PDA

View Full Version : Here's your new Sterling-Clipper scenario



Sssmush
10-24-2014, 02:01 AM
A. NBA is negotiating with Sterling for him to drop his potentially damaging/embarassing federal lawsuit against the league. Here's the article at NBCSports (http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/23/donald-sterling-is-negotiating-dismissal-of-his-federal-lawsuit-against-the-nba/related/)

B. League settles out of the lawsuit for zero cash by agreeing to lift its "lifetime ban" against Sterling, which seems somewhat tenuous now in any case as he has no direct connection with the league anymore and I'm not sure the NBA can just "ban" a private citizen from its games.

C. Ta-dah. Donald Sterling is back, sitting in Shelly's deluxe custom row of awesome box-seats at center court, watching the games and smirking down at Ballmer, with $2 Billion dollars in his pocket.

goingfor28
10-24-2014, 02:20 AM
DTS already dropped his lawsuits. He's gone. Ballmer owns LAC.

/

abe_froman
10-24-2014, 02:22 AM
DTS already dropped his lawsuits. He's gone. Ballmer owns LAC.

/

he's a laker fan,just making a hope thread

goingfor28
10-24-2014, 02:23 AM
Also, DTS doesn't care about the $2B. He won't smirk at Ballmer. DTS would rather rewind to April and none of this happened. He's rich, old and senile.
Pretty sure all Clippers fans don't care that DTS got 2B for the team, as long as it means he is gone...which he is.

goingfor28
10-24-2014, 02:38 AM
he's a laker fan,just making a hope thread
Figured that. Just wasn't 100% sure, ha

PurpleLynch
10-24-2014, 04:39 AM
Nah,Sterling is gonna buy the Hawks now ahahh

albertajaysfan
10-24-2014, 03:34 PM
Nah,Sterling is gonna buy the Hawks now ahahh

Because downtown Atlanta would welcome him with open arms...

P&GRealist
10-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Because downtown Atlanta would welcome him with open arms...

I think he was referring to the whole Danny Ferry comments about Luol Deng.

Cracka2HI!
10-24-2014, 05:33 PM
There isn't anyone named Donald Sterling that is affiliated with the Clippers in any way.

IndyRealist
10-24-2014, 07:16 PM
A. NBA is negotiating with Sterling for him to drop his potentially damaging/embarassing federal lawsuit against the league. Here's the article at NBCSports (http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/23/donald-sterling-is-negotiating-dismissal-of-his-federal-lawsuit-against-the-nba/related/)

B. League settles out of the lawsuit for zero cash by agreeing to lift its "lifetime ban" against Sterling, which seems somewhat tenuous now in any case as he has no direct connection with the league anymore and I'm not sure the NBA can just "ban" a private citizen from its games.

C. Ta-dah. Donald Sterling is back, sitting in Shelly's deluxe custom row of awesome box-seats at center court, watching the games and smirking down at Ballmer, with $2 Billion dollars in his pocket.
Seriously? It's private property of a privately owned company. They can ban anyone they want to.

The article says NOTHING about dropping the lifetime ban. The fraud lawsuit is already dropped, and all that's left is the anti-trust lawsuit which has no chance in he** of succeeding. Meanwhile he is paying lawyers a boatload of money and will be unlikely to see a dime of the $2 billion while he has pending litigation against the league.

Sssmush
10-24-2014, 07:38 PM
Seriously? It's private property of a privately owned company. They can ban anyone they want to.

The article says NOTHING about dropping the lifetime ban. The fraud lawsuit is already dropped, and all that's left is the anti-trust lawsuit which has no chance in he** of succeeding. Meanwhile he is paying lawyers a boatload of money and will be unlikely to see a dime of the $2 billion while he has pending litigation against the league.


Right... but you CAN see that they are negotiating the dropping of the lawsuit, right?

So, what is the only thing that Sterling would request at this point?

