Mrs. Sterling's core argument doesn't work

[niko]

The NBA council released a statement saying that all non controlling owners (which Mrs. Sterling has said as much she is) sign an agreement stating that they are subject to any rules, penalties and forfeitures the same as the controlling owner.

Meaning (explicitly without other interpetation) that if the controlling owner is made to forfeit the team, all other owners lose their rights too.

So i know some of you have a hard on for the Sterlings keeping the team (because rich white racist billionaires need our support) but you'll need a new argument to cling too because the "Mrs. Sterling didn't do anything" means nothing.

[NumberSix]

The NBA council released a statement saying that all non controlling owners (which Mrs. Sterling has said as much she is) sign an agreement stating that they are subject to any rules, penalties and forfeitures the same as the controlling owner.

Meaning (explicitly without other interpetation) that if the controlling owner is made to forfeit the team, all other owners lose their rights too.

So i know some of you have a hard on for the Sterlings keeping the team (because rich white racist billionaires need our support) but you'll need a new argument to cling too because the "Mrs. Sterling didn't do anything" means nothing.
You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.

[Raymone]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

This.

It's you that doesn't work, niko. Get a job, you bum.

[Knicks2014champ]

i like you niko

[Jameerthefear]

niko does have a job :no:

[Rubio2Gasol]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27083675.jpg

[Brook(lyn)Lopez]

Kin liability was a major principle of the Nazis during the Holocaust.
It is immoral and ownership groups do not want this precedent set anyway because if the actions of the controlling individuals in an ownership group can cause all the members to lose their stake in a franchise, the attractiveness of forming ownership groups is greatly diminished.

[NumberSix]

Kin liability was a major principle of the Nazis during the Holocaust.
It is immoral and ownership groups do not want this precedent set anyway because if the actions of the controlling individuals in an ownership group can cause all the members to lose their stake in a franchise, the attractiveness of forming ownership groups is greatly diminished.
Even IF this was part of the agreement, it doesn't matter. It is not legal business practice. You can't have a binding contract of something that is not legal in the first place.

[Rasheed1]

The NBA council released a statement saying that all non controlling owners (which Mrs. Sterling has said as much she is) sign an agreement stating that they are subject to any rules, penalties and forfeitures the same as the controlling owner.

Meaning (explicitly without other interpetation) that if the controlling owner is made to forfeit the team, all other owners lose their rights too.

So i know some of you have a hard on for the Sterlings keeping the team (because rich white racist billionaires need our support) but you'll need a new argument to cling too because the "Mrs. Sterling didn't do anything" means nothing.


Exactly.. And also this is an issue about money & perception. The league knows that having aSterling own the team is bad business for sponsors, fans, and players so they are going to get them out no matter what..

The Sterlings would be smarter to just sell the team and take the money while the franchise is still worth a lot of money.. The longer they hang around? the more the value of the team will drop.

The NBA could suspend the whole franchise.. That means the sterlings would own it, but not be apart of the league.. Then what would the team be worth??

When you have your coach and the media, and the best players to ever play saying there is no place for you? Its a wrap.. give up

Sponsors are bailing left and right.. The hand writing is on the wall.. Read it

[NumberSix]

Exactly.. And also this is an issue about money & perception. The league knows that having aSterling own the team is bad business for sponsors, fans, and players so they are going to get them out no matter what..

The Sterlings would be smarter to just sell the team and take the money while the franchise is still worth a lot of money.. The longer they hang around? the more the value of the team will drop.

The NBA could suspend the whole franchise.. That means the sterlings would own it, but not be apart of the league.. Then what would the team be worth??

When you have your coach and the media, and the best players to ever play saying there is no place for you? Its a wrap.. give up

Sponsors are bailing left and right.. The hand writing is on the wall.. Read it
My guess is they probably will. They're pretty old. Do they really want to spend the last years of their life fighting this battle? What for? Just take your billions and live out your remains days in peace.

[guy]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.

Ummm he's actually right and you're wrong.

"Under the NBA Constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a 3/4 vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well. It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."

Pretty straightforward.

[Im Still Ballin]

Ummm he's actually right and you're wrong.

"Under the NBA Constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a 3/4 vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well. It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."
NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD.

Am i right ISH?

[Droid101]

NumberSix coming in with another loss, as usual.

[DuMa]

wow i never thought about those other minority owners of a franchise that stand to lose their ownership because of what sterling said. how possible can those smaller lawsuits be created from those smaller owners be brought up on sterling?

[gts]

NumberSix coming in with another loss, as usual.

He's been talking out his ass since this whole thing started...

[El Gato Negro]

No one cares what the nba says. this is going to court and there opinion is the one that matters. Cnn had a good report on this and didn't seem to think the legal battle was a lost cause http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/10/opinion/cevallos-nba-sterling-endgame/ i trust there opinion more than the nbas because they have nothing to gain or lose from this.

[dude77]

No one cares what the nba says. this is going to court and there opinion is the one that matters. Cnn had a good report on this and didn't seem to think the legal battle was a lost cause http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/10/opinion/cevallos-nba-sterling-endgame/ i trust there opinion more than the nbas because they have nothing to gain or lose from this.

well well .. so it's looking like he was in fact set up .. and he's remorseful and asking for forgiveness .. he wants a 'second chance' .. will the nba give it to him ? .. probably not since once you speak in any negative way about the sacred negro, you are automatically a pariah .. the lynch mob(that irony) want him gone over 'words'

[NumberSix]

Ummm he's actually right and you're wrong.

