PDA

View Full Version : Shelly Sterling Will Fight To Retain Ownership Of Clippers



tredigs
05-08-2014, 03:51 PM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10900069/shelly-sterling-intends-keep-los-angeles-clippers-family


"Commissioner Silver made it clear, that when he announced sanctions against Donald, that the NBA was taking no action against me or my family," Shelly Sterling said in a statement given to ESPN.

She has hired attorney Pierce O'Donnell to represent her interests as the league moves to terminate her husband's ownership of the team.

"She will not agree to a forced or involuntary seizure of her interest," O'Donnell said Thursday. "As her lawyers we will fight vigorously to defend her property rights."



Ramifications of Shelly Sterling retaining ownership? With her history of bigotry and racism being very well aligned with her husbands, I'm assuming this is the worst news a Clipper fan could hear, as it's likely going to be an uphill battle to oust her as well.

Is there a chance that players will be OK with her as the owner? If not, who leaves first? CP3? Doc? And what free agents are choosing the Clips with a Sterling owner?

P&GRealist
05-08-2014, 03:56 PM
She's going to lose. Nobody wants a Sterling or anyone related to a Sterling to take over.

Board of governors has to approve a sale or transfer of ownership, and they aint gonna approve this beeyatch.


Go to hell Shelly! and SUCK ME!

tredigs
05-08-2014, 03:59 PM
She's going to lose. Nobody wants a Sterling or anyone related to a Sterling to take over.

Board of governors has to approve a sale or transfer of ownership, and they aint gonna approve this beeyatch.


Go to hell Shelly! and SUCK ME!

Problem is, Shelly is already the owner of the team. She's actually the longest tenured (co) owner in the NBA. And without probable cause to kick her to the curb, it will be very interesting to see how they handle this situation.

P&GRealist
05-08-2014, 04:00 PM
Problem is, Shelly is already the owner of the team. She's actually the longest tenured (co) owner in the NBA. And without probable cause to kick her to the curb, it will be very interesting to see how they handle this situation.

Players and coaches will leave that organization or ask the NBA to get out of their contracts.

TrueFan420
05-08-2014, 04:03 PM
Players and coaches will leave that organization or ask the NBA to get out of their contracts.

Nba can't cancel their contracts all they could do is try to force her to sell. They could try to force her to trade but she could say play or sit your contract length without pay. They'll play. And they won't tank cause their egos and competitive nature won't allow for that.

KnickFanSince91
05-08-2014, 04:08 PM
Voting her out would be nothing more than a formality. She needs to get over it and accept the fact that they lost.

hoosiercubsfan
05-08-2014, 04:10 PM
Voting her out would be nothing more than a formality. She needs to get over it and accept the fact that they lost.

Thing is they have plenty of money to pay a team of lawyers. And the family seems to relish in fighting things out in court. This I don't see as being near cut and dry as you put it.

KnickFanSince91
05-08-2014, 04:22 PM
Thing is they have plenty of money to pay a team of lawyers. And the family seems to relish in fighting things out in court. This I don't see as being near cut and dry as you put it.

The legal battle can go on forever but that will be for damages, etc. There's no way they will ever control the team again. There might be some wacked out judge in Cali that will grant an injunction to prevent the sale of the team, but there's literally nothing they can do to prevent the NBA from running the club until they can sell (same thing they did with the New Orleans franchise). The by-laws are pretty clear in stating they can vote to remove any owner if they willingly violate any of the other by-laws or engage in conduct detrimental to the league.

TrueFan420
05-08-2014, 04:22 PM
Voting her out would be nothing more than a formality. She needs to get over it and accept the fact that they lost.

