PDA

View Full Version : Bad Precedent



Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:32 PM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport. Donald Sterling did not break any crimes, instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

goingfor28
04-30-2014, 11:34 PM
Yeaaaaaa DTS want banned just for these comments, which he asked to be recorded btw

mRc08
04-30-2014, 11:36 PM
I don't know how the NBA is actually going to be able to legally justify removing him from the league. The guy should be gone and his comments were bad, but it does seem weird that they can apply these punishments. This is such a unique scenario that everything about this story seems weird. Still, I'm already entirely 100% sick of hearing about it.

*Superman*
04-30-2014, 11:36 PM
Note to free speech and privacy absolutists: I’m with you that the notion of penalizing Sterling for a private thought expressed in his own home is chilling. But nobody is talking about arresting Sterling. The NBA is an economic apparatus set up by mutually agreeing businessmen. And they gave themselves the option of voting someone out with a 75 percent majority. Sterling’s still got his free speech. What he doesn't have is the right to make other people conduct business with him.

This sums it up better than anything else I've read.

Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:37 PM
Did he know the conversation was being recorded?

*Superman*
04-30-2014, 11:39 PM
Did he know the conversation was being recorded?

According to his gf, yes. It's still kind of iffy. Supposedly she has over 100+ hours of his recordings. He used them as "memory freshners".

If he didn't give consent it would have been illegal.

Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:39 PM
Note to free speech and privacy absolutists: I’m with you that the notion of penalizing Sterling for a private thought expressed in his own home is chilling. But nobody is talking about arresting Sterling. The NBA is an economic apparatus set up by mutually agreeing businessmen. And they gave themselves the option of voting someone out with a 75 percent majority. Sterling’s still got his free speech. What he doesn't have is the right to make other people conduct business with him.

This sums it up better than anything else I've read.
That may be true but did the punishment fit the crime? Why was he banned for life and Cooper got off scot free?

goingfor28
04-30-2014, 11:45 PM
That may be true but did the punishment fit the crime. Why was he banned for life and Cooper got off scotch free?

Bc DTS has a 25 year history and a long rap sheet of racial discrimination stuff, illegal housing practices, largest racial discrimination law suit payout in history at one time, viewing the Clipper players as slaves, not paying a coach, the Elgin Baylor thing, now this. And I know I'm forgetting some.
Riley Cooper was drunk at a concert and made a mistake, it wasn't right, but it was one time.

Also DTS is the owner of a team in a multi billion dollar industry where probably 70% of the athletes are black.
He has never once given a single **** about putting together a good team, Blake and Chris were gifts that fell into his lap.

DTS has zero business being in the NBA. He finally got what was long deserved. They guy is an absolute piece of ****.

thomass
04-30-2014, 11:46 PM
That may be true but did the punishment fit the crime. Why was he banned for life and Cooper got off scotch free?

why does cooper saying the "n" word bother you so much?

Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:50 PM
Also DTS is the owner of a team in a multi billion dollar industry where probably 70% of the athletes are black.
He has never once given a single **** about putting together a good team, Blake and Chris were gifts that fell into his lap.


I just want to gauge what other people think. Does it matter that the NBA is 70% black? What if his comment were geared towards Asian Americans instead of African Americans would he still be banned for life or just get a slap on the wrist?

king4day
04-30-2014, 11:52 PM
Not sure why it's hard to understand why he needs to be removed. Stars will avoid them in free agency, sponsors (12) have bailed on the team, and fans will stop going.

His views aren't appreciated by the majority of the country (as they shouldn't be). So for the sake of the business, he has to go. Doesn't matter if he was illegally recorded or asked for it.

goingfor28
04-30-2014, 11:52 PM
I just want to gauge what other people think. Does it matter that the NBA is 70% black? What if his comment were geared towards Asian Americans instead of African Americans would he still be banned for life or just get a slap on the wrist?

But those weren't his comments. And he didn't get the ban just bc of these comments. Read the whole post. Not just the last part. Stern was afraid to go after DTS. Silver was not, and he did what should've been done a long time ago



**** DTS

Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:53 PM
why does cooper saying the "n" word bother you so much?

The way he used the word. He stated I will fight every N****** here, which at least to me shows as much if not more hatred than statements such as don't invite black people to my luxury box because they are more likely steal stuff. Just food for thought.

Eaglesfan05
04-30-2014, 11:55 PM
Not sure why it's hard to understand why he needs to be removed. Stars will avoid them in free agency, sponsors (12) have bailed on the team, and fans will stop going.

