Latest NBA Statement on Sterling

[gts]

http://i62.tinypic.com/1rt0rr.jpg

[fpliii]

:applause:

[KyrieTheFuture]

How the **** does the Timberwolves guy lead the board of Governors

[NumberSix]

No mention about Mrs. Sterling.

[fpliii]

No mention about Mrs. Sterling.
That's a confirmed non-issue:


"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," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said in a statement. "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."

source: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-wife-pledges-to-keep-stake-in-clippers/

[NumberSix]

That's a confirmed non-issue:



source: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-wife-pledges-to-keep-stake-in-clippers/
Yeah, that's nothing more than a PR statement. I've posted the NBA constitution countless times and challenged anyone to point out the rule that this Mike Bass guy claims exists. Nobody has been able to do it. It doesn't exist.

[aj1987]

A couple of stupid statements and you lose a billion dollar business. Sterling is old and might not give a shit about spending millions on lawyers. This is going to get ugly.

[fpliii]

Yeah, that's nothing more than a PR statement. I've posted the NBA constitution countless times and challenged anyone to point out the rule that this Mike Bass guy claims exists. Nobody has been able to do it. It doesn't exist.

Step 4: Also under Article 14(g), if charges sustained, Clippers' membership in NBA is terminated

Assuming at least 22 owners vote out Sterling, the Clippers' "membership" would then be terminated. "Membership" in this context refers to the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA. "Membership" assigns rights, privileges and benefits granted to the Clippers by the NBA, including, without limitation, the right to organize and operate a professional basketball team to play in the league. This termination of membership is a crucial point for purposes of removing Shelly Sterling from Clippers' ownership.

There is an alternative scenario under 14(g), whereby after 22 owners vote out Donald Sterling, two-thirds (19) then vote to only terminate Donald Sterling's ownership interest in the Clippers. This step would be designed to not trigger termination of the membership. Don't expect this alternative scenario to happen: without terminating the Clippers' membership, Shelly Sterling would remain an owner of the Clippers.
source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/nba-ownership-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-shelly-sterling/

You think there's a real chance that after Sterling is voted out, 19/29 owners will vote to keep the wife?

[NumberSix]

source: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/nba-ownership-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-shelly-sterling/

You think there's a real chance that after Sterling is voted out, 19/29 owners will vote to keep the wife?
You're insane if you think they are going to remove the entire Clippers franchise from the NBA.

[fpliii]

BTW in case anybody's interested, here's the league constitution:

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


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.

BTW, there's also this gem:


The decisions of the Association made in accordance
with the foregoing procedure shall be final, binding, and conclusive,
and each Member and Owner waives any and all recourse to any court
of law to review any such decision.

:pimp:

[King Jane]

that man is innocent i watched him on tv when he got intervewed and he looks like an honest an sorry man, nba and yall needs to drop it already we all make mistakes

[guy]

You're insane if you think they are going to remove the entire Clippers franchise from the NBA.

Huh? He didn't say that.

[NumberSix]

BTW in case anybody's interested, here's the league constitution:

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



BTW, there's also this gem:



:pimp:
Like I said. They want Sterling to SELL THE TEAM. You're crazy if you think they are going to delete the Clippers franchise.

[NumberSix]

Huh? He didn't say that.
Yeah, that's EXACTLY what he just said.

[PJR]

You're insane if you think they are going to remove the entire Clippers franchise from the NBA.

They won't have to. His ownership will be terminated as soon as the board of governors vote for it.

[fpliii]

Like I said. They want Sterling to SELL THE TEAM. You're crazy if you think they are going to delete the Clippers franchise.Why are you putting words in my mouth? From the SI link above:


Step 5: Per Article 14A(a), Silver takes over the Clippers and can sell the team

The "termination" of the Clippers' membership may sound like a dire and disruptive outcome. It might trigger concerns that the Clippers would exist without a pro basketball league, or that it might lead to a dispersal draft of Clippers players. Those concerns are misplaced because of other constitutional language that prevents the Clippers from losing its relationship with the NBA and makes Silver the team's de facto owner.

According to 14A(a), when the membership of an NBA team is terminated, the commissioner automatically takes over the team. Silver would thus take over the Clippers immediately following a vote to sustain the charge against Donald Sterling and terminate the Clippers' membership. The team would continue to play its games and conduct business. The Board of Governors would be empowered to instruct Silver to sell the team or liquidate its assets. Silver presumably would then be instructed to begin a process to sell the team, and proceeds of the sale would be paid to the Sterlings.

[King Jane]

this a dang witch hunt listen that man wont go down without a fight hes being wrongfully accused

[AnaheimLakers24]

nothings going to happen

[guy]

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what he just said.

Its another possibility, but he was talking about the owners not voting to keep Shelley in. They can vote the Sterlings out without terminating the whole franchise.

[Pointguard]

that man is innocent i watched him on tv when he got intervewed and he looks like an honest an sorry man, nba and yall needs to drop it already we all make mistakes
Too funny but when we look at your avatar and above and below it, it amplifies your quote. Was that intentional?

[gts]

Why are you putting words in my mouth? From the SI link above:

dude give up.. I've gone round and round with him posted links to legal experts and to the by laws and everything and he just refuses to believe what's in front of him

[97 bulls]

Like I said. They want Sterling to SELL THE TEAM. You're crazy if you think they are going to delete the Clippers franchise.
Why are you so bitter? Stop defending this man. Let nature take it's course.

