippers down and force a sale, and there's nothing Sterling can do about it because he signed his rights to sue away.

It's just a question of whether it becomes an orderly sale, or the NBA goes nuclear.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 05:38 PM
No gray area at all. Advertisers put behavior clauses on athletes all the time.

The NBA bylaws fully allow them to terminate Sterling's franchise.



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

The NBA can basically shut the Clippers down and force a sale, and there's nothing Sterling can do about it because he signed his rights to sue away.

It's just a question of whether it becomes an orderly sale, or the NBA goes nuclear.

conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level?

He wasn't conducting business, it was a convo in private with his girlfriend.

Business wise as far as the NBA goes, he had a black GM for a long time and now has one of the highest paid coaches in the NBA who is also black.

It isn't as cut and dry as the statement you keep posting from ESPN.

torocan
04-28-2014, 05:50 PM
conduct business on a "reasonable" and "ethical" level?

He wasn't conducting business, it was a convo in private with his girlfriend.

Business wise as far as the NBA goes, he had a black GM for a long time and now has one of the highest paid coaches in the NBA who is also black.

It isn't as cut and dry as the statement you keep posting from ESPN.

Ethical business doesn't just have to be in relation to how he ran the Clippers. They can point out to how he ran his real estate operations as well as his employees who have filed lawsuits in the past.

Same as if he operated a sweat shop or brothel. If the language is broad enough, all they have to argue is that he operated his businesses unethically and represented the interests of the NBA in a negative light.

Broad legal language allows for a WIDE range of interpretation, except the only court that counts is the court of NBA owners. They don't have to prove to a court of law that it's unethical, they only have to convince 3/4 of the owners.

JasonJohnHorn
04-28-2014, 06:10 PM
The owners sign a contract to act in accordance with league policy.

Think of it like this. If a guy buys a fastfood place like Burger King, he has to run the place in accordance with the franchise. If at work (and let's be straight about this, he is talking to her about bring people to GAMES which is AT WORK), and the owner tells a customer, regardless of what his personal relationship is with that customer (IE girlfriend) that they are not allowed to bring people of a certain perceived race to the Burger King, then that is setting a bad image for the franchises. If that gets out... it is bad for business, morality aside.


So if an owner is doing something that can be bad for the overall business of the organization, the he is up $#!T's creek. Simple as that.

If that owner is molesting children, or raping women, or making racist comments, or intentionally tanking, then that is BAD for business and the league, in turn, can take away the franchise.

When they buy in, there guys know this. It is part of getting a chance to make millions of dollar each year. You have to behave like a decent human being.

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 06:19 PM
Ethical business doesn't just have to be in relation to how he ran the Clippers. They can point out to how he ran his real estate operations as well as his employees who have filed lawsuits in the past.

Same as if he operated a sweat shop or brothel. If the language is broad enough, all they have to argue is that he operated his businesses unethically and represented the interests of the NBA in a negative light.

Broad legal language allows for a WIDE range of interpretation, except the only court that counts is the court of NBA owners. They don't have to prove to a court of law that it's unethical, they only have to convince 3/4 of the owners.

SOmething as big as this would go to a court of law is Sterling doesn't want to sell. If it was that easy the NBA would have already been in the process of taking owner votes to get Sterling out.

tredigs
04-28-2014, 06:27 PM
SOmething as big as this would go to a court of law is Sterling doesn't want to sell. If it was that easy the NBA would have already been in the process of taking owner votes to get Sterling out.

Did you read Torocan's post? Assuming it's accurate, there is definitely a scenario where this does not enter court and he can be legally removed via a 3/4ths vote due to their ethics clause.

And this is all still unraveling. Silver's response is not even until tomorrow. You don't just set up a meeting to kick out the longest tenured owner overnight without gathering a full investigation of the facts. But, it looks as if that might be the course they're headed.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 06:28 PM
No gray area at all. Advertisers put behavior clauses on athletes all the time.

The NBA bylaws fully allow them to terminate Sterling's franchise.



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

The NBA can basically shut the Clippers down and force a sale, and there's nothing Sterling can do about it because he signed his rights to sue away.

It's just a question of whether it becomes an orderly sale, or the NBA goes nuclear.

they go nuclear and have this go through court with Sterling and the NBA and considering there was nothing illegal in terms of him running the team, I'd love to see this happen which would probably cost the league far more money than just letting this go and having Sterling quietly collect a profit and spin it as he's out of operations.

I get it, people want the guy's head but this is about money - this is about the business model that is the NBA and literally as people want to say "nuclear" was created as a business model in favor of the owners. You're literally going to spend MILLIONS of dollars in court based on a "opinion", hum where does it end, women's right to work - how about gay and lesbians - how about another ethnicity? I would love to be a lawyer on Sterling's staff if this happens and it could very well if it doesn't bounce the NBA's way could ruin the league so here's your options

A. Go "nuclear" and possibly go to court for years and potentially ruin a entire league
B. PR spin it, Clippers appoint a figure head, let Sterling apologize and "step down" and fans will forget this happened in a couple if not less than a season

Guess what course of action the league wants lean towards
Bottom line - this is a business, this is a error but there are bigger things that are detrimental to the league than this

Gibby23
04-28-2014, 06:32 PM
Did you read Torocan's post? Assuming it's accurate, there is definitely a scenario where this does not enter court and he can be legally removed via a 3/4ths vote due to their ethics clause.