His views aren't appreciated by the majority of the country (as they shouldn't be). So for the sake of the business, he has to go. Doesn't matter if he was illegally recorded or asked for it.

I agree he does have to go there is no question about that. If he has any smarts he will sell the team as soon as possible. I'm just concerned that banning someone for opinions sets a bad precedent.

alexander_37
04-30-2014, 11:57 PM
What I don't like is the circumstances of why he was banned.

It's kony 2012 all over again. The fact that he was a known racist by anyone who had prior interest. The fact that he was banned over something as trivial as this and not the fact that he denied housing to minorities is disturbing. It only blew up because it was so public and people pay more attention to TMZ than world events.

The NBA only did this because their hands were tied not because they wanted to. That is what people should be angry about.

goingfor28
04-30-2014, 11:58 PM
It's called we have a new commish w a set of balls that stern didn't have.

DaBear
05-01-2014, 12:00 AM
If Sterling doesn't sell, it's going to get uglier quick.

ATX
05-01-2014, 12:04 AM
Bc DTS has a 25 year history and a long rap sheet of racial discrimination stuff, illegal housing practices, largest racial discrimination law suit payout in history at one time, viewing the Clipper players as slaves, not paying a coach, the Elgin Baylor thing, now this. And I know I'm forgetting some.
Riley Cooper was drunk at a concert and made a mistake, it wasn't right, but it was one time.

Also DTS is the owner of a team in a multi billion dollar industry where probably 70% of the athletes are black.
He has never once given a single **** about putting together a good team, Blake and Chris were gifts that fell into his lap.

DTS has zero business being in the NBA. He finally got what was long deserved. They guy is an absolute piece of ****.

Completely agree. Sterling and Cooper situations are far different from one another. As you said, Sterling is a P.O.S.

Eaglesfan05
05-01-2014, 12:10 AM
If Sterling doesn't sell, it's going to get uglier quick.
Even I agree with that

SwatTeam
05-01-2014, 12:16 AM
Doesn't matter if sterling agrees to sell or not. He's basically being kicked out of the exclusive 30 members only club of being an NBA owner. Once they get a 75% vote in favor of his ouster, the NBA assumes control of the franchise and sets it up for auction to the highest bidder, etc. The money will then be given to Sterling. Makes out like a rich bandit.

Sterling can only stop the auction via lawsuit. That's what's going to make this drawn out. However, these are the by laws of the NBA that the owners agreed to when you join their club. Sterling knew this and agreed to it. The law will most likely back the NBA's collective move to ban him and auction the team. That doesn't mean that Sterling can't appeal. I can honestly see this go all the way to the Supreme court.

alexander_37
05-01-2014, 12:18 AM
Doesn't matter if sterling agrees to sell or not. He's basically being kicked out of the exclusive 30 members only club of being an NBA owner. Once they get a 75% vote in favor of his ouster, the NBA assumes control of the franchise and sets it up for auction to the highest bidder, etc. The money will then be given to Sterling. Makes out like a rich bandit.

Sterling can only stop the auction via lawsuit. That's what's going to make this drawn out. However, these are the by laws of the NBA that the owners agreed to when you join their club. Sterling knew this and agreed to it. The law will most likely back the NBA's collective move to ban him and auction the team. That doesn't mean that Sterling can't appeal. I can honestly see this go all the way to the Supreme court.

They can't force him to sell for nothing. Look what the Kings sold for, now you take a contending team that is that much more valuable than the Kings I bet we are looking at 50% more than what they went for.

SwatTeam
05-01-2014, 12:18 AM
^ Then again, I think Sterling will be dead before this ever gets settled after all the litigation and lawsuits. At the end of the day, he will never own that team again.

IKnowHoops
05-01-2014, 12:19 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport. Donald Sterling did not break any crimes, instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

With great power comes great responsibility. Owners are held to a higher standard than players. Presidents are held to a higher standard than owners. Bill Clinton got impeached for having relations with another woman and then lying about it. No owner has to worry about that. Its all about power levels bro.

SwatTeam
05-01-2014, 12:20 AM
They can't force him to sell for nothing. Look what the Kings sold for, now you take a contending team that is that much more valuable than the Kings I bet we are looking at 50% more than what they went for.

I don't think you understand what I said. When the NBA auctions the team off to the highest bidder, Sterling will get whatever that final price is. If the team sells for 2 billion - thats Sterlings money. The caveat is that he's no longer an owner.

alexander_37
05-01-2014, 12:22 AM
I don't think you understand what I said. When the NBA auctions the team off to the highest bidder, Sterling will get whatever that final price is. If the team sells for 2 billion - thats Sterlings money. The caveat is that he's no longer an owner.