[NumberSix]

Its another possibility, but he was talking about the owners not voting to keep Shelley in. They can vote the Sterlings out without terminating the whole franchise.
They don't have to vote to keep her in. She can own part of the team and not even seek to be on the board of governors.

Anyway, back on topic, they CAN terminate membership and they do have the power to do so, but I never thought they would do that. Especially not so shortly after the whole Hornets ordeal.

I think people are reaching if they believe this will happen. I won't be surprised if they do get rid of Sterling, but I can't imagine them going the extra mile just to get rid of his wife's silent partial ownership.

[NumberSix]

Why are you so bitter? Stop defending this man. Let nature take it's course.
I literally haven't said anything regarding him. If you don't understand the language being used in here, perhaps you should just let the grown ups talk.

[Rik Smits' Hair]

I still don't see how the NBA constitution is being used to force him sell his team.

[All Net]

:cheers:

[King Jane]

let me get this straight Jordan got his dad murdered cause of gambling debt and Kobe raped a girl and both are forgiven but Sterling says he dont want his girl talkin to black dudes and they gonna come after his whole team? :biggums:

[NumberSix]

I still don't see how the NBA constitution is being used to force him sell his team.
The problem is, I don't see what rule he broke.

If they want to terminate membership, it explicitly says for breaking a provision of article 13. The problem is, Sterling didn't break any of the rules in article 13. Is there some vague rule somewhere about "statements/actions that damage the league"? I honestly don't know, but there certainly isn't in article 13.

I've done enough reading of the NBA constitution and our discussion has no affect on anything, so I'm done. Let the chips fall wherever they do. I have an opinion, but at the end of the day, none of us really care what happens with this.

[Sarcastic]

The problem is, I don't see what rule he broke.




It's been told you numerous times. You choose not to see it at this point.

[aj1987]

It's been told you numerous times. You choose not to see it at this point.
I haven't been following this much. Can you tell me what exact law he broke?

[King Jane]

It's been told you numerous times. You choose not to see it at this point.
what rule did he break, is telling ur woman not to make it look like she bangin brothas in public against nba rules? he even said u can hook up with em just dont let it get public he was jus tryna save face cause he gave this trick all his loot and she makin him look a foo by goin to games with her side*****. only thing sterling is guilty of is simpin which is sad but it aint a crime

[97 bulls]

I literally haven't said anything regarding him. If you don't understand the language being used in here, perhaps you should just let the grown ups talk.
I understand your stance perfectly. I can read between the lines. You don't feel he should have to sell his team and your bitter. You want me to grow up? Why not be a man and say how you feel.

[chocolatethunder]

The problem is, I don't see what rule he broke.

If they want to terminate membership, it explicitly says for breaking a provision of article 13. The problem is, Sterling didn't break any of the rules in article 13. Is there some vague rule somewhere about "statements/actions that damage the league"? I honestly don't know, but there certainly isn't in article 13.

I've done enough reading of the NBA constitution and our discussion has no affect on anything, so I'm done. Let the chips fall wherever they do. I have an opinion, but at the end of the day, none of us really care what happens with this.
I get what you're saying but the NBA will terminate the Sterlings family ownership regardless if they wanna battle them in court. I'm not an attorney and I assume you aren't either but I also assume that the NBA has attorneys at its disposal who will argue in their favor and I can guarantee that they'll win. Silver wouldn't have made this move if it wasn't a lock. That's not to say that I don't understand what you mean but really all of it's moot because they want them out and that's that. I'm not arguing what's in the constitution or if it's fair or any of that. I'm just here to tell you that you can question it and argue it til you're blue in the face, but the league will win fair or not.

[Sarcastic]

I haven't been following this much. Can you tell me what exact law he broke?


Article 35A(d). It's the article that deals with misconduct for players and non players in the NBA.

Basically his statements were against the best interests of basketball, and have hurt the brand.

[Rik Smits' Hair]

Article 35A(d). It's the article that deals with misconduct for players and non players in the NBA.

Basically his statements were against the best interests of basketball, and have hurt the brand.

And because it was a statement and not an action, he was wrongfully banned according to the NBA Constitution

[aj1987]

Article 35A(d). It's the article that deals with misconduct for players and non players in the NBA.

Basically his statements were against the best interests of basketball, and have hurt the brand.
It also says that the maximum fine is $1M, but didn't the guy get fined $2.5M?



And because it was a statement and not an action, he was wrongfully banned according to the NBA Constitution

(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

Seems fair.

[NumberSix]

I understand your stance perfectly. I can read between the lines. You don't feel he should have to sell his team and your bitter. You want me to grow up? Why not be a man and say how you feel.
There's nothing to read between. I've outright said it. I don't think he should have to sell his team, but if he does I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. I have no stake in who owns or doesn't own the LA Clippers.

[NumberSix]

I get what you're saying but the NBA will terminate the Sterlings family ownership regardless if they wanna battle them in court. I'm not an attorney and I assume you aren't either but I also assume that the NBA has attorneys at its disposal who will argue in their favor and I can guarantee that they'll win. Silver wouldn't have made this move if it wasn't a lock. That's not to say that I don't understand what you mean but really all of it's moot because they want them out and that's that. I'm not arguing what's in the constitution or if it's fair or any of that. I'm just here to tell you that you can question it and argue it til you're blue in the face, but the league will win fair or not.
If you were an attorney, you'd understand that you can't guarantee any outcome. Appeals exist and decisions are overturned all the time.

[Sarcastic]

And because it was a statement and not an action, he was wrongfully banned according to the NBA Constitution

I am sure Silver and his lawyers know what they are doing.


You are free to sue the NBA over this, if you feel that Sterling is being wronged here, since you know so much.

