Donald Sterling *shakes head*

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by j0Shi

This is a tough challenge for the owners. So far Silver pushed all the right buttons so let's hope they'll finish this/him off in the best possible way.

The complexity of the problem besides those already mentioned is also demonstrated by a tidbit I just stumbled upon on twitter. If they force a sell, they sure can't control the buyer, can they?
So what if, let's say, an investment group based in Seattle posts the highest bid? Sterling might be gone, but then so is the team.

Pretty sure owners/ownership groups have to be approved by the league office or the owners. Can't cite a specific article on that though.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by j0Shi

This is a tough challenge for the owners. So far Silver pushed all the right buttons so let's hope they'll finish this/him off in the best possible way.

The complexity of the problem besides those already mentioned is also demonstrated by a tidbit I just stumbled upon on twitter. If they force a sell, they sure can't control the buyer, can they?
So what if, let's say, an investment group based in Seattle posts the highest bid? Sterling might be gone, but then so is the team.

Sterling won't be in control of the sale. And you can submit any binding conditions you require as the seller. The Bucks were just sold under the condition that they can't be moved. No reason the same can't be done here.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Sterling won't be in control of the sale. And you can submit any binding conditions you require as the seller. The Bucks were just sold under the condition that they can't be moved. No reason the same can't be done here.

Completely different scenarios though. In one case it was more important to the owner that the bucks stayed in Milwaukee, then it was that he got the most money. I doubt seriously that sterling gives a rats ass where the clippers play after he gets forced out. You are going to have hell if you try to force him to sell for less than the highest bid even if the nba controls the actual selling process.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Completely different scenarios though. In one case it was more important to the owner that the bucks stayed in Milwaukee, then it was that he got the most money. I doubt seriously that sterling gives a rats ass where the clippers play after he gets forced out. You are going to have hell if you try to force him to sell for less than the highest bid even if the nba controls the actual selling process.

Again, Sterling won't be in charge of the sale process if it happens. Everything I've read says the NBA would effectively take over the process.

Even if Sterling gets to choose the buyer, you guys are acting like he's selling an autonomous business entity that the NBA will have no control over. The NBA is effectively a franchise. The central governing organization has a ton of control, as with any franchise. They can dictate where franchises can be opened and where they can't. They can also control where (and if) they move.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Again, Sterling won't be in charge of the sale process if it happens. Everything I've read says the NBA would effectively take over the process.

Even if Sterling gets to choose the buyer, you guys are acting like he's selling an autonomous business entity that the NBA will have no control over. The NBA is effectively a franchise. The central governing organization has a ton of control, as with any franchise. They can dictate where franchises can be opened and where they can't. They can also control where (and if) they move.

And again, they are going to have legal hell if they try to force the Seattle guys to stay, given that they allowed the okc hijacking. They still have precedents they have to follow.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Completely different scenarios though. In one case it was more important to the owner that the bucks stayed in Milwaukee, then it was that he got the most money. I doubt seriously that sterling gives a rats ass where the clippers play after he gets forced out. You are going to have hell if you try to force him to sell for less than the highest bid even if the nba controls the actual selling process.

That's pretty much 100% of the argument.

If you go into business with a couple of business partners, you can force out one business partner if they are hurting the company, but if you seize their share or force them to sell at a loss, you are in for a major lawsuit.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

That's pretty much 100% of the argument.

If you go into business with a couple of business partners, you can force out one business partner if they are hurting the company, but if you seize their share or force them to sell at a loss, you are in for a major lawsuit.

Except if there are bi-laws in place that allow for the business partners to reach a majority. Then it seems pretty standard to me.

Now, in this case, there appears to be a lot of grey area on what conditions allow for the vote and that will probably we where the legal battle focuses. But the majority force out , in some permutation, is written into the contract the owners agree to when they buy the team.

[jay3189]

I'm glad not only Cuban, but Micky Arison and Dan Gilbert came out and supported against Donald Sterling, I just wish this was done sooner. But it's up to the owners to complete all of this now. I'm just mad this idiot Donald Sterling took some of the attention away from this 2014 great NBA playoffs

[Murphy3]

I kinda hope this doesn't hold up. I don't like the precedent that it sets. But, I hope he then soon sells the team.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

As I said, it will be the Clippers who want him out more than anything. He'll sell before it comes to that IMHO.