No I get it, I just thought you implied he shouldn't get the money or doesn't deserve ect. when you called him a bandit.

SwatTeam
05-01-2014, 12:24 AM
No I get it, I just thought you implied he shouldn't get the money or doesn't deserve ect. when you called him a bandit.

Meh, I see your point. Its his money, he deserves whatever it sells for. I probably should have said rich @$$hole instead of bandit.

alexander_37
05-01-2014, 12:27 AM
Although I think they should add a clause in the bylaws where they can block the revenue sharing or a large % of it in cases like these as fines instead of a paltry 2.5 million.

JC_
05-01-2014, 12:32 AM
I thought the lifetime ban was perfect. Yes, it is an American right to be a complete idiot but the NBA has the right to deem you unfit to be a part of it. It's a big statement against discrimination, not just for the league but for American sports in general.

Trwood12
05-01-2014, 12:43 AM
The NBA as a company has the right to disassociate itself from someone that it feels holds a negative outlook and opposing views of such a serious caliber. It's a business thing. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Don't try to justify what he said by claiming that he didn't know that he was being recorded. That is irrelevant. He still holds this views. Plus everyone would be up the NBA's *** if they did nothing. This story got too much publicity for it to not produce chaos.

Fnom11
05-01-2014, 01:50 AM
There was no bad precedence set. The owners have a right, set in the bylaws, to have a majority vote to kick someone out. They obviously don't see him fit to own a franchise(anymore). Anything past that is irrelevant.

Mike Lient
05-01-2014, 02:58 AM
Sterling has a position of power over the people he is prejudice against. Plus, he's a repeated offender. Comparing him to Riley Cooper is just asinine.

As for the precedent set, the NBA had no choice. Players were ready to boycott the playoffs for god's sake. Silver made the only choice he could. Luckily, it's the right one. People need to remember that Sterling is nothing more than a franchisee. If the NBA deems whatever he says to hurt the brand then they are well in their right to act aggressively.

MickeyMgl
05-01-2014, 03:00 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Word is that Sterling knew he was being recorded.



Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

Personally, I think that it was unfair for people to be all up in Alec Baldwin's butt for yelling at his kid in a private conversation. I think the same of Mel Gibson's rant at his ex-girlfriend. This is different, because this is the owner of an NBA team saying he didn't want his "girlfriend" to bring minorities to his games... and specifically, that he didn't want her bringing Magic Johnson to his games. That is, if it were not also offensive on a social level, just bad for business. That's stuff a man in his position should not be saying publicly or privately, and a league and sponsors can't ignore regardless of where it was said.

In another thread, I asked what people think McDonald's would do if one of its franchise owners was overheard saying he didn't want minorities coming to his restaurant. How fast would McDonald's drop the hammer on him and his restaurant?



I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

I actually find Cooper's rant far less offensive. Not that it should be tolerated, but less offensive. I subscribe to George Carlin's opinion that words, in and of themselves, can't be racist without context. I didn't see hate so much from Cooper as I saw drunken anger, and a totally inappropriate expression of that anger. But that was an in-the-moment transgression more than "hate".

Sterling expressed whole thoughts, using complete sentences, and the ideas he expressed were offensive on a human level and a business level. Add to that, none of this happens in a vacuum. Regardless of what Adam Silver may have said, Sterling is probably not being - and should not be - judged for these statements alone. He has been a huge embarrassment to the league for decades. He is an embarrassment to the Clippers. He is an embarrassment to Los Angeles. I have heard high profile Jews say he is an embarrassment to them. This was a long time coming, during which he has made his character very clear. That's not what we saw from Riley Cooper.



The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport.

I don't agree. This isn't just any person. This isn't just any comment. It's a bunch of comments, and deeds. I don't see one overheard comment having this consequence for everybody else.



Donald Sterling did not break any crimes

Well, he did break laws, actually. And he committed crimes. Just that Adam Silver is denying that that history came into play. I don't think his denial should matter. This is justice.



instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

So you're making it all about one word, huh? You can express just about any racist ideas you like as long as you don't say the N-word?

TheQueensKid
05-01-2014, 03:39 AM
Is it even legally possible to force a man to sell a $700 million business if he broke no crimes.

Mike Lient
05-01-2014, 03:41 AM
Is it even legally possible to force a man to sell a $700 million business if he broke no crimes.