[NumberSix]

I am sure Silver and his lawyers know what they are doing.
But you're not sure Sterling's lawyers know what they're doing? :confusedshrug:

[gts]

It also says that the maximum fine is $1M, but didn't the guy get fined $2.5M?
Accumulation of fines, he violated more than one article of the constitution

Like when Cuban was fined that big fat one a few years ago, it wasn't one thing it was several things added together

Then there's this

24 (l) The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

[NumberSix]

Accumulation of fines, he violated more than one article of the constitution
Keep it real..... You're just guessing this.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Accumulation of fines, he violated more than one article of the constitution

Like when Cuban was fined that big fat one a few years ago, it wasn't one thing it was several things added together
You mean his staggering 500,000 dollar fine?

[97 bulls]

There's nothing to read between. I've outright said it. I don't think he should have to sell his team, but if he does I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. I have no stake in who owns or doesn't own the LA Clippers.
Fair enough. I think you misunderstand the type of "ownership" an NBA owner has. I'll keep it simple.

As you obviously realize, Sterling didnt break any Federal or State laws. But when he signed his contract ti own the Clippers, he agreed to the terms and conditions that that contract entails.

There's an article that states that an owners CONDUCT cannot be that which will harm the league. Regardless of where he is. I liken it to a person that owns a townhouse or condo. Sure you own it, but you still must act withing the laws stipulated by the homeowners association. I owned a townhouse when I was 22. Some of those restrictions were that you couldn't paint the outside of your house, you couldn't paint your fence, you could not park in front of your garage. And the penalty was that if you did these things, you would be fined and forced to sell your home.

Back to his conduct. Now think about this. How many partners have backed out of their contracts with the NBA based on Sterling? How many fans will the NBA loose based on Sterling? The players are threatening to boycott if he is still an owner next year. All based on his conduct.


How can you honestly feel he shouldn't have to sell his team?
Ill even take it further. Apparently, this woman is an employee if his in some capacity, and he knew he was being recorded. Thats harassment. Just because he was recorded in his home makes no difference.

[gts]

You mean his staggering 500,000 dollar fine?

I don't know about that one.. I was thinking of the 250k one where he yelled at refs, yelled at Stern, confronted a ref after the game... 2006 playoffs?

[Sarcastic]

But you're not sure Sterling's lawyers know what they're doing? :confusedshrug:


What have they said so far? Other than trying to much this along through court, there is really nothing they can do. Have they said they will stop the vote? Sterling said he won't pay the fine, but that has nothing to do with lawyers. That's just him being an asshole.

From what I understand most law firms don't even want to represent him. It's pretty much a guaranteed loss.

[97 bulls]

what rule did he break, is telling ur woman not to make it look like she bangin brothas in public against nba rules? he even said u can hook up with em just dont let it get public he was jus tryna save face cause he gave this trick all his loot and she makin him look a foo by goin to games with her side*****. only thing sterling is guilty of is simpin which is sad but it aint a crime
His statements are costing the NBA money. That's the NBAs reasoning

[KyrieTheFuture]

What have they said so far? Other than trying to much this along through court, there is really nothing they can do. Have they said they will stop the vote? Sterling said he won't pay the fine, but that has nothing to do with lawyers. That's just him being an asshole.

From what I understand most law firms don't even want to represent him. It's pretty much a guaranteed loss.
I'm almost positive he has a legal team and doesn't need to search out a law firm. If people defended him in his housing scandal, they'll defend this. Lawyers like money. Losing a "guaranteed loss" also isn't a bad. Still get paid.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I don't know about that one.. I was thinking of the 250k one where he yelled at refs, yelled at Stern, confronted a ref after the game... 2006 playoffs?
It was one tweet about the head of the referees or some shit. All I'm saying is neither of those are even close to 1 million. Sterling got fined illegally as far as I can tell.

[NumberSix]

Fair enough. I think you misunderstand the type of "ownership" an NBA owner has. I'll keep it simple.

As you obviously realize, Sterling didnt break any Federal or State laws. But when he signed his contract ti own the Clippers, he agreed to the terms and conditions that that contract entails.

There's an article that states that an owners CONDUCT cannot be that which will harm the league. Regardless of where he is. I liken it to a person that owns a townhouse or condo. Sure you own it, but you still must act withing the laws stipulated by the homeowners association. I owned a townhouse when I was 22. Some of those restrictions were that you couldn't paint the outside of your house, you couldn't paint your fence, you could not park in front of your garage. And the penalty was that if you did these things, you would be fined and forced to sell your home.

Back to his conduct. Now think about this. How many partners have backed out of their contracts with the NBA based on Sterling? How many fans will the NBA loose based on Sterling? The players are threatening to boycott if he is still an owner next year. All based on his conduct.


How can you honestly feel he shouldn't have to sell his team?
Ill even take it further. Apparently, this woman is an employee if his in some capacity, and he knew he was being recorded. Thats harassment. Just because he was recorded in his home makes no difference.
Not trying to sound like a jerk, but....

You're coming into this argument very late. EVERYBODY understands the difference between an owner and a franchise owner.

It's my OPINION that he shouldn't have to sell, but like I said its just an opinion.

I've also said that people who are "supporting" Sterling over principles over privacy violations are looking in the wrong direction. What they SHOULD be looking for is V. Stiviano to be prosecuted as it appears the person who leaked the Jay-Z video will be.

If you want to discourage these illegal leaks, punish the leakers. The problem is that these leakers are being rewarded with big bucks from the media.