[Murphy3]

Plus, do we all want to be judged publicly and by our employers based upon perhaps the worst thing we've ever said in our lives? I seriously doubt that this is Sterling's worst offense.. but how would you hold up if someone had recorded you at your absolute worst?

[DOMINATOR]

as Cuban said this is a slippery slope.

i mean how about the owner of the orlando magic/amway Doug Devos that contributes to anti-gay marriage organizations.

[TripleDipping]

Sterling's not going to just give up on ownership just like that. I wouldn't be surprised if he fights this all the way.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by TripleDipping

Sterling's not going to just give up on ownership just like that. I wouldn't be surprised if he fights this all the way.

You may be right. But I'd point out that Sterling is 80 now, not 50. Some of that Fighting Lawyer spirit just may not be there anymore. And he will no longer have his favorite status symbol (the Clippers), around which he's said to've anchored much of his social life. Yeah, he'll still have acquaintances and hangers-on, because billionaires don't have to be lonely. But I suspect that for a lot of social A-listers (or D-listers even), an evening at the court of Donald Sterling isn't going to carry the same cachet it once did.

Also, safe to say that he is no longer enjoying the comfort and companionship of Ms. Stiviano as he has for the last 4 years, and again, as Sterling made clear to her, he can find another girl, or more precisely, he can find a girl to do what he wants. But somehow I suspect that age 80, variety isn't the novelty it used to be, and that familiarity is the bigger comfort.

What's more, Sterling lost his youngest son (from whom he had reportedly been estranged) to a drug overdose a year and a half ago. His wife of 60 years (from whom he's been estranged for the last several years) may finally be ready to divide assets and move on, and distance herself from a man who has humiliated her and her family. Sterling's surviving children are almost certainly embarrassed and sickened both by the emergence of the tapes, and likely angered by the way he has treated their mother for the last several years, with his public carryings-on with women 50 years younger. His son-in-law has already publically decried Sterling's comments on the tapes.

All of which is to say, Sterling may find himself a social pariah, isolated from family and friends who don't want to be associated with his now public attitudes on race. Most of the people who will be around him on a day-to-day basis will be people whom he's paying, and while he may already be long-accustomed to that, at some point, seeds of doubt begin to sprout.

Again, he's 80 now, not 50. Some of that Warrior Lawyer spirit may've been blunted off with time. And in a protracted legal battle (or multiple battles if his wife finally presses for divorce), time may no longer be on Sterling's side. So the question is 'fight this all the way to where?'. If it's a fight to the death, the NBA may be able to wait him out.

Originally Posted by Variant

Someone mentioned the gay marriage thing earlier. Society is slowly tilting towards accepting gay marriage. Could an owner who speaks out against it privately be forced to sell based on the same reasoning for forcing Sterling to sell? Maybe not now, but what about when there's enough popular outcry? What's the threshold?

When the league is 80% homosexual, it will definitely be a concern.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

You may be right. But I'd point out that Sterling is 80 now, not 50. Some of that Fighting Lawyer spirit just may not be there anymore. And he will no longer have his favorite status symbol (the Clippers), around which he's said to've anchored much of his social life. Yeah, he'll still have acquaintances and hangers-on, because billionaires don't have to be lonely. But I suspect that for a lot of social A-listers (or D-listers even), an evening at the court of Donald Sterling isn't going to carry the same cachet it once did.

Also, safe to say that he is no longer enjoying the comfort and companionship of Ms. Stiviano as he has for the last 4 years, and again, as Sterling made clear to her, he can find another girl, or more precisely, he can find a girl to do what he wants. But somehow I suspect that age 80, variety isn't the novelty it used to be, and that familiarity is the bigger comfort.

What's more, Sterling lost his youngest son (from whom he had reportedly been estranged) to a drug overdose a year and a half ago. His wife of 60 years (from whom he's been estranged for the last several years) may finally be ready to divide assets and move on, and distance herself from a man who has humiliated her and her family. Sterling's surviving children are almost certainly embarrassed and sickened both by the emergence of the tapes, and likely angered by the way he has treated their mother for the last several years, with his public carryings-on with women 50 years younger. His son-in-law has already publically decried Sterling's comments on the tapes.