This isn't an issue of legality. The bylaws of the NBA are not the same as the USA, and cannot be held to the same standard.

WadeKobe
05-01-2014, 04:38 AM
Is it even legally possible to force a man to sell a $700 million business if he broke no crimes.

Yes. The constitution and bylaws of the NBA are legally binding contracts.

Sterling only got to buy the team in the first place by a 3/4 vote of approval and he knew that at any time, for any reason, the same 3/4 vote could force him out and a sale of his franchise. He agreed to those terms when he joined the NBA.

Te NBA, then, has every right to protect its inclvestments and investors. Sterling was seen as a liability who would be bad for business, so they will exercise their right to a 3/4 vote to remove him and force a sale of the franchise.

IKnowHoops
05-01-2014, 06:43 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport. Donald Sterling did not break any crimes, instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

Whenever your the cause of your business loosing millions of dollars (endorsements not wanting to associate) and it could trickle down to the rest of the owners and players on his team, you get fired. He still works for the NBA and if he hurts there product financially, which he has, he deserves to be relieved. Racism is the scapegoat, actually. He's being run out of town by the NBA and the rest of the owners because he is now a detriment.

dazz
05-01-2014, 08:20 AM
The Clippers were worth a fraction of it's "true" value the minute this ******* was allowed to own the team. Anyone who thinks it's not fair to force him to sell cause he'll have to sell for cheap need to realise that.
He's been making money off the back of his players & coaches (the biggest assets in a business like an bball team, or any other sports team for that matter) sponsors and the league itself. Many of them are from minorities, whatever that means. So even from a business perspective he should just get the boot get stripped from the team and walk without a cent.

torocan
05-01-2014, 08:42 AM
Is it even legally possible to force a man to sell a $700 million business if he broke no crimes.

Yes. This isn't a criminal prosecution, this is the equivalent of being a McDonald's franchisee or member of a country club.

When you sign to join, you agree to the constitution and bylaws. You also agree to whatever methods of conflict resolution are agreed upon in the constitution and bylaws. If you violate them, you are subject to judgement under the terms of the contract whether your actions are criminal or not.

If you move into a housing community that says you can't put candidate signs on your lawn, and sign agreement to those terms, your have signed away to your right to post signs on your lawn.

If you become a McDonald's franchisee and agree to not damaging the image of McDonald's, then HOW you damage McDonald's image is irrelevant. They'll STILL come in and take your franchise and force a sale under the terms of the agreement.

If you join a country club and agree to not harm the image of the country club, then if you get caught in a scandal from an illegal tape they will STILL kick you out of the country club.

Sterling agreed to the terms of the NBA Constitution and Bylaws when he applied to become a member of the NBA. He agreed to waiving his right of legal recourse or arbitration outside of the internal NBA disciplinary process in regards to decisions of the Commissioner. He signed away his right to seek redress in the courts in Franchise Termination proceedings.

This type of arrangement is not only common, but functionally required to have a viable professional sports league. In a league where all 30 ownership groups are billionaires with near unlimited access to lawyers and investigators, the ONLY way you have a functional league is if you make it IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to sue each other or the NBA. THIS is why they have very well defined INTERNAL processes for dealing with conflict, discipline, and Franchise termination.

Challenging the NBA Constitution and Bylaws is dead on arrival. I suspect it will get summarily dismissed.

ATX
05-01-2014, 10:15 AM
With great power comes great responsibility. Owners are held to a higher standard than players. Presidents are held to a higher standard than owners. Bill Clinton got impeached for having relations with another woman and then lying about it. No owner has to worry about that. Its all about power levels bro.

This is correct, and considering PSD is constituted by many young posters, I thought I should echo this fact. In all lines of work, people are held to ethics standards, and the further up the ladder, the greater the ethical standard.

Sly Guy
05-01-2014, 10:27 AM
Yeah, it's underhanded that he was recorded and it was leaked to the press. But now that it's out, the damage has been done, and the league is dealing with the loss of corporate sponsorship and fans. That's bad for ALL the owners league-wide. That hit to the business of the league itself gives the the ownership group some wiggle room in removing Sterling from his ownership of the Clippers.

And for a guy who hasn't done anything with his team in 30+ years, who has a history of discrimination in his other business ventures, as well as a number of race-related fiascoes in the NBA, I don't see his removal as a big problem.

And as an aside, why the hell would he want to own a team in a league where ~70% of his employees are people he probably has a problem with?