"Under the NBA Constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a 3/4 vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well. It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."

Pretty straightforward.
I would be skeptical about the authenticity/accuracy of this quote? Who eve said it? Source?

[guy]

I would be skeptical about the authenticity/accuracy of this quote? Who eve said it? Source?

Did you even bother looking it up? It's been all over the news. Here's an article that mentions it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/11/us/donald-sterling-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_c2?ls=iref:nbahpts

ESPN mentioned it. Inside the NBA brought it up.

[gts]

I would be skeptical about the authenticity/accuracy of this quote? Who eve said it? Source?:facepalm

The NBA said it.. Are you even reading the links people are sharing

"NBA spokesman Mike Bass released a statement Sunday night in response to Shelly Sterling's comments.

"Under the NBA constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a three-quarter vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well," Bass said. "It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."

[NumberSix]

Did you even bother looking it up? It's been all over the news. Here's an article that mentions it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/11/us/donald-sterling-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_c2?ls=iref:nbahpts

ESPN mentioned it. Inside the NBA brought it up.
Yeah, it's a nice quote, but the NBA constitution isn't some secret. I've read the articles regarding procedures of termination. His quote sounds like they can do it, but it simply isn't in there.

Here. Show where it says they can terminate ALL owners if a single owner is in violation. It isn't there.

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

You say it's in the constitution? Don't just TELL me its there. Go ahead. Show where it is. It's simply NOT there.

[oarabbus]

well well .. so it's looking like he was in fact set up .. and he's remorseful and asking for forgiveness .. he wants a 'second chance' .. will the nba give it to him ? .. probably not since once you speak in any negative way about the sacred negro, you are automatically a pariah .. the lynch mob(that irony) want him gone over 'words'


Why are you so fcuking butthurt about this? Is Sterling your uncle?

[El Gato Negro]

For the privilege of joining the National Basketball Association, owners contractually give up certain legal rights and remedies. Fining and banning Sterling was probably well within the jurisdiction of the NBA. But in seeking to "max out" Sterling's sentence by forcing him to sell the team, the NBA is forging new legal territory, and doing so at a price.
Sure, there are catch-all provisions of the NBA's rules that ostensibly allow for ouster of an owner who brings harm to the league, but the ouster rules on the whole appear designed for dealing with teams and owners suffering economic or management problems, like failing to make payroll -- not for owners who were private bigots. from the link i posted above they also say shelly has the advantage at this point.

[Sarcastic]

For the privilege of joining the National Basketball Association, owners contractually give up certain legal rights and remedies. Fining and banning Sterling was probably well within the jurisdiction of the NBA. But in seeking to "max out" Sterling's sentence by forcing him to sell the team, the NBA is forging new legal territory, and doing so at a price.
Sure, there are catch-all provisions of the NBA's rules that ostensibly allow for ouster of an owner who brings harm to the league, but the ouster rules on the whole appear designed for dealing with teams and owners suffering economic or management problems, like failing to make payroll -- not for owners who were private bigots. from the link i posted above they also say shelly has the advantage at this point.


Nope. There is precedent for removing owners.

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/marge_schott.jpeg

[NumberSix]

Nope. There is precedent for removing owners.

http://mlblogsredstatebluestate.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/marge_schott.jpeg
She never actually got removed.

[Sarcastic]

She never actually got removed.


She agreed to sell her controlling interest. MLB wanted her out.

The only difference is Sterling wants to put up more of a fight.

[Sarcastic]

Another owner that was removed

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/writers/ann_killion/11/30/debartolo/walsh-montana-debartolo.jpg

[NumberSix]

She agreed to sell her controlling interest. MLB wanted her out.

The only difference is Sterling wants to put up more of a fight.
My guess is the Sterlings actually fold. It's just not worth the hassle.

[Sarcastic]

My guess is the Sterlings actually fold. It's just not worth the hassle.


It's worth over $200 million in tax savings for the family. They will drag it out as long as it's financially viable.

[ILLsmak]

It's worth over $200 million in tax savings for the family. They will drag it out as long as it's financially viable.

I dunno how I feel about them taking her out tho. It is kind of true that she didn't do anything wrong and she is estranged from him. It feels like they are reaching a bit further now.

I think that they will and everyone will be happy, but regardless of whether she was an accessory before... I don't think it's right by by-proxy ban her because she has the same last name. Especially since it seems like she hates him, too.

-Smak

[[GR]]

Another owner that was removed

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/writers/ann_killion/11/30/debartolo/walsh-montana-debartolo.jpg
He transferred it to his son though

[ShackEelOKneel]

The NBA council released a statement saying that all non controlling owners (which Mrs. Sterling has said as much she is) sign an agreement stating that they are subject to any rules, penalties and forfeitures the same as the controlling owner.

Meaning (explicitly without other interpetation) that if the controlling owner is made to forfeit the team, all other owners lose their rights too.

So i know some of you have a hard on for the Sterlings keeping the team (because rich white racist billionaires need our support) but you'll need a new argument to cling too because the "Mrs. Sterling didn't do anything" means nothing.

Reminds me of getting evicted. 2 people rent the same property, 1 person does something bad, both will be evicted.

