Donald Sterling *shakes head*

[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.

[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?

[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 Thespiralgoeson

I dunno. I see where he's coming from, I guess, but I have trouble seeing this as any kind of violation of Sterling's rights because this is an entirely private matter that's being handled internally by the NBA. If this were the government forcing him to part from his property, that would be different. But like Jack.Kerr said, the NBA is a collection of business partners, and they just don't want to do business with him anymore. Should they be legally required to keep doing business with them, even if it's detrimental to their product and people are walking away from it droves? It's sort of like a home owner's association- sure, you own the house, but when you buy the house you enter into a contract with the other home owners. If you don't maintain your house and it becomes a dilapidated sh*thole and starts bringing down the property values in the whole neighborhood, they can force you to sell your home, and they're well within their legal right to do so.

Considering homeowners associations are one of the worst legal things in this country, I'm not sure I'd use them as an example of someone being right.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Considering homeowners associations are one of the worst legal things in this country, I'm not sure I'd use them as an example of someone being right.

They're the worst thing around until you have neighbors that won't get in line and start affecting your life or your property value.

Pretty appropriate comparison I'd say.

[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.

[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.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

They're the worst thing around until you have neighbors that won't get in line and start affecting your life or your property value.

Pretty appropriate comparison I'd say.

Hoas are great in theory, and I don't have an issue with them when used correctly. The problem is that they vastly overstep their authority(or at least what their authority should be) the vast majority of the time

[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.

[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.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Five-ofan

Considering homeowners associations are one of the worst legal things in this country, I'm not sure I'd use them as an example of someone being right.

Didn't say they were right- OR that it's necessarily right or proper for the NBA to force Sterling to part with his property. I'm just saying neither case is illegal. It's a private matter, and it doesn't strike me as a case of Sterling being persecuted somehow.

Believe me, I have no love HOA's. The one in my neighborhood is particularly draconian and about the biggest pain in the ass on the planet.

[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?

[TripleDipping]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Believe me, I have no love HOA's. The one in my neighborhood is particularly draconian and about the biggest pain in the ass on the planet.

Mine doesn't even have the balls to issue a statement to the neighborhood that pet owners need to clean up after their pets done sh*tting other people's lawns.

[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.

[Five-ofan]

Originally Posted by TripleDipping

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?

Yes they can. When they can show that you aren't following franchise protocols or meeting quality requirements. A friend of mine owns several Subways and it's in the contract that you sign that says that you are subject to inspections any time corporate wishes, that sufficient complaints from customers will result in a corporate employeed manager being hired for your franchise at your expense and if deemed necasarry your franchise license can be terminated.

[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.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

We just saw a CEO basically forced to resign because of his Christian beliefs that led him to be against homosexual marriage. What exactly is next?

Marriage Equality, probably.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.