ATX
05-01-2014, 10:40 AM
With great power comes great responsibility. Owners are held to a higher standard than players. Presidents are held to a higher standard than owners. Bill Clinton got impeached for having relations with another woman and then lying about it. No owner has to worry about that. Its all about power levels bro.


This is correct, and considering PSD is constituted by many young posters, I thought I should echo this fact. In all lines of work, people are held to ethics standards, and the further up the ladder, the greater the ethical standard.

To be a little clearer, all employees are held to what should be the same ethical standard, however the higher up the ladder the greater the responsibilty and visibilty, thus harm to the company if ethics are violated. Therfore "Bosses" are expected to be more conscientious of their actions both at work and outside of work.

Heatcheck
05-01-2014, 11:39 AM
They can't force him to sell for nothing. Look what the Kings sold for, now you take a contending team that is that much more valuable than the Kings I bet we are looking at 50% more than what they went for.

if he refuses, they can ultimately take the team from him with 0 compensation.

MickeyMgl
05-01-2014, 07:48 PM
if he refuses, they can ultimately take the team from him with 0 compensation.

I've been wondering about this. What is their alternative if he simply declined to sell, without even addressing the matter in court? Just hypothetically. Would it be akin to dissolving or contracting the team? And do you have a resource for this answer?

goingfor28
05-01-2014, 07:50 PM
I've been wondering about this. What is their alternative if he simply declined to sell, without even addressing the matter in court? Just hypothetically. Would it be akin to dissolving or contracting the team? And do you have a resource for this answer?

Its not up to him. The league will sell it and give the money to DTS

MickeyMgl
05-01-2014, 08:03 PM
Its not up to him. The league will sell it and give the money to DTS

Like the Hornets? I mean, the league will take it over for as long as this is delayed in court?

goingfor28
05-01-2014, 08:04 PM
Like the Hornets?

I dont know how that went. I didn't pay attention to it, I'm 25 so I was young then.

IndyRealist
05-01-2014, 09:58 PM
Note to free speech and privacy absolutists: I’m with you that the notion of penalizing Sterling for a private thought expressed in his own home is chilling. But nobody is talking about arresting Sterling. The NBA is an economic apparatus set up by mutually agreeing businessmen. And they gave themselves the option of voting someone out with a 75 percent majority. Sterling’s still got his free speech. What he doesn't have is the right to make other people conduct business with him. This sums it up better than anything else I've read.

QFT. It's amazing how so many people can ignore the pertinent issues and only focus on the sensational ones. The NBA is not going to sue Sterling, they are going to use the contract every NBA owner signs to take over the team and sell it. He has no choice, he has no remedy. It is binding arbitration.

IndyRealist
05-01-2014, 10:05 PM
They can't force him to sell for nothing. Look what the Kings sold for, now you take a contending team that is that much more valuable than the Kings I bet we are looking at 50% more than what they went for.

That is not the scenario. If Sterling refuses to sell the team the NBA can and will take over the team, sell it, and then give the money to him after all debts are paid. Can the NBA sell it for less than market value? Yes, but they won't. The NBA is 30 owners after all, and those 30 owners have a vested interest in the sell value of NBA teams rising. They won't sell for a discount.

alexander_37
05-01-2014, 10:19 PM
That is not the scenario. If Sterling refuses to sell the team the NBA can and will take over the team, sell it, and then give the money to him after all debts are paid. Can the NBA sell it for less than market value? Yes, but they won't. The NBA is 30 owners after all, and those 30 owners have a vested interest in the sell value of NBA teams rising. They won't sell for a discount.

Thats why i said probably 50% more at lest.

torocan
05-02-2014, 04:03 AM
That is not the scenario. If Sterling refuses to sell the team the NBA can and will take over the team, sell it, and then give the money to him after all debts are paid. Can the NBA sell it for less than market value? Yes, but they won't. The NBA is 30 owners after all, and those 30 owners have a vested interest in the sell value of NBA teams rising. They won't sell for a discount.

Technically the NBA could sell it for less than market value, however if they did they would be open to liability.

The NBA must make a good faith effort to get a fair price in any sales process just like any other receiver or trustee. This means an actual open bidding process subject to the NBA's vetting process.

Contractually speaking, the only remotely feasible way that I think Sterling can win in an actual legal challenge (given he's signed away ALL his rights including the right to arbitration or redress in court) is if he were to attempt to challenge that the NBA is misapplying the rules of the constitution, in other words, he'd have to argue that the NBA was attempting to use powers that are not enumerated within the constitution. And given how the constitution is written, unless the NBA is employing idiots I think Sterling would have a hard time winning that one.

