Donald Sterling sues NBA,wife,Adam Silver and LAC basketball club for damages

[Mecca of the “B” Team]

I don't get how they can take a guys business away for being a bigot? That's un-American. Stupid people own all sorts of businesses and they aren't losing them.

Easy.

Because he's bad for business.

Silver has an obligation to every owner, not just Sterling.

The sponsors will revolt.

The players will revolt.

The NBA will lose money.

So, he's got to go...

If it don't make dollars, it don't make sense.

The only problem I see with this course of action is, they open the door for the next Hot button, Capt. Save-a-ho, politically correct cause.

What happens when a Owner speaks out against Gay rights?

Marriage equality?

I personally am pro both of these things.

But, who am I to tell anyone else what to believe?

Slippery slope just as Mark Cuban predicted.

 

[starbigd]

They had ample reasons before, I hope he keeps this stirred up for years.

Nothing he did before cost them ALL corporate sponsors.......and they have all said they are not doing business with the NBA as long as he is there.

It's a simple and easy decision for the league. He has damaged the league......this is why he'll get voted out, and why he'll lose any court case......because he cannot deny this.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

He needs to let this one go. He's just being the ultimate troll. Just take the money and walk off into the sunset.

 

[jakedog56]

They're not taking his franchise because he's a bigot.

They're taking it because he's damaging the league and costing them money, which is well within their rights.

If he had been the CEO of your company, the board would have voted him out in under 5 minutes when this story broke.

I really don't see how or why people can't seem to grasp this. This is a BUSINESS move for the league, don't get it twisted.

I don't see how this is relevant. The question is whether or not the NBA has the right to FORCE him to sell his team. I don't have a clear answer on that but I have my doubts that they do.

I don't like the guy but I don't see that the league has legal grounds to force sale without his approval.

 

[jakedog56]

I should note that I do know that the league can fine him, suspend him, and/or bar him from attending games.

The league can certainly pressure him to sell, but actually forcing him to sell is another issue.

 

[tlance]

I don't see how this is relevant. The question is whether or not the NBA has the right to FORCE him to sell his team. I don't have a clear answer on that but I have my doubts that they do.

I don't like the guy but I don't see that the league has legal grounds to force sale without his approval.

The NBA is a private association. They are not subject to constitutional rights, etc. They could technically force someone to sell for no reason at all.

Still won't be pretty though.

 

[LTCF]

They're not taking his franchise because he's a bigot.

They're taking it because he's damaging the league and costing them money, which is well within their rights.

If he had been the CEO of your company, the board would have voted him out in under 5 minutes when this story broke.

I really don't see how or why people can't seem to grasp this. This is a BUSINESS move for the league, don't get it twisted.

There is a huge difference being an owner of a business and being the CEO. He isn't costing anyone money except himself. You simply cannot take someones property for being stupid.

 

[RobToxin]

Rob Toxin

who aer those chicks in your picture?

HOT!

They are the Fox Sports Southwest Girls, Kaime and Liddy.

And they are SFW enough for Google.

I hope....

 

[LTCF]

The NBA is a private association. They are not subject to constitutional rights, etc. They could technically force someone to sell for no reason at all.

Still won't be pretty though.

The NBA IS a private association but that DOES NOT give them the permission to have rules that are unconstitutional, so technically NO THEY CAN'T. Nobody likes the KKK but they are allowed to exist.

 

[LTCF]

Nothing he did before cost them ALL corporate sponsors.......and they have all said they are not doing business with the NBA as long as he is there.

It's a simple and easy decision for the league. He has damaged the league......this is why he'll get voted out, and why he'll lose any court case......because he cannot deny this.

The league might indeed vote him out but I'll bet he wins in court.

 

[jakedog56]

The NBA is a private association. They are not subject to constitutional rights, etc. They could technically force someone to sell for no reason at all.

Still won't be pretty though.

Just because they are a private institution does not preclude them from following the law.

Even if there is formal procedure in their by-laws to allow for them to force an owner to sell a team (and I am not clear if there is or not) does not mean that Sterling cannot challenge a)it's legality and b)whether he actually did or did not fulfill the requirements for the NBA to initiate proceedings to force the sale of the team.

At this point, it is more of the issue of if his wife had the right to sell the team or not. If she didn't then the sale would be voided and Sterling returned to ownership. Then the NBA can pursue forcing him to sell the team if they want to.

 

[LTCF]

In fact, I think that's why the league hasn't voted him out yet. They know that it will be overturned in a court of law. So, they are trying real hard to make him sell the team so that they don't have to drag it through the courts only to find out they can't force him out. Heck, if they could just vote him out, WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT ALREADY?

 

[TxHeat]

Had to see this coming from such a litigious MOFO. But I think the law is more on his side than the league. The league must have thought he would have just one lucid moment and go quietly in the night. They were wrong!!

 

[LTCF]

Just because they are a private institution does not preclude them from following the law.