[niko]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.
Non controlling owners can be forced to sell based on the actions of the controlling owners. They do not have any separate property rights. Being all pissy doesn't make you less wrong.

[davehos]

There is no way this doesn't get tied up in litigation for a long time unless one side relents.

[AceManIII]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/05/09/magic-johnson-donald-shelly-sterling-los-angeles-clippers/8924435/

[QUOTE]DALLAS

[davehos]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/05/09/magic-johnson-donald-shelly-sterling-los-angeles-clippers/8924435/



If this can be proven, she will be forced out...no ifs, buts, or whatever

Sterling has enough money to buy more than half a dozen NBA teams. You think this guy cares about those players or that team? It's a pride thing now.

... and wtf is Magic Johnson doing stirring the pot? Why all of a sudden is Magic the second coming of Basketball Jesus?

What if the the value of the team plummets due to defamation of character or any other legal-esque thing then Sterling turns around and counter sues the NBA?

Like I said .... this is far from over.

[Dresta]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/05/09/magic-johnson-donald-shelly-sterling-los-angeles-clippers/8924435/



If this can be proven, she will be forced out...no ifs, buts, or whatever
The players are gonna forfeit their contracts? Fat chance...

[Dresta]

Yeah, it's a nice quote, but the NBA constitution isn't some secret. I've read the articles regarding procedures of termination. His quote sounds like they can do it, but it simply isn't in there.

Here. Show where it says they can terminate ALL owners if a single owner is in violation. It isn't there.

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

You say it's in the constitution? Don't just TELL me its there. Go ahead. Show where it is. It's simply NOT there.
:lol

Serves guy right for being a turd who thinks everything he hears through the media is some sort of sacred wisdom of authenticity that never lies or distorts or exaggerates or anything; it be the absolute troof, da news ses it.

[rmt]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/05/09/magic-johnson-donald-shelly-sterling-los-angeles-clippers/8924435/



If this can be proven, she will be forced out...no ifs, buts, or whatever

Which player in his right mind is gonna give up millions of dollars because of what some old, senile owner said in private. If a player did that, he'd be crazy - his basketball playing career is very limited - gotta make as much as possible to last your lifetime.

[gts]

Yeah, it's a nice quote, but the NBA constitution isn't some secret. I've read the articles regarding procedures of termination. His quote sounds like they can do it, but it simply isn't in there.

Here. Show where it says they can terminate ALL owners if a single owner is in violation. It isn't there.

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

You say it's in the constitution? Don't just TELL me its there. Go ahead. Show where it is. It's simply NOT there.

Page 28.. Section G

(g) If, by a three-fourths (3/4) vote, the Board of
Governors votes to sustain the charges, the Membership of the guilty
Member or the Member in which the guilty Owner has an interest shall
automatically be terminated, unless, following a motion duly made and
seconded, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote instead to
terminate the ownership interest of the guilty Owner or to invoke the
provisions of Article 15

[MostHated305]

Page 28.. Section G

(g) If, by a three-fourths (3/4) vote, the Board of
Governors votes to sustain the charges, the Membership of the guilty
Member or the Member in which the guilty Owner has an interest shall
automatically be terminated, unless, following a motion duly made and
seconded, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote instead to
terminate the ownership interest of the guilty Owner or to invoke the
provisions of Article 15


that ETHER

[Derka]

Everything up until the settlement figures regarding the sale price is just for show and its already an annoying story that is just going to keep getting forced down our throats.

The inevitable end is the NBA and whoever buys the team will have to pay an insane amount of money to just make Donald Sterling go away, at which point he can sue the pants off of V. Skeletor and hopefully this goes away.

That is, until some other white public figure says something racist and Americans have another opportunity to show how indignant they can be.

[MostHated305]

Everything up until the settlement figures regarding the sale price is just for show and its already an annoying story that is just going to keep getting forced down our throats.

The inevitable end is the NBA and whoever buys the team will have to pay an insane amount of money to just make Donald Sterling go away, at which point he can sue the pants off of V. Skeletor and hopefully this goes away.

That is, until some other white public figure says something racist and Americans have another opportunity to show how indignant they can be.


That's why Sterling should except the fact that he screwed up and take the loss.

Bow out with what little diginity you hae left.

[Derka]

That's why Sterling should except the fact that he screwed up and take the loss.

Bow out with what little diginity you hae left.

I agree, but that's not the guy he is and I'd wager that his definition of "dignity" is not at all similar to the definition you and I accept.

At this point, I'd guess that the PR offensive he and Mrs Sterling are on has a lot more to do with saving his other business relationships; the Clippers aren't the only comb he's collecting honey from. The way I see it, he has to know that there's no way he's winning the PR war with regard to fighting the NBA, and the PR war is everything. If the NBA owners don't vote him out, they're all racists: that's the story that's we're gonna hear for months. No way that happens. So he puts up a fight in public to try and dissuade his other financial interests from abandoning ship so his post-Clippers worth isn't massacred.

[guy]

Yeah, it's a nice quote, but the NBA constitution isn't some secret. I've read the articles regarding procedures of termination. His quote sounds like they can do it, but it simply isn't in there.

Here. Show where it says they can terminate ALL owners if a single owner is in violation. It isn't there.

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

You say it's in the constitution? Don't just TELL me its there. Go ahead. Show where it is. It's simply NOT there.

Well its not just a nice quote. Its a statement straight from the NBA.