Yea it's not close to as simple as that. I'd bet this will be dragged out for a while

KnickFanSince91
05-08-2014, 04:25 PM
Yea it's not close to as simple as that. I'd bet this will be dragged out for a while

Who gets paid and how much will be the part that's complicated and will take forever. The part about who controls the team and makes the decisions is pretty straight forward if you've read the bylaws

TrueFan420
05-08-2014, 04:28 PM
Who gets paid and how much will be the part that's complicated and will take forever. The part about who controls the team and makes the decisions is pretty straight forward if you've read the bylaws

I glanced at them but even with that vote it's too kick out Donald they can't kick her out as she did nothing wrong. If she takes his shares and he leaves they won't have grounds to kick her out and if they still try and force her out this will be a far far more complicated case with a lengthy wait.

Lakers Ghost
05-08-2014, 04:32 PM
Problem is, Shelly is already the owner of the team. She's actually the longest tenured (co) owner in the NBA. And without probable cause to kick her to the curb, it will be very interesting to see how they handle this situation.

Sterling wife has the same views as her husband even is on record recently saying that sterling is not a racist and even some videos of her that don't help her cause came to light recently after the scandal. If I was a fan and player I WOULD NOT attend a game or play a game until the sterlings are remove from ownership and see the value of the team go down.:cool:

FlashBolt
05-08-2014, 04:32 PM
This family is a joke. Instead of admitting their defeat, they stick around and try to work around it like a band of rats. Lemme guess, you're married to someone for 30+ years, didn't know he was racist and that he had mistresses? Donald and her are equally racists.

KnickFanSince91
05-08-2014, 04:38 PM
I glanced at them but even with that vote it's too kick out Donald they can't kick her out as she did nothing wrong. If she takes his shares and he leaves they won't have grounds to kick her out and if they still try and force her out this will be a far far more complicated case with a lengthy wait.



Article 13(a) lays out the process for voting an owner out of the league:

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.



People keep making this thing complicated like it's a matter of legal rights and what not. There's no legal burden of proof to prove that she violated the by-laws. It simply states that 3/4ths of the other owners have to believe that she engaged in conduct detrimental to the league and she's out. If she didn't do anything, she'll have to prove that in court and can win damages if a judge agrees. They still can't force the NBA to allow her or her family to be a part of the league.

SlimKid
05-08-2014, 04:53 PM
I glanced at them but even with that vote it's too kick out Donald they can't kick her out as she did nothing wrong. If she takes his shares and he leaves they won't have grounds to kick her out and if they still try and force her out this will be a far far more complicated case with a lengthy wait.

She has a long history along side Donald of being a raging racist. Doc looked pretty silly feeling bad for her:

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html (http://http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html)

tredigs
05-08-2014, 04:54 PM
People keep making this thing complicated like it's a matter of legal rights and what not. There's no legal burden of proof to prove that she violated the by-laws. It simply states that 3/4ths of the other owners have to believe that she engaged in conduct detrimental to the league and she's out. If she didn't do anything, she'll have to prove that in court and can win damages if a judge agrees. They still can't force the NBA to allow her or her family to be a part of the league.
I think you're overlooking a key point here. What conduct detrimental to the league can they use to enter a vote to remove Shelly?

tredigs
05-08-2014, 04:58 PM
She has a long history along side Donald of being a raging racist. Doc looked pretty silly feeling bad for her:

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html (http://http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html)

Is searching through a persons past (for absolutely zero new information) in an attempt to drum up a vote to remove an owner something that 3/4ths of the owners themselves will be proponents of, though? They also have their own skeletons I'm sure, and that may be a path that they are heavily against going down.

bleedprple&gold
05-08-2014, 05:11 PM
She has a long history along side Donald of being a raging racist. Doc looked pretty silly feeling bad for her:

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html (http://http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html)

Is searching through a persons past (for absolutely zero new information) in an attempt to drum up a vote to remove an owner something that 3/4ths of the owners themselves will be proponents of, though? They also have their own skeletons I'm sure, and that may be a path that they are heavily against going down.

