Sterling just helped the Lakers out.

[LALakersboy24.7]

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Lakers are probably the 1 team that might be sorry to see Sterling go. He 's been quite the asset to the Lakers over the years. Certainly a greater asset to the Lakers than he has been for the Clippers anyway.

 

[Vitamike]

Who really knows if this ends up being a good thing for 'The Lakers"

Truth be told, I think if Magic were to able to acquire the Clippers and Short Bus were to continue to run the Lakers into the ground a lot of Lakers fans might just jump ship. Hell, Mitch just might jump ship!

I can't think of a better scenario to do such a dastardly deed as a fan, can you?

Bottom line, much like 'The Donald' as in Trump, I think 'The Sterling' as in Donald, was baited by Ms Stiviano in the tapes. That said, I think the dude was too 'drunk' to notice where Trump just questions why Sterling didn't notice the bait.

Something about bait that I've learned, you need to know what bait to use to get a bite, so that's no excuse for the man's behavior.

Hey I'm all for getting this dude out of here. Donald Sterling has always been a cancer for LA sports IMO however I would hope to 'never' be judged like this dude has been by my drunken ramblings.

Of course I'm a mushing dunk, so (In my best load & drunken voice) 'I looove allls yoooous guuuuys, sooooo much!' I reeeeally, reeeeally doooo!'

 

[wildturkey]

I need some clarification. I keep seeing everyone (media, fans, etc) say Magic might buy the team. Now I know Magic is a very wealthy man thanks to some wise investments but he doesn't have that kind of dough to just be the outright owner, right? I thought that even with the Dodgers, he's just the famous face of a larger group with some real heavy hitters. So I guess what I'm saying is, how much does he actually own?

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

I need some clarification. I keep seeing everyone (media, fans, etc) say Magic might buy the team. Now I know Magic is a very wealthy man thanks to some wise investments but he doesn't have that kind of dough to just be the outright owner, right? I thought that even with the Dodgers, he's just the famous face of a larger group with some real heavy hitters. So I guess what I'm saying is, how much does he actually own?

I hear he has close to a billion dollars, so he could get some others to invest, to join in on the fun.

 

[trojanfan12]

I need some clarification. I keep seeing everyone (media, fans, etc) say Magic might buy the team. Now I know Magic is a very wealthy man thanks to some wise investments but he doesn't have that kind of dough to just be the outright owner, right? I thought that even with the Dodgers, he's just the famous face of a larger group with some real heavy hitters. So I guess what I'm saying is, how much does he actually own?

There talking about that group that Magic is a part of that bought the Dodgers.

 

[wildturkey]

Yeah, I know they are talking about the group Magic is in. I guess what I'm wondering is if he has the controlling shares. I was under the impression that other people in the group own more of the team but Magic is more the face of the group (though he still owns a good size chunk)

 

[Retroram52]

The new group to stick their bids in the ring for the Clip Joint are headed by David Geffen and Oprah. Oprah doesn't want to run the team she just wants to be known as a black that is rich enough to play with the big bucks boys. What a flippin joke!

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah, I know they are talking about the group Magic is in. I guess what I'm wondering is if he has the controlling shares. I was under the impression that other people in the group own more of the team but Magic is more the face of the group (though he still owns a good size chunk)

Yeah, that's basically how it would be if that group bought the Clippers. Magic is a welfare recipient compared to the rest of that particular group.

 

[trojanfan12]

The new group to stick their bids in the ring for the Clip Joint are headed by David Geffen and Oprah. Oprah doesn't want to run the team she just wants to be known as a black that is rich enough to play with the big bucks boys. What a flippin joke!

Sounds PERFECT for the Clippers!!