Well what gts mentioned, page 28 section G sounds like it, but I'll admit that its kinda confusing. There wasn't much about noncontrolling owners in there anyway. Maybe its also something specified in the ownership contracts they sign i.e. the part "These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team." I have a hard time thinking the NBA would just throw that out in an emphatic statement if there wasn't some truth to it.

I'm not saying whatever clause the NBA is referring to can't be fought. Just saying, there obviously must be some grounds for the NBA to attempt to remove Shelly Sterling, and that the OP clearly interpreted the NBA's statement correctly while you obviously weren't aware of it and tried to be a smart ass in the process.

[guy]

:lol

Serves guy right for being a turd who thinks everything he hears through the media is some sort of sacred wisdom of authenticity that never lies or distorts or exaggerates or anything; it be the absolute troof, da news ses it.

Everything I hear through the media? You mean an official statement from the NBA idiot? This wasn't Chris Broussard with his multiple sources reporting this.

[niko]

The way Numbersix argues about property laws and the NBA constituion is illogical. Essentially, you cannot punish the franchise because each individual owner must be guilty on their own of every infraction, otherwise you can just move down the line. Give each kid a portion, make yourself controlling owner, and you can call the team the LA Nazi's and just keep moving down to the next owner. (On to the next one...) So if me and my wife franchise a McDonalds, and I put a sign up that says "no ugly people served" and start serving McNazi burgers the franchise can't be taken away, because my wife didn't do it, so it now becomes "her half". That's retarded.

It says very clearly whatever punishment the controlling owner receives is also on the minority owners.

People are just wrong but won't accept it for some reason. Like the post above, I'm not saying things can't be fought, but we keep saying the NBA is somehow acting in the wrong above their powers. Punishing someone in accordance with contracts they signed is clearly not that.

[davehos]

People are just wrong but won't accept it for some reason. Like the post above, I'm not saying things can't be fought, but we keep saying the NBA is somehow acting in the wrong above their powers. Punishing someone in accordance with contracts they signed is clearly not that.

Niko,

Why did the NBA publicly state that Mrs. Sterling won't be given ownership of the team?

At this stage it's a PR campaign. There is no way it will be settled by the time player contracts come up so the NBA has to take a strong public stance to try and keep people focused on "we're fighting the good fight" rather than the reality that is "it's going to be an extremely difficult, drawn out legal issue."

[IGOTGAME]

The NBA council released a statement saying that all non controlling owners (which Mrs. Sterling has said as much she is) sign an agreement stating that they are subject to any rules, penalties and forfeitures the same as the controlling owner.

Meaning (explicitly without other interpetation) that if the controlling owner is made to forfeit the team, all other owners lose their rights too.

So i know some of you have a hard on for the Sterlings keeping the team (because rich white racist billionaires need our support) but you'll need a new argument to cling too because the "Mrs. Sterling didn't do anything" means nothing.

yea, the NBA council said it in their statement so that must true. In this case, after looking at it, NBA sounds right on this..

[tontoz]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.




Ever hear of the story about the pot and the kettle?

:facepalm

[Real Men Wear Green]

I would be somewhat surprised if the NBA didn't know it's own rules. They had their lawyers take two or three days to study the rules involved and then the Commissioner took decisive public action. They're ready for whatever curve balls the Sterlings want to throw.

[Pointguard]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.

Even IF this was part of the agreement, it doesn't matter. It is not legal business practice. You can't have a binding contract of something that is not legal in the first place.
Why do you always jump into conversations like you even know what you are talking about. And then you are just totally foul in your tone. And you do this frequently.

"not legal business practice," for principal owners to be totally responsible for decisions, culpability, sale, upkeep and fate of their franchise/product??? This is something that you never heard of??? I take it that you don't have stock? Were never in a coop, condo or other land agreements much less business agreements where this reality is part of daily legal life.

It never dawned on you that "non-controlling" might have an inherent legal subjugation reality that suggest the fate of the controlling principal is above all - good or bad. You think Sterling made provisions for minority owners to reach beyond you invest and get dividends relationship in the first place, and that the league would ok it so that it would interfere with how it controls it product?

You really should apologize to Niko. Tell him you are hooked on google and compulsive crazy rants that are not founded on you really knowing things.

[tontoz]

There is no way this doesn't get tied up in litigation for a long time unless one side relents.


Pretty sure the NBA could just terminate the players' contracts which would kill the value of the team.

[davehos]

Pretty sure the NBA could just terminate the players' contracts which would kill the value of the team.

Doubt it but I'm sure it's the nuclear option. They'd have to pay off the city of LA, every popcorn stand vendor, parking lot attendants, etc in addition to finding a fair way to get the players resigned.

[Raymone]

Pretty sure the NBA could just terminate the players' contracts which would kill the value of the team.

They're gonna do something unprecedented and terminate an entire team of contracts because the "wife" of a man who made off-colored remarks still owns part of the team?

The NBA might be silly enough to act this outraged over a minor, manipulated incident, but I don't think they're dumb enough to take it that far.

[CavaliersFTW]

You can't honestly be this stupid.

Yes, non-controlling owners are subject to the same rules as controlling owners. In the same sense that I'm subject to the same laws as other citizens. It doesn't mean if 1 of us break them, we all get punished.

All this means is the same rules apply to all owners.