And, again, I'm not sure about the exact legalities of all this... but it seems sketchy as to how you could ban a private citizen from all NBA stadiums in the first place. The guy's a billionaire, not a shirtless shoeless penniless sex offender carrying weapons and wearing an Al Qaeda sweatshirt.

The league never actually VOTED on all this Sterling stuff... they just threatened to, and Silver unilaterally proclaimed it. But it was always questionable about the ultimate legality of "banning" somebody because of a secret recording his hooker made in his bedroom where he didn't even use the "N" word or get super overtly racist. (don't get me wrong, I think his implicit racism was revolting and I always found him 90% loathesome).

But again.... Shelly Sterling negotiated her row of custom box seats, free for life, and if the league lifts the lifteime ban, there he is. FACT.

And, I'd also say, that if Sterling goes balls out to the mat to legally contest his banishment from NBA stadiums as a private citizen and non-owner.... I think that is a very tough road for the league, and one with a low cost/benefit quotient. I'd say they probably just have to fight him on it, because otherwise it will just look fn ugly if he's sitting there opening night, almost as ugly as if still owned the team.

Chronz
10-24-2014, 07:47 PM
Who gives a ****, hes not in power, thats what matters. That he has to fight just to get a seat at a Clippers game despite being a billionaire is ****in hilarious. "Some people are so poor, all they have is money"

Sssmush
10-24-2014, 07:57 PM
Who gives a ****, hes not in power, thats what matters. That he has to fight just to get a seat at a Clippers game despite being a billionaire is ****in hilarious. "Some people are so poor, all they have is money"

ok, if you're cool with it, then, hey, fine. I just think it will be kind of hilarious if he is sitting there night after night, basking in the boos, which will probably sound to his brain like wild adulation, and then trolling the media afterwards in interviews and twitter posts.

The makings of a media superstar :)

Sssmush
10-24-2014, 08:00 PM
I guess this all gets back to the fact that it was utterly bone-headed and unnecessary to give Shelly Sterling "number one fan for life" status along with a boatload of perks and a row of the best seats in the house. I put this on the league for allowing that provision to go through. You could've just given her an extra $100M or something.
They would've caved. It was totally unnecessary.

Sssmush
10-24-2014, 08:03 PM
And sure I am a Laker fan, and sure you can say this or that about me, but the fact is that Shelly Sterling is the Clipper's OFFICIAL number one fan for life, and you can't front on that.

Chronz
10-24-2014, 08:28 PM
Shes gonna have to pry that title from Clipper Darrell's lifeless hands.

Seriously tho, she deserves #1 status for helping remove her husband from power. He was that despicable

Cracka2HI!
10-24-2014, 10:36 PM
^ Exactly. I understand Laker fan has to dig REALLY deep now to try find a way being a Laker fan is still better than being a Clipper fan. Fact is, without Shelley the Sterlings would probably still own the team. I have no issues with Shelley. I'm not following the #1 fan thing for her. Is that supposed to offend me as a Clipper fan or something?

IndyRealist
10-24-2014, 11:54 PM
Right... but you CAN see that they are negotiating the dropping of the lawsuit, right?

So, what is the only thing that Sterling would request at this point?

And, again, I'm not sure about the exact legalities of all this... but it seems sketchy as to how you could ban a private citizen from all NBA stadiums in the first place. The guy's a billionaire, not a shirtless shoeless penniless sex offender carrying weapons and wearing an Al Qaeda sweatshirt.

The league never actually VOTED on all this Sterling stuff... they just threatened to, and Silver unilaterally proclaimed it. But it was always questionable about the ultimate legality of "banning" somebody because of a secret recording his hooker made in his bedroom where he didn't even use the "N" word or get super overtly racist. (don't get me wrong, I think his implicit racism was revolting and I always found him 90% loathesome).

But again.... Shelly Sterling negotiated her row of custom box seats, free for life, and if the league lifts the lifteime ban, there he is. FACT.