 

[trojanfan12]

This article does a pretty good job of explaining why it's unlikely that the NBA can force Sterling to sell or take his franchise:


NBA Lacks the Authority To Force Donald Sterling To Sell the Clippers | FOX Sports on MSN


For those who may not want to read the article. Here the Readers Digest version:


The NBA's Constitution and By-Laws list 10 reasons that an owner can be striped of his franchise providing they get a 3/4 vote:


1.) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.
2.) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article 5.
3.) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.
4.) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
5.) Wager or countenance wagering by its officers or employees on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.
6.) Willfully permit open betting, pool selling, or any other form of gambling upon any premises owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Member or an Owner, except, subject to Article 8(a), for gambling activities that are lawful in the applicable jurisdiction and do not involve in any way, directly or indirectly, gambling with respect to any aspect of the Association’s games, events, property, players, or other personnel.
7.) Offer, agree, conspire, or attempt to lose or control the score of any game participated in by a Team operated by a Member of the Association, or fail to suspend immediately any officer or any Player or other employee of the Member who shall be found guilty, in a court of law or in any hearing sanctioned by this Constitution and By- Laws, of offering, agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to lose or control the score of any such game or of being interested in any pool or wager on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.
8.) Disband its Team during the Season, dissolve its business, or cease its operation.
9.) Willfully fail to present its Team at the time and place it is scheduled to play in an Exhibition, Regular Season, or Playoff Game.
10.) Willfully misrepresent any material fact contained in its application for Membership in the Association.


Of those 10, numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 can be tossed out because they don't apply in any way, shape or form.


That leaves 1 and 4. 1 is out because of the word "willfully". Sterling didn't willfully violate anything. As repugnant as his comments were, they were still recorded and given to TMZ without his knowledge or consent. So that eliminates #1.


#4 is a remote possibility because of the 3rd party provision. It could be argued that he failed to meet his 3rd party obligations because of the pulled sponsorships. However, the intent behind #4 is a financial aspect (such as an owner becoming insolvent) rather than a public relations perspective.


Add to that the fact that Sterling is a very rich man, with nothing better to do than spend his money fighting with the NBA and we're likely looking at a years long legal battle that the NBA is unlikely to win.


I'm not sure that the NBA wants to get into such a situation, especially since they have already achieved the goal of removing him from the NBA anyhow.

 

[lakersrule]

I'm not sure that the NBA wants to get into such a situation, especially since they have already achieved the goal of removing him from the NBA anyhow.

I don't think the other owners really want to have a vote on forcing him to sell his team either. They're coming out with the right sound bytes, but when it comes down to it, I don't think they want to have to entertain this slippery slope scenario of voting out one of their owners like this.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think the other owners really want to have a vote on forcing him to sell his team either. They're coming out with the right sound bytes, but when it comes down to it, I don't think they want to have to entertain this slippery slope scenario of voting out one of their owners like this.

Exactly. As despicable as it was, it was a private conversation that was illegally recorded. There isn't a person on the face of the earth that hasn't said something from time to time that they are glad they don't have to answer for publically.

These owners know that whatever they do to Sterling can ultimately be done to them. Maybe it wouldn't be over racist comments. But there are plenty of other comments and/or actions that could get some of these guys in hot water with the league if they were made public.

I wonder how many of these guys mistresses just got a real nice, expensive gift bought for them because of the Sterling situation?

 

[Retroram52]

As much as I hate the guy, Mark Cuban was right. And TJF12 what you point ourt is correct also. It is a slippery slope and the league does not have the right to take his team from him absed on a private conversation.

From all indications, Sterling is going to fight the forced selling of his team and the league does not have the legal authority to take it from him or force him to sell especially with the thin case they have based on by-laws violations.

What is ultimately going to kill him his the court of public opinion and people refusing to buy his product in any form. Players also leaving will effect this along with the massive departure of sponsor dollars. But forcing Sterling to sell based on what they have especially when it is apparent this was a set-up? The guy is a sleazeball but there is nothing illegal about that just like Cuban stated.

 

[trojanfan12]

As much as I hate the guy, Mark Cuban was right. And TJF12 what you point ourt is correct also. It is a slippery slope and the league does not have the right to take his team from him absed on a private conversation.

From all indications, Sterling is going to fight the forced selling of his team and the league does not have the legal authority to take it from him or force him to sell especially with the thin case they have based on by-laws violations.

What is ultimately going to kill him his the court of public opinion and people refusing to buy his product in any form. Players also leaving will effect this along with the massive departure of sponsor dollars. But forcing Sterling to sell based on what they have especially when it is apparent this was a set-up? The guy is a sleazeball but there is nothing illegal about that just like Cuban stated.

Sterling has never cared about attendance, players, etc. He has only been interested in making money and being able to say: "I own a professional sports team". Now, if the league tries to take his team, he'll get to go to court, where he will very likely win and then be able to say: "I kicked the NBA's ass".