If they want her out badly enough they will. I'm sure everybody knows she's a racist at this point and with their wishes to get the Sterling family out of the nba I think they vote her out without blinking an eye.

east fb knicks
05-08-2014, 05:19 PM
Nba can't cancel their contracts all they could do is try to force her to sell. They could try to force her to trade but she could say play or sit your contract length without pay. They'll play. And they won't tank cause their egos and competitive nature won't allow for that.

adam silver said in his press conf that if players want out he'll help them but wow the sterling's are dicks why can't they just leave with a little dignity they've embarrassed the franchise enough already

Vinylman
05-08-2014, 05:39 PM
the arm chair lawyering is truly comical

TrueFan420
05-08-2014, 05:41 PM
She has a long history along side Donald of being a raging racist. Doc looked pretty silly feeling bad for her:

http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html (http://http://www.edgeofsports.com/2014-05-05-925/index.html)
Link doesn't work

TrueFan420
05-08-2014, 05:42 PM
adam silver said in his press conf that if players want out he'll help them but wow the sterling's are dicks why can't they just leave with a little dignity they've embarrassed the franchise enough already

Cause to him he did nothing wrong so he feels like a victim.

Cracka2HI!
05-08-2014, 05:58 PM
There's no doubt the Sterling's will fight this but they don't have much of a fight. Say they win...their franchise becomes worthless again and any decent player will never sign with them. What coach will take the job? All the Sterling's can do is drive down the value of their franchise. It really benefit's them to sell. Shelly Sterling has rights here for sure and DTS probably does too...however the end game means them losing about half a billion dollars if they don't sell now. The franchise will probably lose at least 50% of it's value(which will never be higher) with 2 or 3 years if the Sterling's still own the team. Both Sterling's are under the illusion that they can fix this and keep the team in it's current state. They may be able to keep the team but they'll be back in the Sports Arena...if they'll even take them back.

Gibby23
05-08-2014, 06:28 PM
There's no doubt the Sterling's will fight this but they don't have much of a fight. Say they win...their franchise becomes worthless again and any decent player will never sign with them. What coach will take the job? All the Sterling's can do is drive down the value of their franchise. It really benefit's them to sell. Shelly Sterling has rights here for sure and DTS probably does too...however the end game means them losing about half a billion dollars if they don't sell now. The franchise will probably lose at least 50% of it's value(which will never be higher) with 2 or 3 years if the Sterling's still own the team. Both Sterling's are under the illusion that they can fix this and keep the team in it's current state. They may be able to keep the team but they'll be back in the Sports Arena...if they'll even take them back.

They are not losing a half a billion because they were never in the market to sell. They don't care what the franchise is worth and were turning a profit all through the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's when the franchise wasn't good. Also, they have a lease with Staples Center, they wouldn't have to go antwhere.

RaiderLakersA's
05-08-2014, 07:22 PM
Players and coaches will leave that organization or ask the NBA to get out of their contracts.

This. The NBA is going to go nuclear on her lying caboose. She can keep the team. I get that at the end of the day both Sterlings truly love the NBA owner lifestyle. But she's only going to make the team a pariah. No one will want to go there.

Cracka2HI!
05-08-2014, 07:29 PM
They are not losing a half a billion because they were never in the market to sell. They don't care what the franchise is worth and were turning a profit all through the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's when the franchise wasn't good. Also, they have a lease with Staples Center, they wouldn't have to go antwhere.

Good point. They can sell the team now for about a billion or destory the value and possibly get what the Kings and Bucks went for which is about half a billion. Or they can keep the team forever and get kicked out of Staples when their lease is up and go back to the Sports Arena if they will take them back. I thought it was kind of obvious I was talking about the value of the franchise but I dumbed it down a bit. When the value of something a billionaire owns loses value it is normally seen as that billionaire losing money even if they never intended to sell.

jerellh528
05-09-2014, 04:55 AM
Not gunna happen, too much at stake for the league and silver

grandsalami
05-12-2014, 12:09 AM
Someone needs a new lawyer
NBA:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnZoNoLCAAAwadk.jpg

HER lawyer

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BnZ2azzCAAA47WU.jpg

Tony_Starks
05-12-2014, 12:32 AM
Non story. Shelly's out, Donald's out, and if she keeps up this farce she will end up banned from the premises like him.

