tOffical all things Sterling thread

[True Lakers Fan]

Well so far the Los Angeles Times, ESPN and the other sites have all cited the same provision that provides for the owners to remove one of their own with a two-thirds vote if any owners becomes a detriment to the league. The rule was intended for financial inability to manage, and few others, but all of the legal experts argue that Sterling's now publicized opinions is so detrimental to the NBA that leaving him in would severely damage the NBA. Considering that the NBPA had planned to boycott the games, some of them have said they would be wanting out of their contracts and all of the sponsers pulled their ad's the - Financial ability to operate effectively would be an issue. There is no question that he must be removed. I think within the next few weeks will tell, but the owners will call him and advise him to sell the team or face severe consequences and I think Sterling will sell. Even Frank McCourt buckled to the power of the commissioner.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The full document is below. Though commissioner Adam Silver did not cite the rules in play in Sterling's situation, we think we can figure them out.
Article 24(l) is the big one. The "best interests of the Association" clause that essentially gives Silver the power to levy any punishment he sees fit when a violation is not specifically covered elsewhere. (It also sets the maximum amount for Sterling's fine.)

The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner's judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.
​

 

[Psych-Ward]

The marketplace can.


The NBA cannot. They have guidelines they must follow.

Do you actually believe the bullshit that flows from your mouth Mr Great and Powerful Oz???

 

[Wazmankg]

I love the new avatar JDM. It's perfect. You'll be proven wrong here... or he won't fight it like I predict and you'll continue to say you are right and he could have won had he fought it. My guess is the latter.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

He's nothing more than a franchise? I thought he was some racist geezer on his last legs who realizes that he can't take a billion dollars with him and is willing to throw caution to the wind to bang twenty-something bimbos.

It's more complicated than that. This is a billion dollar business with a real uncomfortable relation with anti-trust law. We're not talking about a 7-11 here.

I agree, but why should Don Sterling have the ability to destroy the brand without being ousted? NBA owners should have the right to protect themselves from a fellow franchisee ruining their brand name. That's just what they're doing, protecting their own assets. I'm sure Don Sterling will be well compensated when he sells the franchise.

 

[JDM]

The full document is below. Though commissioner Adam Silver did not cite the rules in play in Sterling's situation, we think we can figure them out.
Article 24(l) is the big one. The "best interests of the Association" clause that essentially gives Silver the power to levy any punishment he sees fit when a violation is not specifically covered elsewhere. (It also sets the maximum amount for Sterling's fine.)

The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner's judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.
​

That requires a rule violation (which did not occur), and that rule violation to not have a punishment already set, which can never be the case for the owner as all owner punishments are, under article 15, determined by the other owners.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

yea the pope is gonna make him a saint because he hasnt said a racist remark

I'm cool with that, I probably deserve it…

:rapture:

 

[Scorpion14]

Well right now Sterling owns the Clippers and its a private business so he doesn't have to sell it. What bothers me about this is should a person be forced to, lose their company or business if they say something the media doesn't agree with. If any of you own a company and say Chiquita is coming late to work every day so you fire her. She then comes out and calls you a racist and she gets several of her co workers to agree with her. Do you like the idea that you may lose your company because of this.

Sterling did nothing wrong. The first amendment gives him the right to free speech whether you agree with him or not. Worse yet he did this in the privacy of his own home and this mistress of his taped this which is ILLEGAL. No proof whatsoever that Sterling was racist towards any of his players or coaches.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Pelicans owner Tom Benson [ame="[MEDIA=twitter]461225166585217024[/MEDIA]"]released this statement:[/ame]

"In light of the serious matter facing our league, a matter than transcends sports, the New Orleans Pelicans fully support the decisions made today by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and will fully support his recommendations moving forward."
​

From a statement by Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf and president Michael Reinsdorf:

"We completely support commissioner Silver's decision today regarding Clippers owner Donald Sterling and praise him for his prompt investigation and action. The commissioner was correct to ban Mr. Sterling from all official NBA business, to levy the stiffest allowable fine, and we will support his recommendation to press for Mr. Sterling to relinquish his ownership of the Los Angeles Clippers franchise."
​

 

[Scorpion14]

I agree, but why should Don Sterling have the ability to destroy the brand without being ousted? NBA owners should have the right to protect themselves from a fellow franchisee ruining their brand name. That's just what they're doing, protecting their own assets. I'm sure Don Sterling will be well compensated when he sells the franchise.