All of which is to say, Sterling may find himself a social pariah, isolated from family and friends who don't want to be associated with his now public attitudes on race. Most of the people who will be around him on a day-to-day basis will be people whom he's paying, and while he may already be long-accustomed to that, at some point, seeds of doubt begin to sprout.

Again, he's 80 now, not 50. Some of that Warrior Lawyer spirit may've been blunted off with time. And in a protracted legal battle (or multiple battles if his wife finally presses for divorce), time may no longer be on Sterling's side. So the question is 'fight this all the way to where?'. If it's a fight to the death, the NBA may be able to wait him out.



When the league is 80% homosexual, it will definitely be a concern.

I think you entirely underestimate the defendant, as it were.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think you entirely underestimate the defendant, as it were.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I overestimate the importance to him of having people other than sycophants and suckups surrounding him. Or perhaps I underestimate the willingness of those in his orbit to continue to associate with him. I agree, it's difficult to know for sure.

However there is this report, with the caveat that you have to consider the source (NYPost) (Warning: Photo of Donald Sterling in tighty-whiteys below):

This could wind up being a pretty short ban.

Disgraced racist Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is battling cancer — surprising those around him by beating the final buzzer for as long as he has, sources told The Post on Thursday.

“They thought he would die two years ago,” one source said of Sterling, who on Tuesday was banned for life from the NBA for his now-infamous recorded racist rant.

“People have been predicting his imminent demise. I’m sure he has the best . . . drugs money can buy,” said the source, who works closely with pro sports teams. “He can do anything to keep himself alive.”

The source said some of the medication Sterling has been taking is responsible for the puffy appearance of his face.

Another source said Sterling, 80, was specifically suffering from prostate cancer.

In an ironic twist, Sterling refused to pay for prostate-cancer surgery a decade ago for then-Clippers assistant coach Kim Hughes.

“I contacted the Clippers about medical coverage and they said the surgery wouldn’t be covered,” Hughes told The Journal Times of Racine, Wis., in 2011.

“They said if they did it for one person, they’d have to do it for everybody else.”

Four Clippers players chipped in to cover the $70,000 cost.

Meanwhile, Sterling has been phoning friends for support, sources said.

“He’s calling everyone, saying: ‘Tell me I’m not a racist,’ ” a source said, noting that the friends are refusing, for fear that Sterling was recording them.
Sources said Sterling has also been telling friends that he doesn’t understand the public furor over his recorded comments tothen-girlfriend V. Stiviano, whom he scolded for publicly “associating with black people” and told not to bring any black friends to “my games.”

And insiders at ABC said Sterling was in negotiations to chat with Barbara Walters for a “20/20” interview.

An ABC spokesman declined to comment.

Media consultant Bobby Grossman said Sterling’s best hope for public forgiveness would be to “confront his demons, but he’s got to be honest about it.”

“The only recourse for someone like Donald Sterling is to come out and say: ‘I am a racist . . . I will spend the rest of my life trying [to change].’ ”
Modal TriggerDonald Sterling in a photo taken by an alleged mistress.Photo: Inside Edition

Sources also said that since the scandal erupted last week, Sterling has been holed up in the penthouse atop a nearly empty office building he owns in Beverly Hills.

He fled the oceanfront Malibu mansion he shares with his estranged wife, Shelly, paranoid about being electronically recorded, a neighbor said.

“She and Donald think there are bugs everywhere since this happened, even on their phones . . . At the office, there’s concrete walls . . . and they can sweep for bugs,” the neighbor said.

On Thursday, a deliveryman brought two pizzas to the penthouse. Sterling’s office didn’t return a call for comment.

If true, there is some additional stress to his existence.

[Variant]

Looking forward to seeing a lawyer (who has read the NBA Constituation and Bylaws) dissect all of this.

The lifetime ban seems feasible, as does threatening to retract Sterling's ability to use NBA trademarks with his teams or even participate in games... those threats alone could compel him to sell...

But what exactly is the clause that allows them to force him to sell? And how exactly is it worded that it can cover someone's private thoughts and opinions? Presumably it's not worded to only cover things deemed racist by most of society. What else could trigger this clause?