The best thing can do is just bow out gracefully because no Sterling is going to be associated with the league again....

Sssmush
05-12-2014, 12:36 AM
Nba can't cancel their contracts all they could do is try to force her to sell. They could try to force her to trade but she could say play or sit your contract length without pay. They'll play. And they won't tank cause their egos and competitive nature won't allow for that.

Players could retire, and then the league could grant them a dispensation to un-retire and sign elsewhere, based on workplace issues or something. That's something the league could realistically do.

Sssmush
05-12-2014, 12:40 AM
Players could also sue the Clippers for being in breach of contract, assuming that there is some language in their contracts that guarantees the team will conform to NBA standards and provide a reasonable workplace in alignment with the spirit of the league etc. There may also be some language regarding defamation, and players might sue the Clippers by claiming that the teams actions are defaming them by association (i.e., forcing them to publicly work for and endorse a team/organization that publicly contradicts their most deeply held and cherished beliefs).

Sssmush
05-12-2014, 12:42 AM
If the league wants to apply pressure, it can gently direct the players toward the vulnerable sweet spots of those contracts that will allow them, under the present extraordinary circumstances, to break the contracts and/or sue the Clippers for breach.

This allows the league to let all the Clipper players go free agent without some kind of wonky league edict or declaration, which might be legally murky.

grandsalami
05-12-2014, 12:50 AM
If the league wants to apply pressure, it can gently direct the players toward the vulnerable sweet spots of those contracts that will allow them, under the present extraordinary circumstances, to break the contracts and/or sue the Clippers for breach.

This allows the league to let all the Clipper players go free agent without some kind of wonky league edict or declaration, which might be legally murky.

DUde for the 100th ****ing time… NO PLAYERS OR COACHES ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE LAC….

Bigbadmoffo
05-12-2014, 12:57 AM
If they're so proud why are they still playing and attending games? They should boycott and forfeit contracts to show people they believe in a non racist America.

Bigbadmoffo
05-12-2014, 12:58 AM
The blacks that fought slavery and segregation would not attend games.

Bigbadmoffo
05-12-2014, 01:01 AM
This is all about having more black owners in the league...end of story

Cal827
05-12-2014, 01:09 AM
This is all about having more black owners in the league...end of story

If that **** Mayweather is able to obtain part ownership of the team, then this might be true.

Sssmush
05-12-2014, 01:12 AM
If they're so proud why are they still playing and attending games? They should boycott and forfeit contracts to show people they believe in a non racist America.

Well, that's the other possibility, that Doc Rivers, CP3 and all the players always considered Donald Sterling, from Day 1, as a cranky old guy with some harmless old school Brooklyn racist sensibilities but just decided to put up with it for the opportunity. They may have just decided that he was the irascible old curmudgeon with the rude, non-PC and borderline racist patois but who deep down had a heart of gold, and they loved him and felt loyal to him. That is a possibility, after all, and I did think that V. Stiviano's "silly rabbit" story to Barbara Walters had a layer of believability and genuineness to it. We shouldn't, after all, lose sight of the fact that these are all human beings were talking about, and nothing about this situation is black and white. The flipside of this whole situation is that this could've been a true moment of redemption for Donald Sterling in the eyes of Los Angeles if he would've really come clean and apologized.

But the stonefaced denial and/or lack of any response whatsoever, combined with legal maneuvering and shady PR gimmicks (the newly released tapes) all just make it seem like business as usual--like "we know damn well we are racists and we rather enjoy that you know it as well, but we stay one inch behind the line so there's nothing anybody can do about it and everyone can just go **** themselves."