Being a private institution does not give them free reign to circumvent the constitutional rights of an individual. It's still a country based on the rule of law and the constitution is the ultimate rules.

 

[RobToxin]

In fact, I think that's why the league hasn't voted him out yet. They know that it will be overturned in a court of law. So, they are trying real hard to make him sell the team so that they don't have to drag it through the courts only to find out they can't force him out. Heck, if they could just vote him out, WHY HAVEN'T THEY DONE IT ALREADY?

I don't know about them but I do know, if I was in their shoes, voting him out of the league would be the last thing I would want to do.

Once you set that precedent, there's no turning back.

You could then be the next guy voted out of the league.

 

[trojanfan12]

Some think it's as simple as "he signed on for the league being able to do this when he bought the team". Problem is, it really isn't that simple.


Just because something is in a contract or is a by-law, doesn't mean it is legal or will hold up in court if challenged. It is not uncommon to have provisions/clauses in contracts for years until someone actually challenges it in court and a change is forced.


Heck, laws get passed and then later struck down as unconstitutional. No reason to think a contract or the NBA's by-laws are somehow different.


Also at issue is the fact that it was a private conversation that was never intended to be made public. It's not as if he called a press conference to announce how much he hates minorities.

 

[starbigd]

Some think it's as simple as "he signed on for the league being able to do this when he bought the team". Problem is, it really isn't that simple.


Just because something is in a contract or is a by-law, doesn't mean it is legal or will hold up in court if challenged. It is not uncommon to have provisions/clauses in contracts for years until someone actually challenges it in court and a change is forced.


Heck, laws get passed and then later struck down as unconstitutional. No reason to think a contract or the NBA's by-laws are somehow different.


Also at issue is the fact that it was a private conversation that was never intended to be made public. It's not as if he called a press conference to announce how much he hates minorities.

He's free to challenge the rules.....but I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

His actions UNDOUBTEDLY damaged the league. Of this there is no question or debate. The other owners and league has every right to remove him.

In terms of the private convo, that is irrelevant. The NBA didn't obtain the convo illegally, they didn't do anything but react AFTER it was made public. For that to be relevant here it would have to be proven they actually had something to do with making that private information public, which they did not.

 

[LTCF]

He's free to challenge the rules.....but I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

His actions UNDOUBTEDLY damaged the league. Of this there is no question or debate. The other owners and league has every right to remove him.

In terms of the private convo, that is irrelevant. The NBA didn't obtain the convo illegally, they didn't do anything but react AFTER it was made public. For that to be relevant here it would have to be proven they actually had something to do with making that private information public, which they did not.

It doesn't matter that he damaged the league and the other owners have NO RIGHT to remove him. The courts will side with Sterling. The owners know it too or they'd have already removed Donald. Also, taping someone is illegal unless they are notified and agree to the taping. Still, that has nothing to do with the NBA's case.

The constitution simply will not allow the league to take away Sterlings property for being a racist.

 

[LTCF]

He's free to challenge the rules.....but I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

His actions UNDOUBTEDLY damaged the league. Of this there is no question or debate. The other owners and league has every right to remove him.

In terms of the private convo, that is irrelevant. The NBA didn't obtain the convo illegally, they didn't do anything but react AFTER it was made public. For that to be relevant here it would have to be proven they actually had something to do with making that private information public, which they did not.

The league knew of his previous racial problems that the courts punished him for and the owners STILL DID NOT REMOVE HIM. Those were ACTUAL legal problems with keeping blacks out of his real estate holdings. That tells me the league knows it can't really kick him out. If they didn't boot him over REAL legal issues regarding race, they can't kick him out over being stupid and saying a racially charged statement.

 

[Kinzu]

Just because they are a private institution does not preclude them from following the law.

Even if there is formal procedure in their by-laws to allow for them to force an owner to sell a team (and I am not clear if there is or not) does not mean that Sterling cannot challenge a)it's legality and b)whether he actually did or did not fulfill the requirements for the NBA to initiate proceedings to force the sale of the team.

At this point, it is more of the issue of if his wife had the right to sell the team or not. If she didn't then the sale would be voided and Sterling returned to ownership. Then the NBA can pursue forcing him to sell the team if they want to.

Option B there is the big one.
I'm not sure the league really has the authority under their bylaws to force the sale. He did not willfully cause the league harm. The recording that hurt the league was an injustice to him. He did not say what was on that tape with the intent of releasing it to the world. He also did not technical violate any of the league's or team's contracts due to the recording.

The problem for the league in a way is that Sterling is a victim of a crime due to that tape, and they are punishing him for it. The league will likely need more than the statements made on that tape to get rid of him.

Another issue for the league is these private investigators. If they set a precedent for forcing out owners due to unpopular opinions on race, sexuality, and political opinions then what happens if Sterling digs up dirt and makes it public on his fellow owners or league officials? You can't punish Sterling without the others.