And, I'd also say, that if Sterling goes balls out to the mat to legally contest his banishment from NBA stadiums as a private citizen and non-owner.... I think that is a very tough road for the league, and one with a low cost/benefit quotient. I'd say they probably just have to fight him on it, because otherwise it will just look fn ugly if he's sitting there opening night, almost as ugly as if still owned the team.
Sorry but your argument is complete bunk. A PRIVATE business can tell ANY private citizen they are unwelcome on the premises, it's called trespassing. It does not matter whether he's a billionaire or a homeless sex offender, and I really wonder why you think the law would make a distinction.

You are really reaching, and I'm guessing by the rest of your response it's because you can't let go of the fact that you were on the wrong side of the legality of the Sterling case. The question of legality had NOTHING to do with banning him from stadiums. The question was whether the league could force him to sell the team, which they bypassed by getting his wife to do so. The owners did not vote because the vote was MOOT. Donald Sterling was declared incompetent and his wife had power of attorney over his assets. The person that was recognized as the owner of the team chose to sell it. End of story.

And your FACT is not a fact, it's something that may or may not happen. Donald sued his wife as well, she had him declared mentally incompetent, publicly called him horrendous things, and sold his billion dollar toy. What makes you think they'll be sitting side by side, again?

Your entire position hinges on trying to get the NBA to lift their ban. Why would the NBA do that? Donald Sterling cannot win his lawsuit. Their reputation will only take a hit if they DO lift the ban, they have the moral high ground. They have no legal reason to lift the ban, and they have no perception reason to do so.

Chronz
10-25-2014, 02:10 AM
Its a fact tho, all we need to wait for, is for it to happen, then boom.... FACT.

Sssmush
10-26-2014, 04:47 AM
Sorry but your argument is complete bunk. A PRIVATE business can tell ANY private citizen they are unwelcome on the premises, it's called trespassing. It does not matter whether he's a billionaire or a homeless sex offender, and I really wonder why you think the law would make a distinction.

You are really reaching, and I'm guessing by the rest of your response it's because you can't let go of the fact that you were on the wrong side of the legality of the Sterling case. The question of legality had NOTHING to do with banning him from stadiums. The question was whether the league could force him to sell the team, which they bypassed by getting his wife to do so. The owners did not vote because the vote was MOOT. Donald Sterling was declared incompetent and his wife had power of attorney over his assets. The person that was recognized as the owner of the team chose to sell it. End of story.

And your FACT is not a fact, it's something that may or may not happen. Donald sued his wife as well, she had him declared mentally incompetent, publicly called him horrendous things, and sold his billion dollar toy. What makes you think they'll be sitting side by side, again?

Your entire position hinges on trying to get the NBA to lift their ban. Why would the NBA do that? Donald Sterling cannot win his lawsuit. Their reputation will only take a hit if they DO lift the ban, they have the moral high ground. They have no legal reason to lift the ban, and they have no perception reason to do so.


Again, I did say I wasn't totally certain about all the legal aspects. I'm not a lawyer, obviously.

However, I do think there is some fuzziness about the actual legal situation. For instance, a 7-11 owner can't just "ban" or "lifetime ban" minorities from his store. Or, say people he doesn't agree with, like KKK members or something like that. I mean I guess a store owner CAN do that, but it opens the door to certain lawsuits and legal recourse. If I'm a minority and I can't buy a Slurpee at 7-11 because the owner has banned minorities for life, I think I can actually sue on the basis of civil rights (I'm not sure about that) and it seems like the members of any other group could do so as well.

Now... if we are talking about not just one 7-11 owner but all 7-11s nationwide banning minorities... or just banning me as an individual (without a specific cause) then that seems like it would be a big deal.

In the case of Sterling... I assumed that all of the weight coming down on him from the league was rooted in the fact that he was signed onto all the league bylaws because he had agreed to all the terms of their private club as an owner.