Clipper fans are all either just basketball fans who are able to push all that out of their awareness for a while to attend games, or just like the ironic snarkiness of rooting for (historically) the worst team in the NBA.

shep33
05-12-2014, 01:21 AM
The NBA is in for some bad publicity. Shelly Sterling is going to play the sexism card against the NBA. If the NBA responds by mentioning her similar stereotypical positions to her husband... Well then, the NBA is going to have to explain why they kept the Sterlings in control of the clips.

Yes the NBA can take away ownership via constitutional rules, but the publicity by the legal battle is going to endure for a while.

torocan
05-12-2014, 01:30 AM
Problem is, Shelly is already the owner of the team. She's actually the longest tenured (co) owner in the NBA. And without probable cause to kick her to the curb, it will be very interesting to see how they handle this situation.

Really, there's not much to handle.

The Ownership question is pretty much determined by the controlling interests, IE, who's in charge. For Shelley to take control of the team would require her to apply to become the controlling "owner". This would be true even if the franchise is owned by a Family Trust.

The Clippers are jointly owned through a Family Trust, however the co-trustees are Donald Sterling and Shelley Sterling. Even if Sterling wanted to step down as the Trustee and wanted to make Shelley Sterling the sole controlling Trustee (or assign a different Trustee), that would effectively be treated as a 100% transfer in ownership and would require Shelley to apply to the NBA for approval to become a "new" owner.


Technically, the team is now owned by the Sterling family's trust, with Donald and Shelly Sterling serving as co-trustees. Their two children are named as beneficiaries.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/us/nba-donald-sterling-audio-recording/index.html

Under Interpretation...


(12) “Owner” shall mean a Member and each individual or Entity (including both the trustees a
nd beneficiaries of any trust) that, directly or indirectly (including through one or more intermediate Entities), owns of record or beneficially an interest in, or has effective control over, a Member or its Membership.

Under section 5(i)


(i) Any addition, replacement, or substitution of a trustee or a beneficiary of a trust that is an Owner shall be deemed a transfer of the entire interest owned by that trust, unless the Commissioner shall determine that the interest to be transferred is only a portion of the interest owned by the trust (in which case the interest deemed to be transferred for purposes of this Article 5 shall be such portion).

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

The problem that Shelley Sterling has is that she technically doesn't own 50% of the Clippers, she owns 50% of a Family Trust that owns the Clippers (effectively a holding company), and that Family Trust is both co-owned and controlled by both of them. And since it's a Family Trust, it's not like Sterling can remove himself both as a Trustee and as a Beneficiary of the Trust. There's really no way to divest Donald Sterling of any interest in the Clippers if it's an Irrevocable Trust (most likely scenario given they want the assets to pass to their children without Estate Tax implication). Any sale would be a sale forcing the Family Trust to divest itself of the Clippers, not Donald Sterling himself.

Additionally, given that it's a Family Trust with co-trustees and designated beneficiaries (Donald and Shelley Sterling), any change that would allow Shelley to take control of the team would mean that she would have to apply for NBA membership and would have to be approved by the Board of Governors.

In other words, if the NBA forces Sterling to sell, they're actually forcing the Trust to sell. Shelley Sterling will still retain 50% of the Family Trust.

And if the NBA doesn't want Shelley Sterling to take control due to a change in the Trustees (since Sterling most likely can't divest himself as a beneficiary from an irrevocable Family Trust as long as he's still alive), there's really nothing she can do about it as she would still have to apply to the NBA for a new membership and the NBA can pretty much turn down anyone they want for whatever reason they want.

The NBA is not required to accept anyone into their private Billionaires club.

Sssmush
05-12-2014, 03:15 AM
^ The idea of Shelly Sterling assuming control of the team, or a controlling interest in the team, as part of the structuring or administration of the trust or whatever, is still out there and is still a last ditch move for them should it come to that--good for at least one or two extra rounds of legal wrangling.