[chocolatethunder]

If you were an attorney, you'd understand that you can't guarantee any outcome. Appeals exist and decisions are overturned all the time.
If you lived in the real world you'd realize that of course you can. It's ok, you're still my favorite troll.

[NumberSix]

If you lived in the real world you'd realize that of course you can. It's ok, you're still my favorite troll.
Like I said, decisions get overturned on appeal all the time. The same case can have different outcomes in court. Obviously, that IS the real world.

[Droid101]

Resident racists chiming in to defend the poor poor billionaire again. How predictable.

[zizozain]

remove the entire Clippers franchise from the NBA

new franchise in Seattle

everybody happy .. NBA makes big money Sterling with a dick up his ass

[NumberSix]

remove the entire Clippers franchise from the NBA

new franchise in Seattle

everybody happy .. NBA makes big money Sterling with a dick up his ass
That would be EPIC!

Do it.

[97 bulls]

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but....

You're coming into this argument very late. EVERYBODY understands the difference between an owner and a franchise owner.

It's my OPINION that he shouldn't have to sell, but like I said its just an opinion.

I've also said that people who are "supporting" Sterling over principles over privacy violations are looking in the wrong direction. What they SHOULD be looking for is V. Stiviano to be prosecuted as it appears the person who leaked the Jay-Z video will be.

If you want to discourage these illegal leaks, punish the leakers. The problem is that these leakers are being rewarded with big bucks from the media.
Then how can you say he shouldn't be forced to sell his team? Do u see nothing wrong with what he said?

[Adam Silver]

I'm going to lay the hammer down.

[NumberSix]

Then how can you say he shouldn't be forced to sell his team? Do u see nothing wrong with what he said?
Because it's a judgement call.

I see something wrong with Michael Jordan calling someone a "flaming fαggot", but I wouldn't think it warrants him losing his team. I don't think everybody with an opinion I don't like should be punished.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Then how can you say he shouldn't be forced to sell his team? Do u see nothing wrong with what he said?
It has nothing to do with right or wrong, if were going to say that having "wrong" opinions means you should be fired then where do we draw the line? Oh sorry you don't like gay people owner of Chick Fil A that's bad for business GTFO. If every human being on earth had all their conversations recorded, every single one of them would say something as dumb, or worse, than that.

[Droid101]

If every human being on earth had all their conversations recorded, every single one of them would say something as dumb, or worse, than that.
Some of them even post their dumb thoughts willingly on the internet!

[chocolatethunder]

Then how can you say he shouldn't be forced to sell his team? Do u see nothing wrong with what he said?
The issue isn't about what he said. People can say what they want just like Isaiah Thomas saying "I don't give a fvck about those white people". The problem is what his actions say. This is a guy who has a black president and coach in Doc Rivers for whom he had to pay compensation in order to hire and he pays a fair salary. He employs black players who are all paid fair market value. The fact is that in spite of his past, he settles lawsuits without admitting any wrongdoing so they cannot be held against him. Elgin Baylor LOST his racial discrimination suit against him. That being said, and this is what Cuban was talking about is, it's a slippery slope to take someone's team away because they said something that's offensive. You then get Into "Cuban says thfw refs cheat he's bad for the league lets take his team away." Or "Isaiah said I don't give a **** about those white people" he can't be a minority owner. That's the arguement that people will make and I think it has merit. It doesn't mean that Sterling isn't a jerk and a racist, it just means that there's something called due process. However, the NBA thinks that their constitution allows them to take his team away and they are probably right and that's what's going to happen and I say good riddance.

[NumberSix]

The issue isn't about what he said. People can say what they want just like Isaiah Thomas saying "I don't give a fvck about those white people". The problem is what his actions say. This is a guy who has a black president and coach in Doc Rivers for whom he had to pay compensation in order to hire and he pays a fair salary. He employs black players who are all paid fair market value. The fact is that in spite of his past, he settles lawsuits without admitting any wrongdoing so they cannot be held against him. Elgin Baylor LOST his racial discrimination suit against him. That being said, and this is what Cuban was talking about is, it's a slippery slope to take someone's team away because they said something that's offensive. You then get Into "Cuban says thfw refs cheat he's bad for the league lets take his team away." Or "Isaiah said I don't give a **** about those white people" he can't be a minority owner. That's the arguement that people will make and I think it has merit. It doesn't mean that Sterling isn't a jerk and a racist, it just means that there's something called due process. However, the NBA thinks that their constitution allows them to take his team away and they are probably right and that's what's going to happen and I say good riddance.
I don't know why people can't understand this simple point. It's NOT about Sterling. Nobody is "defending" Sterling.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Some of them even post their dumb thoughts willingly on the internet!
Oh yea cause your account is a ****ing bastion of knowledge and insight that would make a philosopher speechless.

[sd3035]

Sterling > Silver

[Droid101]

Oh yea cause your account is a ****ing bastion of knowledge and insight that would make a philosopher speechless.
Broten I wasn't referring to you. Chillax.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Broten I wasn't referring to you. Chillax.
:eek: :facepalm I am sorry :(

Feel like a McAsshole

[97 bulls]

Because it's a judgement call.

I see something wrong with Michael Jordan calling someone a "flaming fαggot", but I wouldn't think it warrants him losing his team. I don't think everybody with an opinion I don't like should be punished.
That comment by Jordan was made 15 years ago. To be honest, that kind of verbage was much more acceptable then as opposed to now.

If he were to utter those words now, he needs to put right behind Sterling.

