tOffical all things Sterling thread

[JDM]

That is the requirement for it to be a rules violation that he can be kicked out for under 13(a). Otherwise the punishment is capped at $1 million and a suspension, per the section you so happily quoted.

 

[Psych-Ward]

That is the requirement for it to be a rules violation that he can be kicked out for under 13(a). Otherwise the punishment is capped at $1 million and a suspension, per the section you so happily quoted.

Is your name Forrest Gump????


(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend
for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding
$1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person
who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or
detrimental to the Association.


Sounds to me like he got indefinite or

 

[JDM]

First off, that's not the same as taking his team away, which is what he's claiming he is going to do.


That is what cannot happen and will result in a legal shitstorm the league has literally zero chance of winning.

 

[Psych-Ward]

So basically your saying that any act of gross misconduct or conduct detrimental to the sport is not a means to terminate a contract with someone????

I mean look at reality, they could let him keep his team, but they dont have to leave his team in the NBA!!! So why not sell it, because he is as dumb as you and would want to keep his team??? And play who??? They dont have to allow him in the league!!! Were you dropped on your head as an infant???

 

[JDM]

Second, if he were using that clause, the fine of 2.5 million would be illegal, as the 2.5 million cap is for something that is not otherwise specifically punished.


That means he has to be using the general "harmful to the league" clause, which is not a rules violation and not grounds to terminate his ownership under 13 (a).

 

[Psych-Ward]

First off, that's not the same as taking his team away, which is what he's claiming he is going to do.


That is what cannot happen and will result in a legal shitstorm the league has literally zero chance of winning.

Again, your wrong, they have and are going to do it!!!! Only need a vote of 3/4 and they got a vote of ummmmmm 29-0

 

[JDM]

So basically your saying that any act of gross misconduct or conduct detrimental to the sport is not a means to terminate a contract with someone????

I mean look at reality, they could let him keep his team, but they dont have to leave his team in the NBA!!! So why not sell it, because he is as dumb as you and would want to keep his team??? And play who??? They dont have to allow him in the league!!! Were you dropped on your head as an infant???

No. They cannot.


The conditions required for kicking his team out of the league are specifically listed in 13 (a). If it is not there, they can not kick him out. Period.

 

[JDM]

Again, your wrong, they have and are going to do it!!!! Only need a vote of 3/4 and they got a vote of ummmmmm 29-0

Wrong. One of the listed conditions must be met before a vote can come into play. The vote being possible is contingent on any of the conditions listed under 13 being met. It cannot happen otherwise.

 

[Wazmankg]

Except they're not.


http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf


Read article 13 for every possible reason an owner can be booted. None of them are close to applying here.

Read 24(l)

 

[Psych-Ward]

Second, if he were using that clause, the fine of 2.5 million would be illegal, as the 2.5 million cap is for something that is not otherwise specifically punished.


That means he has to be using the general "harmful to the league" clause, which is not a rules violation and not grounds to terminate his ownership under 13 (a).

Its the National Basketball Association, Not the jdm league or the pull rules out of your inferiority complex ass..... its gross misconduct and conduct detrimental to the sport

 

[Psych-Ward]

Wrong. One of the listed conditions must be met before a vote can come into play. The vote being possible is contingent on any of the conditions listed under 13 being met. It cannot happen otherwise.

It is listed under 35 A Forrest

 

[JDM]

Read 24(l)

That doesn't give him the ability to kick a team out.


Kicking a team out is subject to article 13.

 

[Psych-Ward]

Read 24(l)

And Waz just sunk your ship even deeper!!!!

But like a piece of shit that just wont flush your gonna weasel your way back into the bowl with the same old bullshit!!!!


Your parents should take away your computer time.... trolling adult sites

 

[JDM]

It is listed under 35 A Forrest

35 A DOES NOT GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO TERMINATE SOMEONE'S OWNERSHIP, OR TO BRING IT TO THE VOTE.


For someone's ownership to be terminated, they must follow the procedures and conditions in 13.

 

[Psych-Ward]

35 A DOES NOT GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO TERMINATE SOMEONE'S OWNERSHIP, OR TO BRING IT TO THE VOTE.


For someone's ownership to be terminated, they must follow the procedures and conditions in 13.

Guess what genius, they can, they are, and they will.

I understand because of your inferiority complex you lack the testicular fortitude to admit your wrong, I mean oh God forbid the Great and Powerful JDM be wrong, But ya are!!!!

 

[JDM]

Also, by fining him 2.5 mil, the commissioner has taken 35 A out of play. 24 (l) only applies to either a) a rule not specifically punished (35 A specifies a punishment, meaning it is not eligible for this portion), or b) something not covered by the rules at all (making it not a rules violation needed to invoke 13(a)).

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Kings owner expects a 29-0 unanimous vote....

Vivek Ranadive, Sacramento Kings owner, expects unanimous vote to force Donald Sterling to sell Los Angeles Clippers - ESPN

 

[Psych-Ward]

The Commissioner shall have the power to
suspend a Player, Coach, Member, Owner, or other person
subject to the Commissioner’s jurisdiction for a definite or
indefinite period and to impose such fines and other
penalties as are authorized by Article 35, 35A or any other
Article or Section relating thereto of this Constitution and
By-Laws.

 

[Psych-Ward]

Also, by fining him 2.5 mil, the commissioner has taken 35 A out of play. 24 (l) only applies to either a) a rule not specifically punished (35 A specifies a punishment, meaning it is not eligible for this portion), or b) something not covered by the rules at all (making it not a rules violation needed to invoke 13(a)).

Any one of them are in play. Just because you violate several doesnt mean this one or that one isnt in play!!!
Youre so stuck on yourself, you don't see the big picture. If this man stays in the NBA (because of his conduct detrimental to the sport) the league is doomed. His gross misconduct is more than enough and is enough for him to be removed period.

And when he is removed just pack your shit and GTFO

 

[JDM]

There is only one incident.

It cannot be both a violation under 35A and an action not against the rules but detrimental to the sport. It is one or the other. By using the powers under 24 (l) (specifically the ability to fine up to 2.5 million for an incident detrimental to the sport and not otherwise covered), he is stating it is not a violation under 35A. If it was, the fine would be capped at a million.