If you honestly took this as meaning "if the controlling owner breaks the rules, ALL OWNERS MUST GO!", there is something seriously wrong with your ability to comprehend basic information.
Except that in the case of NBA Franchise ownership, it does. It's crystal clear, don't see why you are wasting your time coming up with arguments against the facts.

[tontoz]

They're gonna do something unprecedented and terminate an entire team of contracts because the "wife" of a man who made off-colored remarks still owns part of the team?

The NBA might be silly enough to act this outraged over a minor, manipulated incident, but I don't think they're dumb enough to take it that far.


As opposed to dragging it out in the courts?

If the players have the choice to stay with the Clippers or become free agents, do you think they will stay? Teams will line up to pay Paul or Griffin the max. There goes the team's value right down the toilet.

[gts]

They're gonna do something unprecedented and terminate an entire team of contracts because the "wife" of a man who made off-colored remarks still owns part of the team?

The NBA might be silly enough to act this outraged over a minor, manipulated incident, but I don't think they're dumb enough to take it that far.

I don't think they'd have a choice if the players decide to not play for the Clippers or if the Players Union decided to make noise.

[NumberSix]

Page 28.. Section G

(g) If, by a three-fourths (3/4) vote, the Board of
Governors votes to sustain the charges, the Membership of the guilty
Member or the Member in which the guilty Owner has an interest shall
automatically be terminated, unless, following a motion duly made and
seconded, two-thirds (2/3) of all the Governors vote instead to
terminate the ownership interest of the guilty Owner or to invoke the
provisions of Article 15
:facepalm

Member = franchise.

The Clippers are a member. They are NOT trying to terminate the Clippers franchise membersip.

The guilty owner's (D.Sterling) INTEREST in the member (Clippers franchise) is going through procedure of termination.

In NO WAY shape or form does this say the interest of ALL owners will be terminated.:hammerhead:

[Real Men Wear Green]

So long the owners vote Sterling out the players will continue playing through the legal process. What I wonder about is what happens if they try to sign a new player before the court battle is resolved? Can they even risk signing a draft pick? They may just be better off without the pick it cost them to sign Doc.

[Scoooter]

I'm still not sure how they can compel a sale. Kicking the franchise out of the league and barring any use of NBA branding or affiliation makes more sense.

But if Sterling is forced to sell, who decides on the price? Does Sterling? What if he never gets an offer he thinks is fair? If the NBA decides, what's stopping them from screwing him over and selling it on the cheap?

I think that, if Sterling's lawyers are worth their salt, this process will, at the very least, take a really long time to be resolved. He might die before a ruling is made. And that could be a brand new problem for the league.

[Real Men Wear Green]

:facepalm

Member = franchise.

The Clippers are a member. They are NOT trying to terminate the Clippers franchise membersip.

The guilty owner's (D.Sterling) INTEREST in the member (Clippers franchise) is going through procedure of termination.

In NO WAY shape or form does this say the interest of ALL owners will be terminated.:hammerhead:
You may as well give up. You really think they are going to have this vote terminate Sterling' ownership and yet somehow fail to leave all the other owners out of it? This is silly. The vote hasn't even happened yet. When it does don't think for a second that you have considered an eventuality that the NBA's army of lawyers overlooked.

[HiphopRelated]

Sterling has enough money to buy more than half a dozen NBA teams. You think this guy cares about those players or that team? It's a pride thing now.

... and wtf is Magic Johnson doing stirring the pot? Why all of a sudden is Magic the second coming of Basketball Jesus?

What if the the value of the team plummets due to defamation of character or any other legal-esque thing then Sterling turns around and counter sues the NBA?

Like I said .... this is far from over.
He can have a "team" with no players and no schedule

[NumberSix]

You may as well give up. You really think they are going to have this vote terminate Sterling' ownership and yet somehow fail to leave all the other owners out of it? This is silly.
There are no grounds within their own constitution to remove her. It's that simple.



The vote hasn't even happened yet. When it does don't think for a second that you have considered an eventuality that the NBA's army of lawyers overlooked.
I think you're looking at this very naively. I don't think its about "armies of lawyers overlooking" anything. It's just a matter of the NBA convincing fans and sponsors that it's a done deal that the Sterling's are gone when in reality the NBA is putting it off until the playoffs are over.

[Sarcastic]

I'm still not sure how they can compel a sale. Kicking the franchise out of the league and barring any use of NBA branding or affiliation makes more sense.

But if Sterling is forced to sell, who decides on the price? Does Sterling? What if he never gets an offer he thinks is fair? If the NBA decides, what's stopping them from screwing him over and selling it on the cheap?

I think that, if Sterling's lawyers are worth their salt, this process will, at the very least, take a really long time to be resolved. He might die before a ruling is made. And that could be a brand new problem for the league.


First of all, the NBA owns the Clippers. Sterling is just a franchise owner. In the example you are using, Sterling does not have the option to remove the Clippers from the NBA, and join another league. He owns the team, so long as he abides by the contract with the NBA. He couldn't just decide that he wants his team to play more games than the NBA schedule to make extra money, like any other business owner could do.


Secondly, the NBA won't sell cheap. The value of the NBA is based upon the value of all the teams combined. Selling for cheap would only hurt themselves. They will sell the team for the highest price, to the owners that they want. Sterling will make hundreds of millions, if not a billion dollars in profit.