My point is you seem to feel that he shouldn't be punished for his opinion, but you do feel that the NBA shouod be punished by losing millions while allowing this man to operate with impunity. The NBA has the option to cease ties with this man as a partner. Why is one ok but not the other?

[chocolatethunder]

I don't know why people can't understand this simple point. It's NOT about Sterling. Nobody is "defending" Sterling.
I know it's not about Sterling. I'm using him as an example because that's what people are talking about. I'm not saying that you're defending anyone. This isn't about you.

[NumberSix]

That comment by Jordan was made 15 years ago. To be honest, that kind of verbage was much more acceptable then as opposed to now.

If he were to utter those words now, he needs to put right behind Sterling.

My point is you seem to feel that he shouldn't be punished for his opinion, but you do feel that the NBA shouod be punished by losing millions while allowing this man to operate with impunity. The NBA has the option to cease ties with this man as a partner. Why is one ok but not the other?
Like I said, it's a judgement call. And the NBA isnt LOSING money! it's making LESS PROFIT. And, it's not like there aren't teams making less money than the Clippers. It would be an odd standard to say the Clippers are required to make a certain amount of money, but teams that make less than the Clippers is fine.

[NumberSix]

I know it's not about Sterling. I'm using him as an example because that's what people are talking about. I'm not saying that you're defending anyone. This isn't about you.
I was agreeing with you. I was saying people don't understand the point WE are making.

[97 bulls]

It has nothing to do with right or wrong, if were going to say that having "wrong" opinions means you should be fired then where do we draw the line? Oh sorry you don't like gay people owner of Chick Fil A that's bad for business GTFO. If every human being on earth had all their conversations recorded, every single one of them would say something as dumb, or worse, than that.
Totally different scenario bro. The owner of chik fillet stated his opinion, and people can respond by choosing not to patronize his establishment. Or patronize it more. You cant force someone to do business with a person he doesn't share the same views with. And in essence, thats what youre saying.

[KyrieTheFuture]

Totally different scenario bro. The owner of chik fillet stated his opinion, and people can respond by choosing not to patronize his establishment. Or patronize it more. You cant force someone to do business with a person he doesn't share the same views with. And in essence, thats what youre saying.
No one is forced to do business with Sterling either, they say his views hurt the NBA, anti gay views hurt the company.

[97 bulls]

Like I said, it's a judgement call. And the NBA is LOSING money! it's making LESS PROFIT. And, it's not like there aren't teams making less money than the Clippers. It would be an odd standard to say the Clippers are required to make a certain amount of money, but teams that make less than the Clippers is fine.
What?!!!!!! Sponsors are leaving bro. That's loosing money. You're adding points that dont need to be added. Sterling isnt being ousted due to not meeting a certain profit margin.

[Sarcastic]

Like I said, it's a judgement call. And the NBA isnt LOSING money! it's making LESS PROFIT. And, it's not like there aren't teams making less money than the Clippers. It would be an odd standard to say the Clippers are required to make a certain amount of money, but teams that make less than the Clippers is fine.


Sponsors pulling out from their partnerships, is losing money.

[97 bulls]

No one is forced to do business with Sterling either, they say his views hurt the NBA, anti gay views hurt the company.
Right. And those sponsors are leaving. Thus costing the NBA profit (shout out to nunbersix).

[Laker4Lyfe]

There's nothing to read between. I've outright said it. I don't think he should have to sell his team, but if he does I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. I have no stake in who owns or doesn't own the LA Clippers.

I find this hard to believe because you post more than ANY other poster here in each and every Sterling thread regarding this.

Page after page after page after page arguing with different posters on everyone.

You care.. you care a LOT. :facepalm

[NumberSix]

What?!!!!!! Sponsors are leaving bro. That's loosing money. You're adding points that dont need to be added. Sterling isnt being ousted due to not meeting a certain profit margin.
No, the sponsors pulling money from the clippers means the clippers franchise is making LESS money, but they aren't LOSING money. They are still profitable. The NBA isn't LOSING money. It's collecting LESS profits from the Clippers.

[NumberSix]

I find this hard to believe because you post more than ANY other poster here in each and every Sterling thread regarding this.

Page after page after page after page arguing with different posters on everyone.

You care.. you care a LOT. :facepalm
Yeah, I care a lot about principles, but I don't care at all about Sterling. He can die of his cancer tomorrow for all I care. It's not about him.

[Laker4Lyfe]

I'm almost positive he has a legal team and doesn't need to search out a law firm. If people defended him in his housing scandal, they'll defend this. Lawyers like money. Losing a "guaranteed loss" also isn't a bad. Still get paid.


He was in search of a law firm and was declined by several.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-clippers-law-firms-rejected-nba-sue-racist/

But as you said there will always be one that will defend him.

[Mgamer20o0]

Keep it real..... You're just guessing this.
gts knows what he is talking about.

i dont see much of a chance of them moving anywhere. they make money and have for years unlike many teams. why move to a unknown when you basic have guarantee money maker.

[97 bulls]

The issue isn't about what he said. People can say what they want just like Isaiah Thomas saying "I don't give a fvck about those white people". The problem is what his actions say. This is a guy who has a black president and coach in Doc Rivers for whom he had to pay compensation in order to hire and he pays a fair salary. He employs black players who are all paid fair market value. The fact is that in spite of his past, he settles lawsuits without admitting any wrongdoing so they cannot be held against him. Elgin Baylor LOST his racial discrimination suit against him. That being said, and this is what Cuban was talking about is, it's a slippery slope to take someone's team away because they said something that's offensive. You then get Into "Cuban says thfw refs cheat he's bad for the league lets take his team away." Or "Isaiah said I don't give a **** about those white people" he can't be a minority owner. That's the arguement that people will make and I think it has merit. It doesn't mean that Sterling isn't a jerk and a racist, it just means that there's something called due process. However, the NBA thinks that their constitution allows them to take his team away and they are probably right and that's what's going to happen and I say good riddance.
Sterling tenure as a racists is extremely well documented.

