Donald Sterling *shakes head*

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Was it there about 5 cbas ago? Because if it wasn't, then that statement doesn't apply to him. Sterling is a pos, and I don't feel sorry for him, but this is also a man who loves litigation, has no problems getting dirty and has a billionaire's resources. The legal battle that will result from this could very easily end up causing the nba more financial harm then any moronic statements he made.

CBA's deal with negotiations between the owners and the players. They don't have anything to do with the NBA Ownership Bi-Laws.

I have no idea if the rule was in place when Sterling bought the team but I assume the option is to adopt new rules or sell your team.

[Jack.Kerr]

Oprah Winfrey and David Geffen reportedly in queue of potential buyers for Clippers franchise.

Oprah would be a great owner. Go to a Clippers game, look under your chair, find her latest book recommendation.

[DirkFTW]

If the team is ever for sale, Seattle should get first, second and third dibs.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

If the team is ever for sale, Seattle should get first, second and third dibs.

Seattle, KC, and I actually think that Vegas would make a great location for a pro team.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Seattle, KC, and I actually think that Vegas would make a great location for a pro team.

Please, please, please! MGM is building an arena now. Clippers would be perfect. Lob(flop city)...except I hate Clippers. But Id get to see the Mavs without traveling anywhere

[Jack.Kerr]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...ban/index.html

SI.com piece outlining the possible scenarios/consequences

Sterling suing the NBA and owners

In addition to concern about proper interpretation of the relevant language, some owners may worry about the prospect that Sterling will sue. Sterling, an attorney, is regarded as one of the most litigious owners in professional sports. If there is one owner who would sue over expulsion, it's probably him. Sterling could seek a court injunction preventing the NBA from expelling him. Such a move would likely happen immediately after he is voted out. He could also file a lawsuit raising breach of contract and antitrust claims.

A breach of contract claim would contend that Sterling's contract with the NBA through his franchise agreement has been unlawfully severed. The NBA, however, is poised to stress that owners agree to language limiting opportunities for owners to sue the NBA and fellow owners. In their franchise agreements, NBA owners agree to "waiver of recourse" verbiage. The language has the effect of eliminating opportunities for owners to pursue legal recourse against the NBA and fellow owners.

An antitrust claim would likely center on both California and federal antitrust laws, and contend that the NBA and its teams have conspired in an anticompetitive way to oust Sterling and make him sell his team at below-market value. Sterling would likely cite reports the NBA may be interested in Magic Johnson buying the Clippers as evidence the league is trying to force a sale to a specific buyer, rather than permitting open bidding. Sterling might also highlight Silver's remarks today that he's confident owners will oust him as evidence of collusive activity between Silver and the owners. If Sterling were to sue under antitrust law and prevail, he would also be entitled to treble damages. Several attorneys familiar with NBA litigation tell SI.com that the possibility of an antitrust lawsuit by Sterling is high.

The prospect of Sterling suing could be a source of worry to NBA owners for at least three reasons:

1. Sterling suing over franchise ouster could undermine the lifetime ban. The ban is intended to separate Sterling from the Clippers and the NBA, and as discussed above, Sterling likely has no viable case against it. If, however, Sterling sues over franchise ouster, it would be a high-profile lawsuit and he would remain in the news. Whatever distancing of Sterling is achieved through a ban could be lost in a high-profile case. It is also a case that could last years, as antitrust cases often do.

2. Sterling suing may lead to pretrial discovery, which could be designed in part to embarrass other owners and NBA officials of any bigoted remarks or beliefs on their part. Keep in mind, if Sterling is ousted because of racism, he would likely demand that evidence showing that other owners and officials are also racist be shared. He would use such information to portray his penalty as unwarranted and contradicted by the conduct of those who ousted him. Sterling might request emails and other records from owners and officials that depict them in a negative light. Sterling has owned the Clippers for 33 years, which suggests that he has had many interactions -- including private conversations with league officials and owners. If there are other owners who are racist or bigoted, it stands to reason Sterling knows who they are.

3. If Sterling wins or extracts a settlement, not only could NBA owners be on the hook for an expensive fee, but Sterling would seem victorious. The appearance of him winning in court would greatly detract from the important social message accomplished by the lifetime ban.