[gts]

So long the owners vote Sterling out the players will continue playing through the legal process. What I wonder about is what happens if they try to sign a new player before the court battle is resolved? Can they even risk signing a draft pick? They may just be better off without the pick it cost them to sign Doc.

I agree.. I think as long as the NBA is moving forward the Clippers players and the union will stay the course...

As far as the draft? Who know's good question

I'd imagine they'll just carry on business as usual, maybe some added text to any new contracts, I"m certain any new players agent is certainly going to make sure there's ways out if this all goes sideways

[Sarcastic]

Forget about the NBA's lawyers. Adam Silver himself specialized in anti trust law. I am sure he knows exactly what he is doing, and is not gonna make shit up on the spot.

[gts]

First of all, the NBA owns the Clippers. Sterling is just a franchise owner. In the example you are using, Sterling does not have the option to remove the Clippers from the NBA, and join another league. He owns the team, so long as he abides by the contract with the NBA. He couldn't just decide that he wants his team to play more games than the NBA schedule to make extra money, like any other business owner could do.




This is correct.. just reading the constitution and if an owner tries to shut down the team that's another reason the NBA could remove him as an owner

[dude77]

I agree, but that's not the guy he is and I'd wager that his definition of "dignity" is not at all similar to the definition you and I accept.

At this point, I'd guess that the PR offensive he and Mrs Sterling are on has a lot more to do with saving his other business relationships; the Clippers aren't the only comb he's collecting honey from. The way I see it, he has to know that there's no way he's winning the PR war with regard to fighting the NBA, and the PR war is everything. If the NBA owners don't vote him out, they're all racists: that's the story that's we're gonna hear for months. No way that happens. So he puts up a fight in public to try and dissuade his other financial interests from abandoning ship so his post-Clippers worth isn't massacred.

lol I'd love to see this happen .. what are they going to do, shut down the nba ? demand that all owners be removed ? lol ..

and what's with the vote delay ? the nba was so quick and so switft with their 'action' .. 'banned for life ' .. 'done with sterling as an owner' .. you'd think this vote would've taken place the next day or that same day .. after all, it's unanimous right ? ..

or maybe it's because this isn't going to be so clear cut for the nba

[NumberSix]

lol I'd love to see this happen .. what are they going to do, shut down the nba ? demand that all owners be removed ? lol ..

and what's with the vote delay ? the nba was so quick and so switft with their 'action' .. 'banned for life ' .. 'done with sterling as an owner' .. you'd think this vote would've taken place the next day or that same day .. after all, it's unanimous right ? ..

or maybe it's because this isn't going to be so clear cut for the nba
The NBA basically just wants to sweep this under the rug until the offseason.

[Sarcastic]

lol I'd love to see this happen .. what are they going to do, shut down the nba ? demand that all owners be removed ? lol ..

and what's with the vote delay ? the nba was so quick and so switft with their 'action' .. 'banned for life ' .. 'done with sterling as an owner' .. you'd think this vote would've taken place the next day or that same day .. after all, it's unanimous right ? ..

or maybe it's because this isn't going to be so clear cut for the nba


Or maybe there is playoffs going on right now. That might be taking up their time.

[NumberSix]

Or maybe there is playoffs going on right now. That might be taking up their time.
Perhaps they don't want a possible strike during the playoffs. Best to just tell the players what they want to hear for now and deal with the reality of it in the offseason.

[dude77]

The NBA basically just wants to sweep this under the rug until the offseason.

but this all about getting rid of sterling ASAP isn't it ? .. to cleanse themselves of this guy .. he's still lingering at the moment .. he's still the owner .. him and his wife .. they're still there right in your face .. even making interviews in hd now for all of the public ..

if they had voted soon after that pc and shown that he is definitely out, it would be even better news for everyone .. more celebrations and good times for all the victims in the nba ..

no reason to delay that vote .. that's not a bad distraction .. in fact it would be argued that it would be even more 'inspiration' for the clippers playoff run now that they're completely rid of their offensive owner ..

there's no negative impact by voting now .. it can only bring positives ..

so again, why are they delaying such an easy vote ? .. it's clear cut

[dude77]

Or maybe there is playoffs going on right now. That might be taking up their time.

had plenty of time to hold a press conference and lol@might be taking up their time .. the nba had a fkn panic attack with this .. I'm assuming it's quite important to them .. it's a simple vote from 29 people who've all unanimously agreed to vote him out .. should be very quick ..

this delay is completely contradictory with silver's pledge of swift action to disassociate the nba with sterling

[Sarcastic]

had plenty of time to hold a press conference and lol@might be taking up their time .. the nba had a fkn panic attack with this .. I'm assuming it's quite important to them .. it's a simple vote from 29 people who've all unanimously agreed to vote him out .. should be very quick ..

this delay is completely contradictory with silver's pledge of swift action to disassociate the nba with sterling


Have you ever seen how the legal system in this country works? Nothing is swift when it comes to the courts.

Silver banning him was swift though.

[NumberSix]

Have you ever seen how the legal system in this country works? Nothing is swift when it comes to the courts.

Silver banning him was swift though.
This has nothing to do with the legal system. There's nothing stopping the other 29 owners from voting today.

[Sarcastic]

This has nothing to do with the legal system. There's nothing stopping the other 29 owners from voting today.


They have the playoffs going on right now. Why would they want to put this out in the public right now, when this is the peak time for them ratings wise?