Isaiah Thomas uttered those words about Bird almost 30 years ago. He's still taking flack for it. Funny thing is, I notice whenever a white guy makes a racists statement etc, some want to go and find blacks that have said stupid things in an effort to vindicate the whit person. Thomas and Rodman weren't the first to make thise type of comments about Bird. White people were. He was dubbed "the Great WHITE hope" by the media. I remember and interview that was shown in that Magic/Bird documentary where a fan says he cheers for Bird because hes a whit guy and he can relate to him. Bird was considered a the typical white, blue collar, work hard guy. One of his nick names was the "Hick from French lick". Hick is a derogatory term used for lower classed whites. And blacks didnt give Bird thise names.

Where's the consistency?

[Droid101]

Sponsors lost (unless Sterling sells): CarMax, State Farm Insurance, Kia Motors America, airline Virgin America, P. Diddy's water brand, AQUAHydrate, Red Bull, Yokohama tires and Mercedes-Benz.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers/2014/04/28/clippers-sterling-state-farm-carmax-withdraw-sponsorship/8413967/

I think more have since then. Sterling is costing the NBA money.

[NumberSix]

Sterling tenure as a racists is extremely well documented.

Isaiah Thomas uttered those words about Bird almost 30 years ago. He's still taking flack for it. Funny thing is, I notice whenever a white guy makes a racists statement etc, some want to go and find blacks that have said stupid things in an effort to vindicate the whit person. Thomas and Rodman weren't the first to make thise type of comments about Bird. White people were. He was dubbed "the Great WHITE hope" by the media. I remember and interview that was shown in that Magic/Bird documentary where a fan says he cheers for Bird because hes a whit guy and he can relate to him. Bird was considered a the typical white, blue collar, work hard guy. One of his nick names was the "Hick from French lick". Hick is a derogatory term used for lower classed whites. And blacks didnt give Bird thise names.

Where's the consistency?
That's exactly the point. People don't seek out racial comments made by blacks to vindicate the white person. It's to show the double standard. Keep it real, if Michael Jordan told his wife not to take pictures with white people, do you really think there would be a huge groundswell for him to lose his team?

Anytime a white person makes a racial comment everybody goes crazy and acts like the sky is falling, when in reality none of us actually care. When a black person makes a racial comment we're able to act more rational and see it for what it is. It's not a big deal.

[chocolatethunder]

Sterling tenure as a racists is extremely well documented.

Isaiah Thomas uttered those words about Bird almost 30 years ago. He's still taking flack for it. Funny thing is, I notice whenever a white guy makes a racists statement etc, some want to go and find blacks that have said stupid things in an effort to vindicate the whit person. Thomas and Rodman weren't the first to make thise type of comments about Bird. White people were. He was dubbed "the Great WHITE hope" by the media. I remember and interview that was shown in that Magic/Bird documentary where a fan says he cheers for Bird because hes a whit guy and he can relate to him. Bird was considered a the typical white, blue collar, work hard guy. One of his nick names was the "Hick from French lick". Hick is a derogatory term used for lower classed whites. And blacks didnt give Bird thise names.

Where's the consistency?
K you're missing the point. Firstly, Isaiah uttered those words when he worked for the Knicks. It had nothing to do with Larry Bird. So yes, Isaiah's tenure as a racist is well documented.

I only used Isaiah because he's involved in basketball. I don't care about what he said and it's not a big deal to me. It's similar to what Sterling said so I thought it was germane to the conversation.

When I was making my point about Sterling, I was trying to illustrate why people who don't think he should lose the team believe that. Technically his past as a racist isn't documented in court because he settles his cases, admits no wrongdoing and Baylor lost his suit. I was saying that because of course the NBA has wanted him out for years but they wouldn't have won in court because Sterling is slick, that's all. Or I assume that they thought the wouldn't win. You're being defensive for no reason. I think he should lose the team and I think he's a total jerk. It's just like if you're a juror on a case. You may know the guy did it, but say there's inadmissible evidence, you can't just convict them. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more.

Let me make something really clear. I'm not trying nor have I ever tried to vindicate anything Sterling said. I've never liked him and it's really pathetic that he was ever allowed to be an owner in the first place and not just because he's a racist. The dude's a total jerk. You should really do yourself a favor and not lump me into some imaginary category in your head where I don't belong. And back to your comments about Bird. Him being called a hick or the great white hope is a lot different than saying " If he was black he'd just be another player." If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.

[KyrieTheFuture]

He was in search of a law firm and was declined by several.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-clippers-law-firms-rejected-nba-sue-racist/

But as you said there will always be one that will defend him.
:cheers:

Was unaware. Damn, Silver really has not an easy beginning to his tenure has he

[dude77]

everyone has the right to be offended in today's world .. if found guilty of offending, you are subject to being cast off as a pariah and having your investments taken away from you ..

you are also guilty of such a crime, if you offended someone without even talking to them directly .. just have someone illegally tape you in your house and leak the tape and you are guilty and automatically sentenced ..

that sure doesn't sound like something that would happen in freedom lovin' U.S.A. right ?

