Donald Sterling doesn't want Blacks at games.

[nuraman00]

How the NBA can oust Donald Sterling and sell the Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

 

[nuraman00]

This article seems to have a legal / lawyerly slant toward it.

+++++++++++++++++++++

http://www.nba.com/2014/news/featur...-angeles-clippers/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt3c

NOBODY ASKED ME, BUT...

What, exactly, do the Sterlings think is going to happen in the next 10 days?

Breathless reporting last week indicated that Donald Sterling had agreed to let Shelly Sterling, his wife, handle the sale of the Clippers (Donald Sterling has been banned from the NBA for life by Commissioner Adam Silver). That may well be true.

But as far as the NBA is concerned, it is irrelevant.

Once again: The only person that can sell the Los Angeles Clippers is the team's owner, Donald T. Sterling. He can't "give" control, or his share of the team, to his wife, even though they reportedly have a 50-50 share of the team in a trust.

Any change in team ownership must be approved by the NBA's Board of Governors, which is going ahead with plans to hold a special meeting June 3 in which owners will vote on whether to remove Donald Sterling as owner. He has until midnight Tuesday to formally answer the league's charge, filed against him last week.

As SI.com's Michael McCann has ably written and said on television time and again, Shelly Sterling is not the Clippers' principal owner; Donald Sterling is. He's been the one to go to BOG meetings (when he didn't, team president Andy Roeser, put on indefinite leave of absence by the league earlier this month, attended) and the one to make final decisions about the team.

The 50-50 financial split doesn't matter, either: Lots of principal owners don't own the majority interest in their teams. Such an arrangement is in place in Chicago, where Jerry Reinsdorf is the Bulls' controlling owner. He actually has a minority financial stake in the team. But Reinsdorf, who does have controlling interest in the corporation that runs the team, is considered the team's principal owner by the NBA.

For Shelly Sterling to be able to sell the team, the NBA would have to first approve her as primary owner. It does not matter what Donald Sterling says is in play; the league is the final arbiter of who buys its teams.

Anyone who watched the NBA manipulate the sale of the Sacramento Kings last year from the preferred group of the then-owners, the Maloof Family, knows this.

The Maloofs had a deal with Seattle businessman Chris Hansen to sell the team. The NBA did not want Hansen to buy the team, because he planned to move it to Seattle. Hansen did not, in the end, buy the team, even though his valuations on the percentage of the team he would buy were higher than the league's preferred group, led by Vivek Ranadive.

In the end, under intense pressure from the league, the Maloofs gave in and sold to the Ranadive Group, who pledged to keep the team in Sacramento. (Just last week, the Sacramento City Council voted 7-2 to give final approval to financing the proposed $477 million arena that is to be built downtown in time for the 2017-18 season.)

It does seem clear that Sterling is looking to meet several objectives before that June 3 Board of Governors meeting:

1) Controlling his asset. Once the BOG votes him out, he's out. He would be made whole financially when the league finds a buyer for the Clippers; part of the sale of the team would go toward paying any outstanding debts or liabilities the former owner incurred. But he'd have no say in who or for how much the team was sold.

2) Maximizing the sales price. At the price the team surely will sell -- at least $1 billion, as perhaps as high as $2 billion -- every dollar is magnified. If prospective owners know the NBA is desperate to sell, they could try to get the team at a lower price. (There is conflicting debate among industry sources on whether this will actually occur, though, with one source knowledgeable in the field saying Sunday that the NBA should be fine in handling the sale of the team. "Either way," the source said, "I assume they will hire a reputable firm and as long as they can sell clear title it should get a market price if auctioned effectively.")

3) Leaving the stage with at least a shred of dignity. Selling the team on his own would save him the humiliation of having it taken from him by the league, which will surely happen after the June 3 meeting. But it will be next to impossible for him to pull this off before then, given his lifetime ban.

Hence the olive branch of Shelly Sterling handling the sale. But sources continue to indicate the NBA will not allow Shelly Sterling to ever have any financial piece of the Clippers going forward; that is, she would never be approved as an owner of the team. (That is different from, say, getting special treatment at games, and keeping the good parking, and having access to suites and the like. That's a decision for the team to make.)