That doesn't mean that this couldn't evolve into a lengthy legal fight. Depending upon the nature of his legal action, this could easily be tied up in court for several years. While some avenues would most likely result in a summary dismissal (like trying to challenge the Commissioner's authority), others would probably be given a fair hearing despite being losing cases. The legal system will often allow you to sue even if you have a low percentage chance of success.

He could attempt to sue on an anti-trust basis in order to bypass the whole question of whether the constitution is applicable or being properly applied, however he'd be most likely to lose due to the overwhelming evidence that his mere existence as an owner would be harmful to the NBA in terms of sponsorships, potential lawsuits from the NBAPA, and potential boycotting of games by the players. That the players would be willing to launch lawsuits and shut down the play offs alone is probably sufficient to win on an argument of exemption from the Sherman Act.

beliges
05-02-2014, 02:45 PM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport. Donald Sterling did not break any crimes, instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

The lifetime ban is an extremely slippery slope. Sterling was punished for his own personal beliefs and thoughts which he never intended to share with the public. This opens the door for anyone to illegally record any high profile executive in the NBA to illicit some sort of response which may be interpreted as malicious or bigoted. Anytime someone is punished for what they personally believe and keep to themselves or within the privacy of their own home is extremely dangerous.

Vinylman
05-02-2014, 06:25 PM
^ Then again, I think Sterling will be dead before this ever gets settled after all the litigation and lawsuits. At the end of the day, he will never own that team again.

huh... if he is dead before it is over he will never NOT own the team...

Vinylman
05-02-2014, 06:31 PM
That is not the scenario. If Sterling refuses to sell the team the NBA can and will take over the team, sell it, and then give the money to him after all debts are paid. Can the NBA sell it for less than market value? Yes, but they won't. The NBA is 30 owners after all, and those 30 owners have a vested interest in the sell value of NBA teams rising. They won't sell for a discount.

they also won't sell it for a discount because that is the easiest way for Sterling to sue the league and he would have a case on that... transparency will be a key for the league to avoid a lawsuit over the sales price.

slashsnake
05-03-2014, 02:28 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but this has been bothering me the past few days. Anyways I don't agree with the NBA's handling of the Donald Sterling situation. Donald Sterling is an 80 year old man who is now suspended from the NBA for life for making racist comments that he did not know would be recorded in the privacy of his own home.

Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust.

I'm a huge Eagles fan and last year Riley Cooper, in the public forum, made comments that I found much more racist and filled with hatred than those of Sterling's and the NFL did not suspend him at all. I don't understand how there is such a discrepancy between the NFL and NBA.

The comments by Sterling were disgusting and have no place in the NFL, NBA or any other workplace but I think this sets up a bad precedent. From now on any comment (that offends the majority) that an athlete, coach or owner makes in the privacy of their own home can result in them being banned from their respective sport. Donald Sterling did not break any crimes, instead he is just a bigot. My feeling here is that Riley Cooper should have been suspended, but to ban Sterling for life and possibly force him to sell him team sets up a bad precedent (and slippery slope) for the future.

Well the players union has some clout. The NBA had a choice. Side with Sterling and lose the playoffs... or side with the players and oust a racist.

I actually don't think Cooper was worse. I think he was drunk, trying to get under a guys skin and picked a horrible way to do that. I don't think he is racist. I think he would have picked the worst words to use no matter who he was talking to there.

Sterling I have no doubt he is. Sterling doesn't just use words, but tries to use his power to hold minorities down. I don't like HOW he got outed, but in the end that doesn't really matter to me, what he said does.

Either way, Coopers punishment, or lack of has nothing to do with Sterling. Sterling is an NBA owner, held to a higher standard, and his 30+ year history of racism finally cost him ownership of an NBA team.

JasonJohnHorn
05-03-2014, 09:01 AM
He did know they were being recorded. He gave his permission to record them.

" Sterling is the longest tenured owner in the NBA who employ's hundreds of African American's and he is banned from the NBA for life for stating his opinion in the privacy of his own home. To me that is unamerican and unjust."

Just because one employs people of colour, doesn't mean they are treating them well. He has to answer for his behaviour. How is that unamerican? His is accountable for his actions and the NBA as a business gets to choose who it works with. Forcing them to work with somebody seems more unamerican to me.

You speak to how this stuff shouldn't go on at the work place, but Sterling BROUGHT it to the work place because he was speaking to her about who she brought to games!

That aside, a number of players have been suspended for conduct outside of the work place. If a player wants to smoke weed in July, and gets caught, he's suspended for 5 games at the start of the next season.