[NumberSix]

everyone has the right to be offended in today's world .. and if you are found guilty of such a dastardly crime .. you are going down
People these days are too weak. They're also too concerned with group identity. God forbid somebody insult your group identity.

[dude77]

People these days are too weak. They're also too concerned with group identity. God forbid somebody insult your group identity.

exactly .. and it's funny how many people are so on board with this mob lynching(that irony ) .. that is until something like this happens to them .. then the same idiots laughing at this would be crying about 'privacy rights'

[Mgamer20o0]

having your investments taken away from you ..


its not like he is going to be out the money. he will still get paid and very well. its about the best time to sell the team.

[97 bulls]

K you're missing the point. Firstly, Isaiah uttered those words when he worked for the Knicks. It had nothing to do with Larry Bird. So yes, Isaiah's tenure as a racist is well documented.

I only used Isaiah because he's involved in basketball. I don't care about what he said and it's not a big deal to me. It's similar to what Sterling said so I thought it was germane to the conversation.

When I was making my point about Sterling, I was trying to illustrate why people who don't think he should lose the team believe that. Technically his past as a racist isn't documented in court because he settles his cases, admits no wrongdoing and Baylor lost his suit. I was saying that because of course the NBA has wanted him out for years but they wouldn't have won in court because Sterling is slick, that's all. Or I assume that they thought the wouldn't win. You're being defensive for no reason. I think he should lose the team and I think he's a total jerk. It's just like if you're a juror on a case. You may know the guy did it, but say there's inadmissible evidence, you can't just convict them. That's all I'm saying. Nothing more.

Let me make something really clear. I'm not trying nor have I ever tried to vindicate anything Sterling said. I've never liked him and it's really pathetic that he was ever allowed to be an owner in the first place and not just because he's a racist. The dude's a total jerk. You should really do yourself a favor and not lump me into some imaginary category in your head where I don't belong. And back to your comments about Bird. Him being called a hick or the great white hope is a lot different than saying " If he was black he'd just be another player." If you can't see that then I don't know what to tell you.
That comment was never proved in court. That woman claim Thomas said that. Sterlings racists ways have been documented in court he lost that slum lord lawsuit.

[NumberSix]

exactly .. and it's funny how many people are so on board with this mob lynching(that irony ) .. that is until something like this happens to them .. then the same idiots laughing at this would be crying about 'privacy rights'
The same type of idiots that cry about privacy when some teacher gets fired for pictures on her public Facebook page.

[97 bulls]

That's exactly the point. People don't seek out racial comments made by blacks to vindicate the white person. It's to show the double standard. Keep it real, if Michael Jordan told his wife not to take pictures with white people, do you really think there would be a huge groundswell for him to lose his team?

Anytime a white person makes a racial comment everybody goes crazy and acts like the sky is falling, when in reality none of us actually care. When a black person makes a racial comment we're able to act more rational and see it for what it is. It's not a big deal.
What are you talking about? Thomas was called a racists due to something he was accused of saying years ago. But was not never substantiated. He was lambasted in the media when he made those comments about Bird. And he still hasnt lived it down to this day. Name me a black person that has made a racists, homophobic, or insensitive comment that the.media overlooked.

[NumberSix]

What are you talking about? Thomas was called a racists due to something he was accused of saying years ago. But was not never substantiated. He was lambasted in the media when he made those comments about Bird. And he still hasnt lived it down to this day. Name me a black person that has made a racists, homophobic, or insensitive comment that the.media overlooked.
Believe it or not, I don't spend my time combing through the Internet to find inappropriate comments made by blacks. I don't care about "controversial comments" made by anyone.

[ThePhantomCreep]

everyone has the right to be offended in today's world .. if found guilty of offending, you are subject to being cast off as a pariah and having your investments taken away from you ..

you are also guilty of such a crime, if you offended someone without even talking to them directly .. just have someone illegally tape you in your house and leak the tape and you are guilty and automatically sentenced ..

that sure doesn't sound like something that would happen in freedom lovin' U.S.A. right ?

Donald Sterling's right to be a racist has not been violated.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Believe it or not, I don't spend my time combing through the Internet to find inappropriate comments made by blacks. I don't care about "controversial comments" made by anyone.

Of course you don't care, you aren't part of a minority class that has seen up close the power of hate speech. You're a white straight male, it's all hunky dory up there in your ivory tower.

[Jameerthefear]

Of course you don't care, you aren't part of a minority class that has seen up close the power of hate speech. You're a white straight male, it's all hunky dory up there in your ivory tower.
honestly if u care that much about what people say ur probably a whiny f*ck

[97 bulls]

Believe it or not, I don't spend my time combing through the Internet to find inappropriate comments made by blacks. I don't care about "controversial comments" made by anyone.
Well you must have some kind of facts to fall back on. Or youre just making wreckless accusations.

Allow me give you some references. Reggie White, Isaiah Washington, Nick Canon, Isaiah Thomas. And the recourse from their actions.

[ThePhantomCreep]

honestly if u care that much about what people say ur probably a whiny f*ck

Hate speech should never be tolerated anywhere, ever. Whether it bothers anyone or not is really beside the point.

[MadSolar]

Do you guys defend Robert Copeland for being forced to resign as Police commisioner for using a racist slur? Seems like this year alot of racist folks are coming out.

[NumberSix]

Hate speech should never be tolerated anywhere, ever. Whether it bothers anyone or not is really beside the point.
If that's what you truly believe, don't complain when you're charged with a hate crime for something as simple as being critical of religion.