Someone mentioned the gay marriage thing earlier. Society is slowly tilting towards accepting gay marriage. Could an owner who speaks out against it privately be forced to sell based on the same reasoning for forcing Sterling to sell? Maybe not now, but what about when there's enough popular outcry? What's the threshold?

Don't get me wrong, the "just" punishment is being doled out here -- but the legal aspect of it is kinda fascinating.

[Variant]

This article is the best I've found on the legal aspects:

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

Sounds like the ethics clause that will likely be the angle used to justify the expulsion centers around behaviors that cause economic damage to the NBA. Certainly the case here, but could also apply equally if an owner came out and said he hated America, etc. (or something else equally likely to stir up much public consternation). That's where things seem to certainly be 'slippery' and wouldn't be surprised to see the owners push for a morals clause to define these behaviors and protect themselves going forward.

Regardless, the ethics clause is somewhat ambiguous. Sounds like a protracted lawsuit can likely be expected?

[EricaLubarsky]

Warriors planned to refuse to play as a protest if Silver hadn't punished Sterling.

In other news, Pacers have been protesting this way for the entire series and no one gives them credit.

[GermanDunk]

I wonder if right wing radical congressmen and senators fear to get stripped off their seats and fined when they want to steal a company from a businessman who only said something off-scale stupid.

[Five-ofan]

I'm a huge Floyd mayweather fan, but given the unlikely event that they actually are able to make sterling sell, Floyd has got to know that they can't even consider him after they oust sterling for character issues right?

[Murphy3]

Oprah is one of the many idiots that have attempted to cry racism when something occurs that they do not like. It's frequent with people of all races, 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.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Oprah is one of the many idiots that have attempted to cry racism when something occurs that they do not like. It's frequent with people of all races, 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.

Unlike the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP's On-Again Off-Again Man of the Year Donald Sterling.

Why do I have the funny feeling that a not insignificant number of the people pissed at Sterling are upset not so much because of what he said, but because one Donald Sterling vindicates 1000 John Wiley Prices? It's hard to accuse people like JWP of 'crying racism at the drop of a hat' with the recordings of a man like Sterling there for the world to hear.

Plus, people who experience racism day-in and day-out don't need tape recordings to know it's there. I once had a colleague tell me that "Racism is like cat sh!t. You can cover it up, but you can't hide the stink."

Time to change your litter box, Murph.

[spreedom]

LOL at Oprah doing anything to negatively impact race relations... she is, by absolutely all accounts, a wonderful, generous, ambivalent human being.

I get where Murph's coming from, though... she IS a liberal.

[Murphy3]

Oprah is one that blames the dislike of Obama simply due to his race..not due to his ineffectiveness as a leader. All comments like that do is divide the country further. And no, I'm not a Republican. I do lean that way, but I have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates many times throughout my lifetime both in Presidential and local elections.

Spreedom, apparently you have your head buried in the sand.. That's ok.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Oprah is one that blames the dislike of Obama simply due to his race..not due to his ineffectiveness as a leader. All comments like that do is divide the country further.

Might want to read her comments again. She said that there is built-in disrespect that the office of the President gets because of his race (a point with which I totally agree) but nowhere has she ever said "all of the negativity towards Obama is because of his race" (which is, correct me if I'm wrong, the sentiment you're attributing toward her).

Originally Posted by Murphy3

And no, I'm not a Republican. I do lean that way, but I have voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates many times throughout my lifetime both in Presidential and local elections.

Spreedom, apparently you have your head buried in the sand.. That's ok.

Strawman argument... I never called you a Republican. I just asked if you have a problem with people who you identify as liberal. That can't be the case, can it?


Surely not.

[Murphy3]

Yes, and those people that cry racism when it's not there actually make it more difficult for those that are actually victims of racism. I'm sure just about everyone has been a victim of racism at one point or another.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Yes, and those people that cry racism when it's not there actually make it more difficult for those that are actually victims of racism. I'm sure just about everyone has been a victim of racism at one point or another.

That's what Sterling shows---it's always there. It's never "not there". Even individuals who might be of goodwill and good intentions exist in a culture and in a society where racism is an ever-present force.