And this is all still unraveling. Silver's response is not even until tomorrow. You don't just set up a meeting to kick out the longest tenured owner overnight without gathering a full investigation of the facts. But, it looks as if that might be the course they're headed.

What would stop Sterling from taking this to court? I know there are some clauses in the NBA contract and whatever, but if he feels it isn't fair and it doesn't have anything to do with his private convo and the way he runs the team he could take it to court. He would have a case also based on the hires he has made.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 06:52 PM
What would stop Sterling from taking this to court? I know there are some clauses in the NBA contract and whatever, but if he feels it isn't fair and it doesn't have anything to do with his private convo and the way he runs the team he could take it to court. He would have a case also based on the hires he has made.

BINGO!!!!

There was no indication on his "opinions" were influential on team operations and would have a very solid case in court and could very well ruin the NBA that's why the league should tread lightly which is probably the reason why no decision is made yet. Expect the "suspension" for a guy who hardly attends Clippers games and a fine to be levied. Hate the guy but the NBA is made up of owners who surprisingly made the CBA and the Bi-laws to favor them. There could very well be a scenario where Sterling could make more money suing the league than he would have ever made selling the Clippers, sounds like punishment huh ... think carefully NBA.

abe_froman
04-28-2014, 07:03 PM
What would stop Sterling from taking this to court? I know there are some clauses in the NBA contract and whatever, but if he feels it isn't fair and it doesn't have anything to do with his private convo and the way he runs the team he could take it to court. He would have a case also based on the hires he has made.
because article 24 of the nba constitution specifically states that any decision made by the commissioner shall be final and binding. that document acts as basically a legal contract.

Touchdownboy
04-28-2014, 07:09 PM
Haha such a witch hunt. Lets go after people whose opinions we disageee with. HOORAY KGB

tredigs
04-28-2014, 07:09 PM
BINGO!!!!

There was no indication on his "opinions" were influential on team operations and would have a very solid case in court and could very well ruin the NBA that's why the league should tread lightly which is probably the reason why no decision is made yet. Expect the "suspension" for a guy who hardly attends Clippers games and a fine to be levied. Hate the guy but the NBA is made up of owners who surprisingly made the CBA and the Bi-laws to favor them. There could very well be a scenario where Sterling could make more money suing the league than he would have ever made selling the Clippers, sounds like punishment huh ... think carefully NBA.
There's no indication that his opinions were influential? They've already caused a national uproar, seen "silent" protests from multiple teams, caused the loss in tens of millions of future ad revenue (with multiple entities already shutting the doors on the Clippers) and who knows what else. It has certainly upset NBA operations already.

rhd420
04-28-2014, 07:36 PM
There's no indication that his opinions were influential? They've already caused a national uproar, seen "silent" protests from multiple teams, caused the loss in tens of millions of future ad revenue (with multiple entities already shutting the doors on the Clippers) and who knows what else. It has certainly upset NBA operations already.

nope - this is basketball operations from the coach to players, heck they even settled with Elgin Baylor when he was let go for Mike Dunleavy in terms of performance. This is a "opinion" where many people have kept to themselves and have not effected their performance or judgement at work which in this case Sterling has a case. Think about Marge Schott years ago - got suspended for life but still collected profits until she sold the team. This is bigger than the league - I get it, but there is basis here for Sterling and other owners on the principles of business and ownership of property. Think about the future and where this will set up future owners that the league can take away property - I get it, what he did is bad but there are ramifications both legal and moral which is more detrimental to the league than just a "opinion" costing a owner a team

JasonJohnHorn
04-28-2014, 08:11 PM
nope - this is basketball operations from the coach to players, heck they even settled with Elgin Baylor when he was let go for Mike Dunleavy in terms of performance. This is a "opinion" where many people have kept to themselves and have not effected their performance or judgement at work which in this case Sterling has a case. Think about Marge Schott years ago - got suspended for life but still collected profits until she sold the team. This is bigger than the league - I get it, but there is basis here for Sterling and other owners on the principles of business and ownership of property. Think about the future and where this will set up future owners that the league can take away property - I get it, what he did is bad but there are ramifications both legal and moral which is more detrimental to the league than just a "opinion" costing a owner a team

First and foremost, this is happening AT the work place. He gave his girlfriend instruction not to bring people of colour TO THE GAMES. That is AT WORK. That is issue number one.

Secondly, it is something that is now public. Just as a player can be BANNED from the league, so to can the owners. If Ron Tarpley can be banned forever for snorting coke, which he does on his personal time and it doesn't impact his performance, then why wouldn't the same rules apply to an owner?