But as a private citizen, I'm not sure that the league has the ability to (easily) ban a paying customer from all games, for life, without a clear cut reason. And a media scandal based on an illegal secret hooker regarding that made some people uncomfortable about his inner attitudes toward people of color... I don't think that qualifies. Sure, as an OWNER, you could argue that the recording hurt business, but as not an owner, I don't think there's anyway you can still ban the guy--he's just a private citizen, a ticket buyer, who's to say he can't come to any games just because he told some hooker in his bedroom that he didn't want her hanging out with Magic Johnson or whatever?

And again, Silver made the proclamation, but nothing was ever unanimously ratified by vote of the owners. So... as I see it, Sterling probably could just show up at the stadium as things stand. And to make it even more clear, he could negotiate with the league to make it explicit. They may not want to publicize that, maybe it pisses off advertisers, but even without an agreement how much of a case do they have to ban the guy for being "infamous" or the center of a media scandal or having pissed the league off? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Pete Rose can still go to baseball games... right? I might be wrong about that. Actually that would be a really interesting litmus test for this.

As for all the rest of it, whether she'd bring him to the games... it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. But we'll see how it plays out. And again I think if he made some gesture to the fans it would make things even better and help for him to be accepted. People just want to see the games so after a while the sideshow wouldn't really matter, he's not the fulcrum of power he's just a guy at the games.

Ariza's Better
10-26-2014, 08:33 AM
Oh Sssmush, I missed your special brand craziness.

IndyRealist
10-26-2014, 11:20 AM
Sssmush, "refusal of service" happens ALL THE TIME, for a multitude of reasons. More recently, it's been bakeries refusing to make wedding cakes for gay/lesbian couples. Businesses generally do not do so for fear of being labeled bigots, not because there is any law prohibiting them from doing so. Negative reviews and media attention can be disastrous for any business. One negative review loses you 10 customers. A "breaking story" on the 10pm news? You could lose hundreds of customers. Especially for small businesses that run on thin profit margins, a hundred customers is the difference between making your rent payment or closing your doors.

Now, this is substantially different from businesses discriminating against their own employees, or during the hiring process. There ARE laws protecting employees and potential hires from being discriminated against. But nothing protected a consumer from being told, "this is private property, and you are being asked to leave" except public opinion.

Again, the issue of legality had nothing to do with banning Sterling from games. The legal issue was whether they could force him to sell the team. Since the person with "power of attorney" over his assets chose to sell the team, they did not need to vote. SHELLY STERLING resolved all of the legal issues by having Donald declared incompetent, which is why the court ruled she could sell the team in the first place.

Sssmush
10-29-2014, 06:55 PM
Sssmush, "refusal of service" happens ALL THE TIME, for a multitude of reasons. More recently, it's been bakeries refusing to make wedding cakes for gay/lesbian couples. Businesses generally do not do so for fear of being labeled bigots, not because there is any law prohibiting them from doing so. Negative reviews and media attention can be disastrous for any business. One negative review loses you 10 customers. A "breaking story" on the 10pm news? You could lose hundreds of customers. Especially for small businesses that run on thin profit margins, a hundred customers is the difference between making your rent payment or closing your doors.

Now, this is substantially different from businesses discriminating against their own employees, or during the hiring process. There ARE laws protecting employees and potential hires from being discriminated against. But nothing protected a consumer from being told, "this is private property, and you are being asked to leave" except public opinion.

Again, the issue of legality had nothing to do with banning Sterling from games. The legal issue was whether they could force him to sell the team. Since the person with "power of attorney" over his assets chose to sell the team, they did not need to vote. SHELLY STERLING resolved all of the legal issues by having Donald declared incompetent, which is why the court ruled she could sell the team in the first place.

Ok... you're probably right. Honestly I hadn't intended to come across so negative or trollish or whatever you'd call this... maybe I'm just a dick sometimes and don't even know it. Something for me to consider and work on I suppose. But it was unintended... I just saw a certain irony developing here, as well as the distinct possibility that we might see LA's Darth Vader once again, triumphant and defiant on the grand stage of Staples Arena... so I couldn't help commenting. But honestly I only just know realized that I sounded kind of trollish or negative or whatever and so I do apologize.