Just because you are desperate for a resolution right now, does not mean the NBA is going to take away from their playoff headlines right now.

[NumberSix]

They have the playoffs going on right now. Why would they want to put this out in the public right now, when this is the peak time for them ratings wise?

Just because you are desperate for a resolution right now, does not mean the NBA is going to take away from their playoff headlines right now.
That's what I've been saying. They're purposely delaying this until the offseason.

[smoovegittar]

NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD.

Am i right ISH?
:oldlol: No, you're left. Thanks for adding the quality.

[smoovegittar]

Why are you so fcuking butthurt about this? Is Sterling your uncle?
No, he's a skinhead. Probably did a little time for stealing pokemon cards.

[smoovegittar]

Why do you always jump into conversations like you even know what you are talking about. And then you are just totally foul in your tone. And you do this frequently.

"not legal business practice," for principal owners to be totally responsible for decisions, culpability, sale, upkeep and fate of their franchise/product??? This is something that you never heard of??? I take it that you don't have stock? Were never in a coop, condo or other land agreements much less business agreements where this reality is part of daily legal life.

It never dawned on you that "non-controlling" might have an inherent legal subjugation reality that suggest the fate of the controlling principal is above all - good or bad. You think Sterling made provisions for minority owners to reach beyond you invest and get dividends relationship in the first place, and that the league would ok it so that it would interfere with how it controls it product?

You really should apologize to Niko. Tell him you are hooked on google and compulsive crazy rants that are not founded on you really knowing things.

aw, he just wants to be George Bush Jr.

[smoovegittar]

Isn't it apparent that there's a circle jerk of white boys in here that just want to monkey wrench everything? I could name about 7 of them. They're not here for the game, folks. White America DOES NOT LIKE the NBA. Point blank.

[brantonli]

You may as well give up. You really think they are going to have this vote terminate Sterling' ownership and yet somehow fail to leave all the other owners out of it? This is silly. The vote hasn't even happened yet. When it does don't think for a second that you have considered an eventuality that the NBA's army of lawyers overlooked.

I reckon it will come down to this. While we don't have details on past NBA franchise sales, I'm sure there's precedent where minority owners didn't want to sell their stakes in existing franchises, but the majority owners sold the team to other people anyway, forcing the minority owners to sell their share.

[oarabbus]

Isn't it apparent that there's a circle jerk of white boys in here that just want to monkey wrench everything? I could name about 7 of them. They're not here for the game, folks. White America DOES NOT LIKE the NBA. Point blank.



This is essentially what it boils down to. They really do see it as a 'black man sport'. Even other ethnic groups (lots of Asians) love the NBA

[smoovegittar]

This is essentially what it boils down to. They really do see it as a 'black man sport'. Even other ethnic groups (lots of Asians) love the NBA
Thank you! :applause:

[NumberSix]

I reckon it will come down to this. While we don't have details on past NBA franchise sales, I'm sure there's precedent where minority owners didn't want to sell their stakes in existing franchises, but the majority owners sold the team to other people anyway, forcing the minority owners to sell their share.
There's no provision in the NBA constitution that says ALL owners can be terminated if the majority owner is removed.

[gts]

They have the playoffs going on right now. Why would they want to put this out in the public right now, when this is the peak time for them ratings wise?

Just because you are desperate for a resolution right now, does not mean the NBA is going to take away from their playoff headlines right now.

They also want to get it right... make sure everything is done properly, make sure they have done due their diligence in their discovery process then once that's done the league will make it's formal presentation to the owners and then the owners will be given time to mull things over.. Once everyone feels they are the same page that they're confident they're doing the right thing then they'll have a vote.

No hurry to get it done, it's a big deal and not one with a lot of precedence to follow.

[davehos]

This has nothing to do with the legal system. There's nothing stopping the other 29 owners from voting today.

So do you keep Bush as your avatar so you look smart in comparison?

I'm just curious.

I was about to call you a jack ass but that would be unpatriotic.

[smoovegittar]

So do you keep Bush as your avatar so you look smart in comparison?

I'm just curious.

I was about to call you a jack ass but that would be unpatriotic.
He's nothing more than a foul stench in here, and the longer he remains, the longer he proves his ignorance.

[Jameerthefear]

This has nothing to do with the legal system. There's nothing stopping the other 29 owners from voting today.
Yes there is.

There is also a procedure the league must follow. The league must formally charge Sterling with violating the NBA's constitution and once Sterling receives the charges in writing, he has five days to respond. After Sterling responds, the Board of Governors will hold a special meeting within 10 days of that response and vote to terminate Sterling's ownership. It requires three-fourths of the vote to terminate Sterling's ownership and force him to sell.

[NumberSix]

Yes there is.
Has it not been 15 days?

[tontoz]

This has nothing to do with the legal system. There's nothing stopping the other 29 owners from voting today.



If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest guy on ISH.

[Real Men Wear Green]

There are no grounds within their own constitution to remove her. It's that simple. You are arguing that they can't come up with a reason to eliminate a lesser owner when they are able to find a reason to get rid of the principle owner. That's not "simple," that's silly.