Personally, I think the smart move for the NBA will be to wait a 3-4 weeks and then say "Our lawyers have informed us that we do not have any legal standing to strip Sterling of his team. However, he is still banned for life and cannot participate in NBA activities or in the operation of the Clippers".

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

How can a guy who's been banned from anything NBA related still be allowed to own an NBA team? That's basically saying "you're not allowed to do anything but still get to pick up a nice fat cheque at the end of each month".

If the league wants him out that bad, all they can do is threaten to kick the Clippers out the NBA. That way the players will revolt, the fans will revolt and Sterling will be FORCED to sell the team for financial reasons.

 

[lakersrule]

Maybe it will happen...

 

[wildturkey]

I read that Clay Travis piece and it comes off more like a troll piece. Specifically when he starts talking about his past as a lawyer and how it was irresponsible for the media to overlook all of this the last couple of days. What makes it trollish is that part is bullshit. Every network and news site I read since Tuesday cited the by laws and poured over them just as he claimed no one did. And 90% of them say the NBA is justified based on how their laws are written, 9% say it's muddy but Sterling will likely lose, and 1% just flat out don't know. Travis' just reeks of being contrarian to drive click counts.

FWIW, the only thing that everyone can agree on is its doubtful this gets resolved quickly.

 

[Retroram52]

Clause 13 of the conduct portion of the NBA By-laws is the only applicable clause and right now, that clause states that Sterling can only be banned when he has operated the club in such a fashion with racism governing the day-to-day activities of the club promoting racism which is not the case. Several of my lawyer buddies indicate Sterling would win a fight in court against the NBA because he did nothing illegal.

The NBA right now has a very thin case regarding forcing Sterling to sell his franchise. There is no violation of Clause 13 and he would win that case against the league which is where this thing is going. This is fast become a thought-police type of infraction but it was a private conversation recorded in the privacy of Sterling's residence and nothing more.

How many of the same solidarity-based players who stood as one against Sterling would want their locker room convos taped and released to the public say for example when they are discussing gays, trannies, or talkin' about the latest honey somebody scoped-out. Remember Kobe apologizing for his comments on "fags". I know their comments could hold them in violation just like Sterling's comments.

The fact of the matter is this is rapidly becoming about a double standard in racism that has been manifested glaringly in the past couple of days. A recent black Congressman was caught calling Chief Justice Thomas an "Uncle Tom". When pressed to accept the notion that his language was racist, he retorted that because he is black, he is permitted to call another black that term. But if Whitey says it, its racism.

This all stinks to high heavens. Granted Sterling is a douchebag but he has the right under the first amendment to speak his mind especially in the privacy of his own home without fear of repraisal. To call Sterling to the carpet and not everyone else including Black players who routinely use the "N" word to refer to other Blacks reaks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[trojanfan12]

Clause 13 of the conduct portion of the NBA By-laws is the only applicable clause and right now, that clause states that Sterling can only be banned when he has operated the club in such a fashion with racism governing the day-to-day activities of the club promoting racism which is not the case. Several of my lawyer buddies indicate Sterling would win a fight in court against the NBA because he did nothing illegal.

The NBA right now has a very thin case regarding forcing Sterling to sell his franchise. There is no violation of Clause 13 and he would win that case against the league which is where this thing is going. This is fast become a thought-police type of infraction but it was a private conversation recorded in the privacy of Sterling's residence and nothing more.

How many of the same solidarity-based players who stood as one against Sterling would want their locker room convos taped and released to the public say for example when they are discussing gays, trannies, or talkin' about the latest honey somebody scoped-out. Remember Kobe apologizing for his comments on "fags". I know their comments could hold them in violation just like Sterling's comments.

The fact of the matter is this is rapidly becoming about a double standard in racism that has been manifested glaringly in the past couple of days. A recent black Congressman was caught calling Chief Justice Thomas an "Uncle Tom". When pressed to accept the notion that his language was racist, he retorted that because he is black, he is permitted to call another black that term. But if Whitey says it, its racism.

This all stinks to high heavens. Granted Sterling is a douchebag but he has the right under the first amendment to speak his mind especially in the privacy of his own home without fear of repraisal. To call Sterling to the carpet and not everyone else including Black players who routinely use the "N" word to refer to other Blacks reaks of hypocrisy of the highest order.

Well said.