Donald Sterling *shakes head*

[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.

[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.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

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.

Why?

If I buy a Chik-Fil-A franchise and I want to move it next door to another one, Chik-Fil-A corporate says no and I have no recourse.

This doesn't have anything to do with precedents. The NBA decides where its teams are located.

[TripleDipping]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Why?

If I buy a Chik-Fil-A franchise and I want to move it next door to another one, Chik-Fil-A corporate says no and I have no recourse.

This doesn't have anything to do with precedents. The NBA decides where its teams are located.

Speaking of franchises like Chic-Fil-A and McDonald's, I've been thinking: can corporate withdraw the ownership of any franchisee? Under what circumstances?

[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.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

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.

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.

[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.