Thirdly, 'basketball operations' extends beyond the court. Security. Tickets sales. All of these things are interrelated. If the team isn't making money because people are paying to see games due to his language, or because sponsors won't sign deals, then the team can't sign players and that impacts the 'basketball'.

And judging from how the Clippers played on Sunday, it HAS imapcted basketball operations.



What some people need to do is stop nut-hugging capitalist billionaires. Sterling doesn't OWN the league, he bought a franchise and is obligated to operate in concert with how the league dictates it be run. He signs on for that when he buys into the NBA. If he fawks up, THAT IS HIS PROBLEM. He knew the score going in.


And his words are not simply an 'opinion'. His words are an ACTION. They are active words, most especially because THEY WERE INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO BRING PEOPLE OF COLOUR TO THE GAME!

If see that as nothing more than an 'opinion', you need to look up the Nuremberg laws. The people who wrote them had an 'opinion' too.

whitesoxfan83
04-28-2014, 08:18 PM
Jesus Man...

Victoria Nuland, the assistant Secretary of State, is caught on tape discussing the post-revoultion government with Ukrainian politicians before the coup begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk). It's amazing to me how people can be so blind to the facts. Listen to that leaked taped. The WH would not deny that is the assistant Secretary of State discussing how to install a new Ukrainian gov't before the Revolution.

Wake up! America is the one trying to start the war! It's all about natural gas. That's what all these wars are about, resources, we are just as bad as Russia and Putin is just trying to defend his nation's border. I can only imagine the media's reaction if the KGB started a pro-Russian revolution in Mexico. I'm sure we'd do nothing and just be totally fine with it.

This war will have been started by the arrogant US believing they could get cheaper gas for the EU by taking the Ukraine from Gazprom.

JasonJohnHorn
04-28-2014, 08:38 PM
Jesus Man...

Victoria Nuland, the assistant Secretary of State, is caught on tape discussing the post-revoultion government with Ukrainian politicians before the coup begins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk). It's amazing to me how people can be so blind to the facts. Listen to that leaked taped. The WH would not deny that is the assistant Secretary of State discussing how to install a new Ukrainian gov't before the Revolution.

Wake up! America is the one trying to start the war! It's all about natural gas. That's what all these wars are about, resources, we are just as bad as Russia and Putin is just trying to defend his nation's border. I can only imagine the media's reaction if the KGB started a pro-Russian revolution in Mexico. I'm sure we'd do nothing and just be totally fine with it.

This war will have been started by the arrogant US believing they could get cheaper gas for the EU by taking the Ukraine from Gazprom.


Umm... I think you might have gotten the wrong thread. Not saying you aren't right, but this is ProSportsDaily, not InternationalPolicsDaily.

Trwood12
04-28-2014, 08:38 PM
When the owner is recorded being a racist bigoted hypocrite...

rhd420
04-29-2014, 01:05 PM
First and foremost, this is happening AT the work place. He gave his girlfriend instruction not to bring people of colour TO THE GAMES. That is AT WORK. That is issue number one.

Secondly, it is something that is now public. Just as a player can be BANNED from the league, so to can the owners. If Ron Tarpley can be banned forever for snorting coke, which he does on his personal time and it doesn't impact his performance, then why wouldn't the same rules apply to an owner?


Thirdly, 'basketball operations' extends beyond the court. Security. Tickets sales. All of these things are interrelated. If the team isn't making money because people are paying to see games due to his language, or because sponsors won't sign deals, then the team can't sign players and that impacts the 'basketball'.

And judging from how the Clippers played on Sunday, it HAS imapcted basketball operations.



What some people need to do is stop nut-hugging capitalist billionaires. Sterling doesn't OWN the league, he bought a franchise and is obligated to operate in concert with how the league dictates it be run. He signs on for that when he buys into the NBA. If he fawks up, THAT IS HIS PROBLEM. He knew the score going in.


And his words are not simply an 'opinion'. His words are an ACTION. They are active words, most especially because THEY WERE INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO BRING PEOPLE OF COLOUR TO THE GAME!

If see that as nothing more than an 'opinion', you need to look up the Nuremberg laws. The people who wrote them had an 'opinion' too.

this is about business operations over a long period of time - he's got a case and can ruin the league in court if he wanted to. The NBA knows that AND Sterling does too which is a "tread lightly" situation, much like a settlement in court - you transfer day to day to Miller his son in law, make Sterling disappear for a while - cost Sterling nothing and the league far less aggravation.

This is a Pandora's box of how sports owners should act - based on opinions - how about based on affiliations, how about whom they are associated with? You stop it now, settle because the league call ill afford a rouge owner in court having his day and airing dirty laundry would you. Like I said, there was a reason why the NFL put up with Al Davis as well even in his later years ...

RulerSlick
04-29-2014, 05:06 PM
^^up

DitchDat
04-29-2014, 06:31 PM
This is a big move by Silver. Sterling will still turn a profit, though.

SlimKid
04-29-2014, 07:20 PM
Umm... I think you might have gotten the wrong thread. Not saying you aren't right, but this is ProSportsDaily, not InternationalPolicsDaily.

Dude, the op brought it up in his opening..