However, we have not come anywhere near that point yet, and from what I've read Donald Sterling is intent on fighting every move made to ban him from the league or take away his ownership of the team. Those battles still have to be fought, and it will be interesting to see at what point the league slows its roll and decides if there's anything it can't do until legal injunctions are lifted or court cases are settled etc. As I understand it no lawsuits have even been filed as of yet, so at this point the focus is probably on winning the vote with the owners (bargaining with each owner behind the scenes for their vote) and appealing the lifetime ban. Once THAT battle has been won or lost, THEN we can start to think about how many lawsuits Sterling is going to put on the league and what kind of legal strategies his team will try. Way way way long after that is the question of whether the league could stop Shelly Sterling from assuming control of the team or the trust, or from somehow simply removing Donald Sterling from the trust or restructuring it to create the illusion of distance.

But seriously, CP3 could call a press conference for the start time of game 5 and sit down in front of the world media with Condoleeza Rice and Magic Johnson at his side and that changes the game completely.

Kenny Powders
05-12-2014, 06:29 AM
^ The idea of Shelly Sterling assuming control of the team, or a controlling interest in the team, as part of the structuring or administration of the trust or whatever, is still out there and is still a last ditch move for them should it come to that--good for at least one or two extra rounds of legal wrangling.

However, we have not come anywhere near that point yet, and from what I've read Donald Sterling is intent on fighting every move made to ban him from the league or take away his ownership of the team. Those battles still have to be fought, and it will be interesting to see at what point the league slows its roll and decides if there's anything it can't do until legal injunctions are lifted or court cases are settled etc. As I understand it no lawsuits have even been filed as of yet, so at this point the focus is probably on winning the vote with the owners (bargaining with each owner behind the scenes for their vote) and appealing the lifetime ban. Once THAT battle has been won or lost, THEN we can start to think about how many lawsuits Sterling is going to put on the league and what kind of legal strategies his team will try. Way way way long after that is the question of whether the league could stop Shelly Sterling from assuming control of the team or the trust, or from somehow simply removing Donald Sterling from the trust or restructuring it to create the illusion of distance.

But seriously, CP3 could call a press conference for the start time of game 5 and sit down in front of the world media with Condoleeza Rice and Magic Johnson at his side and that changes the game completely.

You certainly like your hypothetical situations.

Vinylman
05-12-2014, 05:45 PM
Really, there's not much to handle.

The Ownership question is pretty much determined by the controlling interests, IE, who's in charge. For Shelley to take control of the team would require her to apply to become the controlling "owner". This would be true even if the franchise is owned by a Family Trust.

The Clippers are jointly owned through a Family Trust, however the co-trustees are Donald Sterling and Shelley Sterling. Even if Sterling wanted to step down as the Trustee and wanted to make Shelley Sterling the sole controlling Trustee (or assign a different Trustee), that would effectively be treated as a 100% transfer in ownership and would require Shelley to apply to the NBA for approval to become a "new" owner.



http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/us/nba-donald-sterling-audio-recording/index.html

Under Interpretation...



Under section 5(i)



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

The problem that Shelley Sterling has is that she technically doesn't own 50% of the Clippers, she owns 50% of a Family Trust that owns the Clippers (effectively a holding company), and that Family Trust is both co-owned and controlled by both of them. And since it's a Family Trust, it's not like Sterling can remove himself both as a Trustee and as a Beneficiary of the Trust. There's really no way to divest Donald Sterling of any interest in the Clippers if it's an Irrevocable Trust (most likely scenario given they want the assets to pass to their children without Estate Tax implication). Any sale would be a sale forcing the Family Trust to divest itself of the Clippers, not Donald Sterling himself.

Additionally, given that it's a Family Trust with co-trustees and designated beneficiaries (Donald and Shelley Sterling), any change that would allow Shelley to take control of the team would mean that she would have to apply for NBA membership and would have to be approved by the Board of Governors.

In other words, if the NBA forces Sterling to sell, they're actually forcing the Trust to sell. Shelley Sterling will still retain 50% of the Family Trust.