The media is the one destroying it. We have heard the same stuff whenever the NFL or NBA goes on strike. We will boycott the sport. We aren't coming back. Give it a few months and new stories come up and this whole thing blows over. Paying guys millions to play a game they love seven months out of the year is nowhere close to slavery.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Well right now Sterling owns the Clippers and its a private business so he doesn't have to sell it. What bothers me about this is should a person be forced to, lose their company or business if they say something the media doesn't agree with. If any of you own a company and say Chiquita is coming late to work every day so you fire her. She then comes out and calls you a racist and she gets several of her co workers to agree with her. Do you like the idea that you may lose your company because of this.

Sterling did nothing wrong. The first amendment gives him the right to free speech whether you agree with him or not. Worse yet he did this in the privacy of his own home and this mistress of his taped this which is ILLEGAL. No proof whatsoever that Sterling was racist towards any of his players or coaches.

1st amendment only protects him from government prosecution, not from the NBA's bylaws.

 

[JDM]

1st amendment only protects him from government prosecution, not from the NBA's bylaws.

The NBA by laws do not have a method for the team to be removed from him in the current situation.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

The media is the one destroying it. We have heard the same stuff whenever the NFL or NBA goes on strike. We will boycott the sport. We aren't coming back. Give it a few months and new stories come up and this whole thing blows over. Paying guys millions to play a game they love seven months out of the year is nowhere close to slavery.

Clippers have a history of no one showing up, they're hardly an asset to the league. Sterling should've been ousted for the simple fact his franchise bogs everyone else down.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

The NBA by laws do not have a method for the team to be removed from him in the current situation.

Sure they do, you just don't accept it.

 

[Berkeley_Blues]

This Sterling thing reeks of a foolish witchhunt. It will all backfire some way, some how because this sort of foolishness always does

 

[gohusk]

I agree, but why should Don Sterling have the ability to destroy the brand without being ousted? NBA owners should have the right to protect themselves from a fellow franchisee ruining their brand name. That's just what they're doing, protecting their own assets. I'm sure Don Sterling will be well compensated when he sells the franchise.

He banned him for life. Maybe suspending him indefinitely and actually thinking about what the implications are would have been the wise thing to do? Does Silver think he's going to be able to throw together a group to buy the team is going to happen overnight? What if Sterling gets pissed and sells it to an ownership group that doesn't even hide the fact that they're looking to relocate and has no problem lawyering up and taking it to the courts? Dumb, knee-jerk reaction by the league.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

For some reason you seem incapable of differentiating between principle and being a fanboy of a racist pos. He has the right to be a racist bigot in private. The fact that it was recorded and sold to TMZ seems to escape your black and white model of thinking. If he gave a press conference or an interview and shared those views then it's a public matter, that he WILLINGLY expressed for public consumption. I understand it was made public but it was still a private conversation that was made public. Racism is wrong and nobody is denying that. At least I haven't seen anyone justifying his comments. It's the fact that he has a right to have them, bigoted or not and not have the rights to his team stripped from him. I'm sure guys like you have never uttered anything but pleasantries in your own private time, so you are so righteous that this doesn't affect you.

Actually you're wrong -
The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:
(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.
No one is arguing he has the right to his own opinion, but the NBA also has the right to eject any owner who's opinions are so insulting that they attack the benefit of the NBA and become detrimental to their own well being. It affects every team when the sponsers are refusing to advertise and the players are refusing to play - they couldn't even get someone to sing the National Anthem tonight before the press conference - they were already becoming paralized. Some of you are looking at these bi-laws and comparing them to contract law in the corporate world. Major league sports are not subject to those same laws. They have special exemptions and it's already been stated - Silve has the full support of the owners. Cuban was talking through his ass yesterday because he didn't want to give away his hand

 

[True Lakers Fan]

This Sterling thing reeks of a foolish witchhunt. It will all backfire some way, some how because this sort of foolishness always does

It's a witch hunt only to those that want to promote racism

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

The marketplace can.


The NBA cannot. They have guidelines they must follow.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

He banned him for life. Maybe suspending him indefinitely and actually thinking about what the implications are would have been the wise thing to do? Does Silver think he's going to be able to throw together a group to buy the team is going to happen overnight? What if Sterling gets pissed and sells it to an ownership group that doesn't even hide the fact that they're looking to relocate and has no problem lawyering up and taking it to the courts? Dumb, knee-jerk reaction by the league.

I don't think they can relocate the team without the league's approval. I could be wrong, but that's how it works in the NHL. :no idea: tho.