You can fight it or you can fuel it. Which are you doing, Murph?

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

That's what Sterling shows---it's always there. It's never "not there". Even individuals who might be of goodwill and good intentions exist in a culture and in a society where racism is an ever-present force.

You can fight it or you can fuel it. Which are you doing, Murph?

Of course there is always racism. However, when you have people such as Oprah stating that the reason as to why most people do not like Obamacare is because Obama is black... Or John Wiley Price getting angry and crying racism because someone refers to something in the budget as a "black hole".. Well, that takes away from the actual racism.

Yes, there will always be some racism. Obviously. No one is saying that there won't. My point is that when you cry wolf to make excuses for something not going your way, you actually hurt those that are truly struggling with the impact of racism.

[Underdog]

I might have to move this thread into the political forum soon...

[Five-ofan]

Jack Kerr, exactly what Jim Crowe esque law are you referring to

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Jack Kerr, exactly what Jim Crowe esque law are you referring to

I'll honor the Moderator's subtle hint to keep things as basketball-related as possible in this thread, but if you want to start a thread in the Politics section you might entitle it Shelby County v. Holder (decided last June), which invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and then examine the (white-water) raft of changes in election law at the state and local level (that began within hours of the Shelby decision being announced) that impact minority voting rights in areas such as voter registration, voter ID, poll access, reduced voting hours, reduced voting days, just to name a few.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

I'll honor the Moderator's subtle hint to keep things as basketball-related as possible in this thread, but if you want to start a thread in the Politics section you might entitle it Shelby County v. Holder (decided last June), which invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and then examine the (white-water) raft of changes in election law at the state and local level (that began within hours of the Shelby decision being announced) that impact minority voting rights in areas such as voter registration, voter ID, poll access, reduced voting hours, reduced voting days, just to name a few.

I find the outrage over voter Id laws to be... Hilarious. Iv had to have an ID to vote since I was 18 and talking to my parents so have they. If you don't have to have an ID how exactly do you stop voted fraud?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I find the outrage over voter Id laws to be... Hilarious. Iv had to have an ID to vote since I was 18 and talking to my parents so have they. If you don't have to have an ID how exactly do you stop voted fraud?

I think the solution is to propose a cheek swab and sign-in selfie, coupled with a digitized voter registry for confirming authenticity.

Suddenly, showing your ID like at a hotel check-in seems as easy as a Tony Parker layup again.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

Suddenly, showing your ID like at a hotel check-in seems as easy as a Tony Parker layup again.

Nothing is THAT easy... As a matter of fact, I propose we switch "as easy as stealing candy from a baby" with "as easy as a Tony Parker layup" in the American lexicon.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

I find the outrage over voter Id laws to be... Hilarious. Iv had to have an ID to vote since I was 18 and talking to my parents so have they. If you don't have to have an ID how exactly do you stop voted fraud?

I just started a thread in the Political Arena forum, with a link to an article which provides a broad overview of the types of changes that disparately and disproportionately affect minority voters. It's way more than just Voter ID.

NBA-related here, please.

[EricaLubarsky]

http://uproxx.com/tv/2014/04/heres-t...ne-saw-coming/

[Murphy3]

So, what's wrong with pointing out that some African Americans cry racism at the drop of a hat? It is an absolutely true observation. I by no means believe that racism does not exist. However, falsely claiming racism in certain instances simply detracts from real instances of racism. Please tell me the fault with that logic oh great one. I suppose you're not familiar with Aesop's Fables and "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"..

[Murphy3]

Why in the hell was this moved to the political forum? The link to politics is very, very minimal.. Obviously much more linked to the NBA. Looks like a little over moderation. It's not exactly like the Around the NBA forum is hopping right now.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Why in the hell was this moved to the political forum? The link to politics is very, very minimal.. Obviously much more linked to the NBA. Looks like a little over moderation. It's not exactly like the Around the NBA forum is hopping right now.

I don't see any talk pertaining to the NBA in this thread. If you guys wanna talk racism and toss around Obama's name, then you're talking politics... It is what you and Jack.Kerr made it.

If you don't like the moderation on this site, then start your own.