[NumberSix]

Of course you don't care, you aren't part of a minority class that has seen up close the power of hate speech. You're a white straight male, it's all hunky dory up there in your ivory tower.
First, I reject the idea of "minority classes", but if it makes you happy, I in fact did grow up in a place where I was a "minority". I remember fully well how common it was for people to bring guns and other weapons to school on a daily basis and police frequently having to be present because the tensions between groups was so bad.

I don't know why you assume that you know anything about me, but I guess anyone who has a different opinion than yours is an evil "privileged" oppressor. And I guess in your mind evil privileged oppressor means white male.


It's usually the most privileged, sheltered liberal ******* that are willing to say freedom doesn't apply to opinions that you deem incorrect.

[chocolatethunder]

That comment was never proved in court. That woman claim Thomas said that. Sterlings racists ways have been documented in court he lost that slum lord lawsuit.
It was proven in the sense that he denied everything she said and yet she won the case. So yes, his comment was documented just like Sterlings "Hispanics smoke and hang around the building". I assume, because of Sterlings past, that it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that he may have said that. Just as it is given Isaiah's past that it doesn't seem too far fetched for him to have said that. So like it or not, the jury believed her claims and not Isaiah.

[Droid101]

Seriously, why is it mostly Heat fans that are defending Sterling? What is the correlation here?

Stop defending the billionaire. He'll be fine. Jesus christ.

[Droid101]

Do you guys defend Robert Copeland for being forced to resign as Police commisioner for using a racist slur? Seems like this year alot of racist folks are coming out.
I'm pretty sure his was worse.

He called the President a n**ger, and when asked about the comments later he said:

"I believe I did use the 'N' word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse," Copeland wrote in the April email sent to the two other commissioners and forwarded to O'Toole. "For this, I do not apologize - he meets and exceeds my criteria for such."

This guy is a bigger scumbag than Sterling, to be honest. What the **** are his criteria? The amount of melanin in the skin?

[eliteballer]

Sterling can defend himself at the hearing...will be interesting to hear what spectacle he puts up in front of the other owners.

[MadSolar]

I'm pretty sure his was worse.

He called the President a n**ger, and when asked about the comments later he said:

"I believe I did use the 'N' word in reference to the current occupant of the Whitehouse," Copeland wrote in the April email sent to the two other commissioners and forwarded to O'Toole. "For this, I do not apologize - he meets and exceeds my criteria for such."

This guy is a bigger scumbag than Sterling, to be honest. What the **** are his criteria? The amount of melanin in the skin?
Absolutely his was worse.It goes to show that racism is still alive in some people.

[NumberSix]

Absolutely his was worse.It goes to show that racism is still alive in some people.
Why do people keep saying this? Yeah, some people are racist. Of course. Was this ever in question?

[andgar923]

To the idiots defending him.

Let's say that instead of an NBA team we're talking about a hospital for the mentally ill and handicapped. The owner has been sued by a nurse for making derogatory remarks about handicapped people, calling them 'Retards' making fun of their physical and mental disabilities.

On the surface he says and does all the right things tho, so there's no real proof that the owner of the hospital is actually that careless.

Then a private conversation surfaces.

It isn't a slip up or just a few demeaning words that are said. But his entire belief system is revealed. In it he believes the patients are all lower than him, they're beneath him to his core. He views the patients as cash cows that are only there to make him money. He views them as sub-human to a degree and sees himself as their savior.

Would that be acceptable then?

Wouldn't that be grounds on removing him as an owner of this franchise?

Would you want a loved one to be hospitalized under the roof of a man that has history of neglect, health and code violations that could endanger their well being?

He has shown his true self, his inner core doesn't care about the patients, it gives the franchise a bad name. If the franchise doesn't do anything about it then it gives the appearance that the franchise condones or supports this owner.

This isn't about 'free speech'.

This isn't solely about an old man saying some ignorant comments.

It runs much deeper than that.

But of course.... some of you will never understand because it isn't about you.

[NumberSix]

To the idiots defending him.

Let's say that instead of an NBA team we're talking about a hospital for the mentally ill and handicapped. The owner has been sued by a nurse for making derogatory remarks about handicapped people, calling them 'Retards' making fun of their physical and mental disabilities.

On the surface he says and does all the right things tho, so there's no real proof that the owner of the hospital is actually that careless.

Then a private conversation surfaces.

It isn't a slip up or just a few demeaning words that are said. But his entire belief system is revealed. In it he believes the patients are all lower than him, they're beneath him to his core. He views the patients as cash cows that are only there to make him money. He views them as sub-human to a degree and sees himself as their savior.

Would that be acceptable then?

Wouldn't that be grounds on removing him as an owner of this franchise?

Would you want a loved one to be hospitalized under the roof of a man that has history of neglect, health and code violations that could endanger their well being?

He has shown his true self, his inner core doesn't care about the patients, it gives the franchise a bad name. If the franchise doesn't do anything about it then it gives the appearance that the franchise condones or supports this owner.

This isn't about 'free speech'.

This isn't solely about an old man saying some ignorant comments.

It runs much deeper than that.

But of course.... some of you will never understand because it isn't about you.
Are you saying blacks are retards?

[andgar923]

Are you saying blacks are retards?

Of course :rolleyes: :facepalm

[NumberSix]

Of course :rolleyes: :facepalm
Seriously though, it's not appropriate to compare blacks to the mentally disabled, children or any other non-fully-capable person who can't make decisions for themselves. Blacks are fully functional people like anybody else. They don't need your sympathy or you to take care of them. They are not some kind of defenseless special needs people. They're exactly like any other human. Theyre not little kids that need to be protected by you from getting their feelings hurt.