[Jack.Kerr]

Same Article, Different Consequences

Important tax law considerations: avoiding capital gain taxes

Sterling, who is 80 or 81 years old (his exact birthdate remains a mystery), has a key financial reason to fight the sale of the Clippers: to avoid capital gain taxes. This insight is from Robert Raiola senior manager in the Sports & Entertainment Group of the Accounting Firm O'Connor Davies, LLP. Sterling reportedly purchased the Clippers for $12.5 million in 1981. If he sold the team today, it would be worth at least $600 million, perhaps closer to $1 billion. Between federal and state capital gains taxes, Sterling would pay an approximately 33 percent tax rate on the difference between what he paid for the team and what he sold it for. For instance, if he sold the Clippers today for $1 billion, Sterling would pay capital gain taxes of 33 percent on a gain of $987.5 million. As a result, Sterling would owe Federal & state capital gain taxes of approximately $329 million.

If instead Sterling holds onto the Clippers and some time from now passes away ("Here, honey, drink your juice...." ), his family would inherit the team. The family would inherit the team with a value pegged to its fair market value. As Raiola stresses, the new value of the team would be crucial for purposes of capital gains tax. Here's why: if the family inherited the Clippers and then sold it, they would only pay a capitals gain tax on the difference between the value of the team when they inherited it and the value of it when sold. For instance, if the family inherited the team and it was worth $700 million and then they sold it for $800 million, they would only pay capital gain taxes on a gain of $100 million. In that instance, there would be a comparatively modest tax bill of $33 million.

If the Sterling family inherited the Clippers and simultaneously sold it, Raiola tells SI.com, they would pay no capital gains tax, but still have estate tax issues. However, a transaction could be structured whereby the employees of the Clippers organization could own a percentage of the team. In such case, the capital gain taxes on a sale could be partially or fully avoided.

These tax considerations make it more likely that Sterling will fight the NBA to hold onto the Clippers. Even if he ultimately loses a legal battle, the process of losing could take years to play out in court. At the risk of sounding macabre, Sterling may be motivated to wage a protracted legal battle in order to keep the team for as long as he lives.

Important family law considerations: what if Mrs. Sterling files for divorce?

Sterling and his wife, Shelly, are reportedly estranged but not divorced. One potential legal complication for the NBA would be if Mrs. Sterling filed for divorce before the NBA terminated her husband's ownership of the Clippers. California is a "community law" state, which means Mrs. Sterling would likely be entitled to half of her husband's assets. One of his key assets is obviously the Clippers. Mrs. Sterling could potentially use divorce court proceedings to slow down the NBA's ouster of her husband, as she would have a vested stake in any sale of the Clippers.

Could Sterling transfer ownership to Mrs. Sterling?

It is possible that Sterling could try to transfer ownership of the Clippers to Mrs. Sterling before the NBA ousts him. The NBA, however, would have to approve such a maneuver, as Mrs. Sterling would be subject to requirements the league uses to evaluate prospective owners. There is virtually no chance the NBA would approve Mrs. Sterling in this scenario as it would be a clear attempt to evade the NBA's discipline of her husband.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Oprah Winfrey and David Geffen reportedly in queue of potential buyers for Clippers franchise.

Oprah would be a great owner. Go to a Clippers game, look under your chair, find her latest book recommendation.

I f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t.

Thanks. That's a great insight. But you know she loves you back!

P.S.: Her net worth penis is about twice as big as Sterling's. Wouldn't it be awesome, Murph, if she and David Geffen (whose net worth is about 4x that of Sterling) formed an owernship group? The first female owner and the first gay man owner in the NBA! You might never sleep again!

[Variant]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Thanks. That's a great insight. But you know she loves you back!

P.S.: Her net worth penis is about twice as big as Sterling's. Wouldn't it be awesome, Murph, if she and David Geffen (whose net worth is about 4x that of Sterling) formed an owernship group? The first female owner and the first gay man owner in the NBA! You might never sleep again!

Wow. Random personal attack? Seems uncalled for.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Variant

Wow. Random personal attack? Seems uncalled for.

I think Oprah can handle it. She's just that strong.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Thanks. That's a great insight. But you know she loves you back!