Bottom line, a 'life-time-ban' for a guy who is 80 and has cancer equates to about a a 3-4 month ban, so don't worry too much about it.

Vinylman
05-03-2014, 01:55 PM
Can someone post a link to a report that shows he consented to being recorded... The only report i have seen is this girlfriends attorney saying he consented. Is there a recorded consent is what i am asking... If not, her attorney's comments are pretty much self serving and nothing more than posturing to keep her clear of criminal charges.

And again, I am in no way supporting Sterling as he has been a racist POS for decades. I believe that Silver has done the right thing to this point. I just believe it is important for the truth to come out and for those who have acted criminally to be charged.

slashsnake
05-03-2014, 11:17 PM
Can someone post a link to a report that shows he consented to being recorded... The only report i have seen is this girlfriends attorney saying he consented. Is there a recorded consent is what i am asking... If not, her attorney's comments are pretty much self serving and nothing more than posturing to keep her clear of criminal charges.

And again, I am in no way supporting Sterling as he has been a racist POS for decades. I believe that Silver has done the right thing to this point. I just believe it is important for the truth to come out and for those who have acted criminally to be charged.

Well the flip side, has Sterling come out and said those were recorded without his consent and if so, that is every bit as self serving.

Honestly, I think that we have two different situations here.

1. Sterling vs. whomever did the recording, and made it public.

2. Sterling being found out to be a racist moron.

The first situation doesn't change my view on the 2nd one at all.

Vinylman
05-04-2014, 12:23 PM
Well the flip side, has Sterling come out and said those were recorded without his consent and if so, that is every bit as self serving.

Honestly, I think that we have two different situations here.

1. Sterling vs. whomever did the recording, and made it public.

2. Sterling being found out to be a racist moron.

The first situation doesn't change my view on the 2nd one at all.

People keep saying he consented ... i am just asking for someone to show me where he consented... no one can obviously...

As for Sterling being a racist POS that is not debatable and quite frankly hasn't been for decades...

So again, can someone show me where he or she have proof he consented to being recorded.

torocan
05-04-2014, 12:34 PM
People keep saying he consented ... i am just asking for someone to show me where he consented... no one can obviously...

As for Sterling being a racist POS that is not debatable and quite frankly hasn't been for decades...

So again, can someone show me where he or she have proof he consented to being recorded.

If he didn't consent, then Sterling would be filing lawsuits and trying to have her criminally charged. It's been over a week but no charges of libel or slander, no lawsuit for damages, and no cops showing up to hit her with charges of violating any laws. Nor have they filed any injunctions to prevent the release of the other tapes or court actions to seize the tapes.

Given that V. Stiviano's lawyer has said point blank that they have recorded consent (super easy to verify), I tend to side with Stiviano's side of the story.

You think for a second that Sterling wouldn't drop the equivalent of a legal ton of bricks on her head if she didn't have his consent to make the recordings? Would YOU not be screaming from the rooftops and having your lawyers drop bombs on her if they weren't legal recordings?

Occam's razor. The simplest answer is that she has his consent vs Sterling suddenly deciding that it wasn't worth prosecuting or attempting to sue to seize the tapes or prevent their release.

Vinylman
05-04-2014, 12:58 PM
If he didn't consent, then Sterling would be filing lawsuits and trying to have her criminally charged. It's been over a week but no charges of libel or slander, no lawsuit for damages, and no cops showing up to hit her with charges of violating any laws. Nor have they filed any injunctions to prevent the release of the other tapes or court actions to seize the tapes.

Given that V. Stiviano's lawyer has said point blank that they have recorded consent (super easy to verify), I tend to side with Stiviano's side of the story.

You think for a second that Sterling wouldn't drop the equivalent of a legal ton of bricks on her head if she didn't have his consent to make the recordings? Would YOU not be screaming from the rooftops and having your lawyers drop bombs on her if they weren't legal recordings?

Occam's razor. The simplest answer is that she has his consent vs Sterling suddenly deciding that it wasn't worth prosecuting or attempting to sue to seize the tapes or prevent their release.

Sterling has no say in who gets criminally prosecuted. Do you understand how the legal system works? He can only make the prosecuting authority aware of what has transpired.

Anyway, i asked for a link not an opinion piece... you say it is easy to find... i can't find it so if you are interested in helping please post it...

IndyRealist
05-04-2014, 01:02 PM
People keep saying he consented ... i am just asking for someone to show me where he consented... no one can obviously...