And if the NBA doesn't want Shelley Sterling to take control due to a change in the Trustees (since Sterling most likely can't divest himself as a beneficiary from an irrevocable Family Trust as long as he's still alive), there's really nothing she can do about it as she would still have to apply to the NBA for a new membership and the NBA can pretty much turn down anyone they want for whatever reason they want.

The NBA is not required to accept anyone into their private Billionaires club.

What part of article 13 do you think the league will use to terminate his ownership?

subsection A which is what everyone is hanging their hat on is very non specific and deals with "willful acts"

Is a third party releasing a recording (not arguing whether he said she could record it) without his permission a willful act?

The belief that everything is cut and dry and the league will be able to do whatever they want is laughable

KnickFanSince91
05-12-2014, 06:30 PM
I don't think there's a judge around that will grant the injunction needed to prevent the NBA from doing what it wants to do.

There's no legal burden to prove what's a willful act and what isn't. They just need 23 owners to believe he committed that act and it's game over.

Sent from Galaxy Note 2

Tony_Starks
05-12-2014, 07:11 PM
People are making a simple issue very complicated. If all the owners turn their backs on the Sterlings and say we want you out then that's that. The NBA is privately owned business with their own rules and owners have to be approved. Even Sterling himself seems to be resigned to the fact that his fate is in the owners hands.

It's a wrap. Now if Shelly or Donald want to make spectacles of themselves and drag it out in courts so be it but ultimately they'll never be a part of the NBA again.

futureman
05-14-2014, 01:52 PM
If I were getting paid millions of dollars to work for a racist, I would do it. It's not like they're earning minimum wage. Free speech needs to be totally free except when threatening someone. It will never ever protect hurt feelings. If it did, I want Al Sharptons TV Show, I want Jesse Jacksons House, They hurt my feelings with their racism so they need to give me their stuff.

RiLoc
05-14-2014, 03:56 PM
The Sterlings are so transparent it's comical. The only reason she's so attached to it is that if being forced to sell is going to cost the couple hundreds of millions in capital gains tax. (source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140507/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-lawsuit-taxes-adam-silver/))

P&GRealist
05-14-2014, 04:18 PM
I don't know why, but I think the Clippers still in the playoffs is delaying this whole process of removing Sterling. OKC just needs to oust them the next game in LA so we can get a resolution of this whole thing with Doc and all the players under contract beyond this yr to take a stand.

AddiX
05-14-2014, 05:03 PM
Entitled rich people, you can't tell them anything. She probably doesn't know a thing about basketball.

NBA deserves this mess for letting them in, in the first place.

AddiX
05-14-2014, 05:07 PM
I don't know why, but I think the Clippers still in the playoffs is delaying this whole process of removing Sterling. OKC just needs to oust them the next game in LA so we can get a resolution of this whole thing with Doc and all the players under contract beyond this yr to take a stand.

No, it's sterlings team of lawyers who are salivating at the chance of dragging this out as long as possible and making as much of sterlings $ as they can, and he will be happy to give it to them. the NBA will never get rid of sterling until he dies.

Tony_Starks
05-14-2014, 05:09 PM
The Sterlings are so transparent it's comical. The only reason she's so attached to it is that if being forced to sell is going to cost the couple hundreds of millions in capital gains tax. (source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140507/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-lawsuit-taxes-adam-silver/))

But of course. That and they'll no longer have the prestigious title of "owners," sitting court side or luxury box schmoozing with the big shots. They're getting kicked out of the club!

thunderdood
05-14-2014, 05:10 PM
The Sterlings are so transparent it's comical. The only reason she's so attached to it is that if being forced to sell is going to cost the couple hundreds of millions in capital gains tax. (source (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140507/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-lawsuit-taxes-adam-silver/))

Why would anyone want to pay such a high percentage in taxes? 30 cents of every dollar I make gets taken away from taxes. Makes it hard to survive on my own. Even when they are talking about millions of dollars, it's still money they and anyone else would want to keep.

NBA_Starter
05-14-2014, 05:13 PM
Get all of the Sterlings out of the league.