P.S.: Her net worth penis is about twice as big as Sterling's. Wouldn't it be awesome, Murph, if she and David Geffen (whose net worth is about 4x that of Sterling) formed an owernship group? The first female owner and the first gay man owner in the NBA! You might never sleep again!

Why would you think I have any problem with a gay owner or female owner? I have absolutely no problem with either. If you're a big enough of a jackwagon to attack me on the forum in such a manner without merit, it tells us alot about you.

Yes, I think Oprah Winfrey is a minority that actually detracts from those suffering from actual racism with some of her comments especially with regards to Obama. I also think she is a self serving person that gives more for the sake of attention than for the sake of giving. The Ticket used to do some funny bits regarding her. When she'd have a guest on talking about their charity, Oprah would always cut them off and one up them. To me, that screams is someone that does something for self serving reasons. Yes, it's obviously still good for the recipient, but it rings just a little bit hollow. The world is absolutely full of people such as this. Many people give with sincerity in their heart. Many people give for their own personal gain. Oprah, to me, gives for her own personal gain... it helps the ratings of the show and paints her in a more favorable light. Perhaps I am overly cynical with regards to her. But, it is merely based on what I have seen, heard, and read concerning her and nothing else. I would have have absolutely no issue with a female owner. I would have no issue with a gay owner.. I would have no issue with a gay/female/african american owner although I do prefer my gay females to be caucasian.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Why would you think I have any problem with a gay owner or female owner?

For starters, because of this:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t.

in response to this:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr
Oprah Winfrey and David Geffen reportedly in queue of potential buyers for Clippers franchise.

Oprah would be a great owner. Go to a Clippers game, look under your chair, find her latest book recommendation.

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I have absolutely no problem with either.

Please forgive my skepticism, because there's also this, as a followup:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yes, I think Oprah Winfrey is a minority that actually detracts from those suffering from actual racism with some of her comments especially with regards to Obama. I also think she is a self serving person that gives more for the sake of attention than for the sake of giving. The Ticket used to do some funny bits regarding her. When she'd have a guest on talking about their charity, Oprah would always cut them off and one up them. To me, that screams is someone that does something for self serving reasons. Yes, it's obviously still good for the recipient, but it rings just a little bit hollow. The world is absolutely full of people such as this. Many people give with sincerity in their heart. Many people give for their own personal gain. Oprah, to me, gives for her own personal gain... it helps the ratings of the show and paints her in a more favorable light. Perhaps I am overly cynical with regards to her. ... I would have have absolutely no issue with a female owner. I would have no issue with a gay owner.. I would have no issue with a gay/female/african american owner although I do prefer my gay females to be caucasian.

You began by interjecting an utterly gratuitous personal comment (attack?), which could've been about either Winfrey or Geffen, but somehow coming from you I knew it was about the former, not the latter.

Then you fall flat on your butt with an utterly contradictory (and unconvincing): "But I'd have no problem with either.", when you'd just Touretted: "I f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t."

If the female owner is Winfrey (as per the original post), is it your position that while you "...f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t." , you'd have no problem with her as an NBA owner? That's not credible. I mean, while I doubt the NBA Board of Governors will take your objections into account in any event, if it matters to you enough to decry her as a "worthless piece of sh!t", then logically you'd prefer not to see her as an NBA owner.

It's kind of like having said that you have no problem with gays/lesbians, you just don't want to see them marrying one another; or that while you know homosexuality is immoral you don't have any problem with them getting married; --the latter statement negates the believability of the former.

You then go on to offer a contrived justi-fiction of why you dislike Winfrey in an attempt to back away from the obvious reason that she's African-American, but even then, you can't resist closing with this Sterling-esque flourish:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

although I do prefer my gay females to be caucasian.

while elsewhere citing a similar distaste for other African-Americans:

Originally Posted by Murphy3

...but you do see alot of prevalent African Americans cry racism at the drop of a hat. She is one. I cannot stand people like that. Oprah Winfrey, Jim Brown, John Wiley Price, Jessie Jackson..all disgusting human beings that do more to further the gap between races.

Originally Posted by Murphy3

But, it is merely based on what I have seen, heard, and read concerning her and nothing else.