I think you're looking at this very naively. I don't think its about "armies of lawyers overlooking" anything. It's just a matter of the NBA convincing fans and sponsors that it's a done deal that the Sterling's are gone when in reality the NBA is putting it off until the playoffs are over.
This would be you thinking wishfully because for some odd reason you have decided to champion the cause of a racist. An owner is not hit with a lifetime ban as a placebo.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Isn't it apparent that there's a circle jerk of white boys in here that just want to monkey wrench everything? I could name about 7 of them. They're not here for the game, folks. White America DOES NOT LIKE the NBA. Point blank.
Your racism isn't any better than Sterling's just less potent because you don't have his power. Your talk about "white America" is stupid if for no other reason that the overwhelming majority of the money the NBA makes is coming from the pockets of white people.

[NumberSix]

You are arguing that they can't come up with a reason to eliminate a lesser owner when they are able to find a reason to get rid of the principle owner. That's not "simple," that's silly.

This would be you thinking wishfully because for some odd reason you have decided to champion the cause of a racist. An owner is not hit with a lifetime ban as a placebo.
I'm not championing Sterling. He's probably going to lose his interest in the team. His wife is another story. I don't think they will be able to do anything about her. If they do, I don't care. I have no stake in the outcome.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I'm not championing Sterling. He's probably going to lose his interest in the team. His wife is another story. I don't think they will be able to do anything about her. If they do, I don't care. I have no stake in the outcome.
So you haven't heard about her role in the housing discrimination? There is definite evidence of her also being a racist.

[NumberSix]

So you haven't heard about her role in the housing discrimination? There is definite evidence of her also being a racist.
Yeah. I heard that they were never convicted of any wrong doing. I'm sure they probably did, but not enough evidence.

Even if she is a racist, why am I supposed to care? It's not illegal and it hasn't even been proven. In America you don't punish people because they "might" think something that isn't illegal in the first place.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Yeah. I heard that they were never convicted of any wrong doing. I'm sure they probably did, but not enough evidence.

Even if she is a racist, why am I supposed to care? It's not illegal and it hasn't even been proven. In America you don't punish people because they "might" think something that isn't illegal in the first place.You don't have to care but this kind of post is why I said that you are "championing the cause of a racist."

[gts]

Yeah. I heard that they were never convicted of any wrong doing. I'm sure they probably did, but not enough evidence.

Even if she is a racist, why am I supposed to care? It's not illegal and it hasn't even been proven. In America you don't punish people because they "might" think something that isn't illegal in the first place.

Why can't you get it through your head it's not about what's legal and illegal.

It's like you're completely incapable of understanding that the norm doesn't apply here, that the NBA operates in it's own little world where what's considered illegal in our world isn't in theirs. The NBA ignores the US Constitution and the laws set forth in it on a daily basis

The NBA's own constitution and bylaws and it's CBA with the players allows the league to operate free of the normal legal entanglements that other businesses operate under. Sterling signed many contracts agreeing to these bylaws, he's now been found to be in violation of several of them and he's on his way out

Stop arguing they cant do this and they cant do that when we have proof that they can and it's clear they are going to.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Also, they didn't admit to wrongdoing but they did settle out of court.

[gts]

Also, they didn't admit to wrongdoing but they did settle out of court. Well they took a plea deal from the feds... it was a federal housing discrimination law suit. When it became clear they were going to lose they pled out and paid millions in fines

[NumberSix]

Why can't you get it through your head it's not about what's legal and illegal.
I'm not claiming its a legal matter.


its like you're completely incapable of understanding that the norm doesn't apply here, that the NBA operates in it's own little world where what's considered illegal in our world isn't in theirs. The NBA ignores the US Constitution and the laws set forth in it on a daily basis
The constitution is not optional. The NBA has no ability to ignore it.


The NBA's own constitution and bylaws and it's CBA with the players allows the league to operate free of the normal legal entanglements that other businesses operate under. Sterling signed many contracts agreeing to these bylaws, he's now been found to be in violation of several of them and he's on his way out
I've already said he's probably losing his interest in the team. What's the controversy?


Stop arguing they cant do this and they cant do that when we have proof that they can and it's clear they are going to.
We actually don't have proof that Shelley Sterling can be forced out.

[NumberSix]

You don't have to care but this kind of post is why I said that you are "championing the cause of a racist."
If my principles happen to align with a bad persons interests on a particular issue, doesn't mean I support all other aspects of that person.

I would fully expect to agree with many bad people on some things. I'd imagine Adolf Hitler liked some of the same foods as I do. Because we would have agreements on those things doesn't mean I'm pro-genocide.

[gts]

The constitution is not optional. The NBA has no ability to ignore it.

We actually don't have proof that Shelley Sterling can be forced out.

First part is dumb and you know it. Both the CBA and the NBA's bylaws allow it to do things that are in direct violation of everyday anti trust laws and basic law/rights within the US constitution or were you not paying attention during the last lockout?

Second part already been posted and addressed, you can ignore if it makes you feel good but the Constitution and bylaws clearly show that they can...

That's of course if she were in fact a legit owner but that's moot because she's not even an owner nor has she ever been voted in as one. she'd actually have to be approved as an owner before she could argue they can't kick her out

Shelly Sterling is a non factor over this whole thing. she has no play in this other than making noise and being a nuisance.

[NumberSix]

Second part already been posted and addressed, you can ignore if it makes you feel good but the Constitution and bylaws clearly show that they can...
I've already posted a link to the NBA constitution and bylaws. Since they "clearly show that they can" feel free to point it out.


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