That doesn't mean the league couldn't work with Shelly Sterling to help facilitate the sale of the team -- as long as she is out when the sale is done. Selling the team through the league, for example, could potentially help the Sterlings deal with the capital gains issues that will come up when the team is sold. But she can't "sell" the team. Only Donald Sterling can. That is a key distinction.

And there certainly will be any number of suitors for the Clippers.

Several high-profile groups and people have expressed interest in buying the team, with record mogul David Geffen, media magnate Oprah Winfrey and Oracle CEO Larry Ellison discussing putting a mega-bid together. Hall of Famer and L.A. Dodgers minority owner Magic Johnson is also thinking about putting down a bid. ESPN.com reported that Grant Hill has put a group together that wants to bid. ESPN.com and TMZ.com reported Sunday that former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was to meet with Shelly Sterling to talk about putting a bid on the table (Ballmer was part of Hansen's Kings-to-Seattle group last year.)

There could be other potential groups contemplating bids as well, according to industry sources.

Former Warner Bros. and Yahoo! chairman Terry Semel has the wherewithal to front a substantial bid for any sports team. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a billionaire surgeon who bought Magic Johnson's 4 percent stake in the Lakers, is believed to be one of the wealthiest individuals in Southern California.

"He loves basketball," one industry source said, "and he's finally come to the realization he's never going to become the Lakers' [majority] owner."

There's also the issue of Madison Square Garden, which bought the Lakers' former home, the Great Western Forum, in 2012. MSG spent millions renovating the building to make it into an arena capable of competing for concert acts with Staples Center, the home of the Clippers, Lakers and NHL's L.A. Kings. The new Inglewood Forum has a lot of amenities, but no anchor tenant.

MSG couldn't buy another NBA team, as it already owns the Knicks. But there are certainly any number of corporations with whom MSG does business that have the scratch to bid on the Clippers -- and, perhaps down the road, provide MSG a potential 40-60 nights a year at Inglewood.

 

[MHSL82]

Attorney says Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling is suing NBA for $1 billion - ESPN Los Angeles

 

[nuraman00]

 

[MHSL82]

Atlanta Hawks owner Bruce Levenson selling team - ESPN

 

[MHSL82]

Atlanta Hawks' upheaval 3 months in making - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

Ferry shouldn't have read that aloud, especially if it wasn't his view. He also should have found out who wrote that scouting report before it got to that document. For saying what he said in such a public meeting, even if it weren't his views, he should be fired.

I don't think the owner, Levenson, has done anything wrong.

 

[MHSL82]

The Hawks CEO's name is ironic: "Koon"in.

Also: Ex-teammate Kyle Korver says Luol Deng believes Danny Ferry, Atlanta Hawks not racist - ESPN

 

[nuraman00]

MHSL82, what are your thoughts on the incident, and what do you think of the outcomes?

 

[MHSL82]

MHSL82, what are your thoughts on the incident, and what do you think of the outcomes?

I don't really care. I mean, I should, but I don't. They are entitled to their opinions. I don't agree. Don't think they stand to gain anything from saying what they said. They have the right to do so, but sponsors, the league, the fans, etc. have the right to speak to, often with money and to take action wherever they are legally allowed to do to protect their product. Not saying that keeping it to yourself negates the negative of those positions, but it limits it and if you can't change your mind, then keep it shut - it's not good for business and it hurts some people.

I'm also not saying that keeping it to yourself means that you don't show it elsewhere where you shouldn't - in draft picks, free agency moves, ticketing, merchandise, etc. You shouldn't show it anywhere, even directly if you are interested in making the most money you can. If you are interested in being in line with what most see as the right way to go, then changing your opinions would be in store - but I'm not going to worry about it because I know they are entitled to their opinions and I can't change them, just make them hide them?

Having said all that, there are bigger things in life to get all worked over - I mean, if it were my job, like it is for the players, it'd be a bigger deal than it is to me, but it isn't. I don't like it being said, thought, or whatever, but I have other things to worry about. To those who are affected more, and there are some serious affects, do what you can. Some people can get indignant, self-righteous, preachy, whatever. I'm just looking at it from a why would you do this when you own a business and then why would you do this as a person. Now, there are scales and extremes. I'm talking about a sliding scale of bad to worst.

 

[nuraman00]

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2014/09/12/1935_001.pdf



It's about half way down the fourth page, it's dated June 6 2014