And that's exactly how I've formed my perception and opinion of you--based on what I've seen and read not ABOUT you, but directly FROM you. I'd say there's more than enough basis in this thread alone to respond to (not attack) your obviously racially-tinged world view, but if that weren't enough, you have made over 38,000 posts in this forum over 13 years. (I know you'd have even more posts, except for the bannings.) I'm pretty sure I've had you on 'Ignore' for at least part of the time I've been here because your comments were so odious and empty, but in a mistaken gesture of generosity, I apparently clean-slated you at some point. (Fortunately, there's an easy fix for that. Note: NSFW, but when you go to add the name "Murphy3" to your "Ignore List", there's quite an interesting number of 'variants' that appear. Clearly Murphy3's reputation exceeds him.) Even allowing for how people can evolve over 13 years, I know more about your thoughts on race than I do either of my two next-door neighbors.

In closing, I just have to point out the irony of you on the one hand articulating your visceral disgust over a list of African-Americans pointing out racism where you disagree (choose to ignore) that it exists, and on the other hand you railing at being "attacked" without basis, where clearly basis exists for a response (not an attack). Basis, there is plenty.

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

For starters, because of this:

in response to this:




Please forgive my skepticism, because there's also this, as a followup:



You began by interjecting an utterly gratuitous personal comment (attack?), which could've been about either Winfrey or Geffen, but somehow coming from you I knew it was about the former, not the latter.

Then you fall flat on your butt with an utterly contradictory (and unconvincing): "But I'd have no problem with either.", when you'd just Touretted: "I f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t."

If the female owner is Winfrey (as per the original post), is it your position that while you "...f'ing cannot stand that worthless piece of sh!t." , you'd have no problem with her as an NBA owner? That's not credible. I mean, while I doubt the NBA Board of Governors will take your objections into account in any event, if it matters to you enough to decry her as a "worthless piece of sh!t", then logically you'd prefer not to see her as an NBA owner.

It's kind of like having said that you have no problem with gays/lesbians, you just don't want to see them marrying one another; or that while you know homosexuality is immoral you don't have any problem with them getting married; --the latter statement negates the believability of the former.

You then go on to offer a contrived justi-fiction of why you dislike Winfrey in an attempt to back away from the obvious reason that she's African-American, but even then, you can't resist closing with this Sterling-esque flourish:

while elsewhere citing a similar distaste for other African-Americans:





And that's exactly how I've formed my perception and opinion of you--based on what I've seen and read not ABOUT you, but directly FROM you. I'd say there's more than enough basis in this thread alone to respond to (not attack) your obviously racially-tinged world view, but if that weren't enough, you have made over 38,000 posts in this forum over 13 years. (I know you'd have even more posts, except for the bannings.) I'm pretty sure I've had you on 'Ignore' for at least part of the time I've been here because your comments were so odious and empty, but in a mistaken gesture of generosity, I apparently clean-slated you at some point. (Fortunately, there's an easy fix for that. Note: NSFW, but when you go to add the name "Murphy3" to your "Ignore List", there's quite an interesting number of 'variants' that appear. Clearly Murphy3's reputation exceeds him.) Even allowing for how people can evolve over 13 years, I know more about your thoughts on race than I do either of my two next-door neighbors.

In closing, I just have to point out the irony of you on the one hand articulating your visceral disgust over a list of African-Americans pointing out racism where you disagree (choose to ignore) that it exists, and on the other hand you railing at being "attacked" without basis, where clearly basis exists for a response (not an attack). Basis, there is plenty.

Wow, so because I don't want Oprah to be an owner means that I have a problem with a black woman owning a basketball team? That's rather idiotic on your part.

How do I "obviously" have a racially tinged world view? Please tell me. I would absolutely love to know. Considering my family is part African American... I'd really like to know. Or are you saying that anyone with African American in their family should automatically like Oprah? That sounds as if you're guilty of racial profiling.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

CBA's deal with negotiations between the owners and the players. They don't have anything to do with the NBA Ownership Bi-Laws.

I have no idea if the rule was in place when Sterling bought the team but I assume the option is to adopt new rules or sell your team.

I thought the rule they were using to attempt to make him sell was in the cba?

Also there's a difference(a huge one actually) between saying dont buy a team if you don't like the conditions and sell your team if you don't like new rules. Completely different scenarios.