As for Sterling being a racist POS that is not debatable and quite frankly hasn't been for decades...

So again, can someone show me where he or she have proof he consented to being recorded.
It actually does not matter if he consented to being recorded, for purposes of the NBA ruling, because the NBA is not a court of law. They do not have the same standard of evidence required by the government. And in any case, per Silver's statement, Sterling admitted that it was him on the recording.

Vinylman
05-04-2014, 01:08 PM
It actually does not matter if he consented to being recorded, for purposes of the NBA ruling, because the NBA is not a court of law. They do not have the same standard of evidence required by the government. And in any case, per Silver's statement, Sterling admitted that it was him on the recording.


I understand all that ... read my original post on the matter... people were saying she did nothing criminally wrong... to me that is an unsettled matter... that is why i am asking for a link showing he consented to being taped.

Either people have a link or not... i am very clear on the legal vs non-legal issues... unfortunately most people in here are not.

IndyRealist
05-04-2014, 01:08 PM
The lifetime ban is an extremely slippery slope. Sterling was punished for his own personal beliefs and thoughts which he never intended to share with the public. This opens the door for anyone to illegally record any high profile executive in the NBA to illicit some sort of response which may be interpreted as malicious or bigoted. Anytime someone is punished for what they personally believe and keep to themselves or within the privacy of their own home is extremely dangerous.
1. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. People love to throw that phrase around not realizing they are undermining their own argument.
2. He's not being punished for his personal beliefs. I suspect a large portion of the owners are racists. He is being punished because he cost the league money and created bad press. The difference is the other owners realize that when you have the most to lose, you have to be the most vigilant about what you say and do.
3. Once again, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. He is not being thrown in jail, or fined by the government. He is being punished by a private organization which he agreed to be part of, and thus agreed to the rules. Your homeowners association can take your home from you and sell it, if you violate the rules of the neighborhood. This is no different.

torocan
05-04-2014, 07:38 PM
Sterling has no say in who gets criminally prosecuted. Do you understand how the legal system works? He can only make the prosecuting authority aware of what has transpired.

Anyway, i asked for a link not an opinion piece... you say it is easy to find... i can't find it so if you are interested in helping please post it...

You're missing the point. Stiviano's lawyer said that they had consent. Once the lawyer has said that she has consent, there is NO onus to produce the actual recorded consent to the public. The ONLY ones that could compel that are law enforcement, or the courts.


The audio recording of racist comments that got Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling banned from the NBA was made with his consent by the woman he criticizes on the tape for "associating with black people," her lawyer said on Thursday.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-02/news/sns-rt-us-nba-clippers-stiviano-20140501_1_donald-sterling-racist-remarks-consent

Note that in Sterling's and the Clippers' statements to the press, there was no implication that the tapes were created without his consent. Just that they weren't sure if the tapes were authentic or unaltered.

So, what we have is one side saying they had consent, and the other NOT denying it or acting in any way legally to have her prosecuted, to file an injunction to stop the further release of the tapes, or any attempt to recover the tapes.

That you're still harping on not hearing his actual words saying that he consented is silly.

Sterling is a billionaire. He has some of the best lawyers on the planet. If he had any way to recover the remaining tapes, to halt their release or to have her prosecuted do you really think he wouldn't do so?

There was no violation of law here as far as anyone can tell. And unless Sterling acts to argue otherwise, the safer assumption is that Stiviano's lawyer made a true statement to the press.

flea
05-04-2014, 07:48 PM
1. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. People love to throw that phrase around not realizing they are undermining their own argument.
2. He's not being punished for his personal beliefs. I suspect a large portion of the owners are racists. He is being punished because he cost the league money and created bad press. The difference is the other owners realize that when you have the most to lose, you have to be the most vigilant about what you say and do.
3. Once again, THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW. He is not being thrown in jail, or fined by the government. He is being punished by a private organization which he agreed to be part of, and thus agreed to the rules. Your homeowners association can take your home from you and sell it, if you violate the rules of the neighborhood. This is no different.

Slippery slope arguments are not logical fallacies. They appeal to both principle and utilitarianism, and are often the basis for effective reasoning. Can they be abused? Sure, but it's relatively obvious when they are. All forms of logic can be manipulated.

In this case, I think the slippery slope argument is meaningful. But people have continued to accept more onerous limitations on their freedom outside of their employment, so I think it's rich now that an upper-level cog is being subjected to the same things. The argument cuts both ways, but workers have proven docile and easy to abuse in this country over the last 40 years.

IndyRealist
05-04-2014, 11:01 PM
.