tOffical all things Sterling thread

[wildturkey]

The Clips will be going to Seattle. The Supersonics are back.

LA is a Laker town anyway. Everyone wins.

I wish that would happen just because I think Seattle really got screwed. But it won't. Because the real value of the Clippers is because they're in LA. They're getting over a billion dollars because of the LA market. If the Clippers were in Kansas City, they'd only fetch around 700 mil

 

[RoboticDreams]

That's not quite true. The NBA has to approve of the sale. For example, the Maloofs had deals in place to sell the Kings to Seattle but the NBA made it known that wasn't their preference and muscled them into selling the team to the group that would keep the team in Sac-town (for less money than the Seattle group offering). Same thing happened with the Pelicans. They had several buyers that wanted to buy the team and move it but the NBA (who owned the team at the time) wouldn't sell to anyone unless they kept the team in NO.

Apples and oranges, IMO. This is a completely different situation. It's going to be all over the news and the last thing the league wants is for it to drag out and further sully (as if that's possible) the brand.

 

[wildturkey]

Apples and oranges, IMO. This is a completely different situation. It's going to be all over the news and the last thing the league wants is for it to drag out and further sully (as if that's possible) the brand.

It's not apples and oranges. The NBA, by its own laws, have to approve of the new owners any time a team is sold. So technically, the Sterlings just can't sell to whoever they want. That's why I said "that's not quite true".

 

[True Lakers Fan]

It's not apples and oranges. The NBA, by its own laws, have to approve of the new owners any time a team is sold. So technically, the Sterlings just can't sell to whoever they want. That's why I said "that's not quite true".

In every major league sports - the new owners have to be approved by the existing owners - including the NBA - Seattle offered more money for the Sacramento Queens - but the NBA owners said no because they wanted the Queens to stay in Sacramento.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The other shoe final dropped on the news at 11:00 p.m. Friday night - the entire proposal is that the Clippers will be sold with Shelly Sterling maintaining a minority share in the team. She obviously is trying to set up a proposal that she believes will be sold as reasonable when they go to court and will try to argue that she tried to negotiate with the NBA in good faith.


I doubt that the NBA will by this proposal being that she is still married to Donald Sterling and the two would then place the 50% into a trust for their daughter and son that are still living. I have to give them props for being very clever, but I still believe the courts will not want to get involved due to binding arbitration. In this case the NBA would argue that they and other major league sports has always had complete autonomy over who is allowed to own a team which is in the best interest of the NBA organization and without that control - the NBA would lose hundreds of millions of dollars if just any one was allowed to own a team. Asking the courts to order the players to suit up and play in lieu of a boycott would be unprecedented for the federal courts and I don't think is possible because there is no safety issue in a bunch of basketball players standing down. That would leave the sponsors and the courts cannot force the sponsors to come back and I am sure some of them would go to court for the NBA and explain their position. That is only if the courts even agrees to hear the case. That will depend on how tight the NBA has the binding arbitration nailed down and if there are any loopholes

 

[trojanfan12]

Well, we can file this one under "Nothing fucking surprises me anymore".


It appears that Donald Sterling does not intend "to go quietly into that good night" after all!!


Report: Donald Sterling vows to fight NBA over forced sale of Clippers | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Well, we can file this one under "Nothing fucking surprises me anymore".


It appears that Donald Sterling does not intend "to go quietly into that good night" after all!!


Report: Donald Sterling vows to fight NBA over forced sale of Clippers | FOX Sports on MSN

lol - If the man was facing criminal charges - he would be absolutely correct. Unfortunately for him - he's not even facing civil litigation - unless he can convince a federal court that the NBA has violated the terms of their contracts.

So far I think the NBA has made it's case. My belief is that Shelly is trying to convince the NBA that they are going to sell the team(for her this means selling only half of the team with controlling interest) to another group. In return they are gambling rather than fight in court the NBA will fold and settle.

I still don't think Sterling has a course

 

[trojanfan12]

lol - If the man was facing criminal charges - he would be absolutely correct. Unfortunately for him - he's not even facing civil litigation - unless he can convince a federal court that the NBA has violated the terms of their contracts.

So far I think the NBA has made it's case. My belief is that Shelly is trying to convince the NBA that they are going to sell the team(for her this means selling only half of the team with controlling interest) to another group. In return they are gambling rather than fight in court the NBA will fold and settle.

I still don't think Sterling has a course

I agree that it's probably a lost cause for him. But, it doesn't matter what the outcome is likely to be. It looks like he's going to fight like hell (this week anyway) to keep the team. He definitely has the money and high priced lawyers to tie this up for quite awhile.

There are a few likely scenarios as far as what they can do or may be trying to do. One is that he may be trying to "scare" the owners into not voting him out. Basically saying: "I'm going to drag every other owner into court, depose them and basically let all of the skeletons out of all of the closets".

There has also been a suggestion that it's a ploy to try and coerce the NBA to pay the capital gains tax that he would be assessed on the sale of the team (could be hundreds of millions).

Looks like that unless he changes his mind...........again, this is going to drag into next season.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I agree that it's probably a lost cause for him. But, it doesn't matter what the outcome is likely to be. It looks like he's going to fight like hell (this week anyway) to keep the team. He definitely has the money and high priced lawyers to tie this up for quite awhile.

There are a few likely scenarios as far as what they can do or may be trying to do. One is that he may be trying to "scare" the owners into not voting him out. Basically saying: "I'm going to drag every other owner into court, depose them and basically let all of the skeletons out of all of the closets".

There has also been a suggestion that it's a ploy to try and coerce the NBA to pay the capital gains tax that he would be assessed on the sale of the team (could be hundreds of millions).

Looks like that unless he changes his mind...........again, this is going to drag into next season.

It probably depends on if he gets a liberal judge that enjoys changing the laws; but if you have been paying attention the NBA has made a pretty strong case which I will outline

1. Clearly Donald Sterling violated league rules and damaged the NBA by losing his sponsors and putting the next season in jeopardy with a strike by the players.

2. In criminal law - you must be advised of your rights before they question you. If a person, however records your conversation with you - that is not necessarily a violation of your constitutional rights and everything you say can be used against you. It is common for recordings to be thrown out sometimes, but that's criminal. Once a recording becomes public domain - it simply can't be ignored and in this case legal or not illegally recording him is irrelevant - what's more important is that he is racist and hid his racist views from the league

3. Both signed contracts and agreements - that allows the NBA to remove all owners in this case - they are screwed - it's just the matter of time

 

[True Lakers Fan]

I have to add that Sterling's defense really sounds nice and pretty, but his defense is weak and useless not to mention irrelevant. His defense is like a really pretty 17 year old girl to a 55 year old man. Completely useless. The girl has nothing that the guy can use. She is just a child still growing up and honestly Sterling sounded more like a child in his interviews, then he did as an adult which would also make him incompetent to run the Clippers

 

[trojanfan12]

It probably depends on if he gets a liberal judge that enjoys changing the laws; but if you have been paying attention the NBA has made a pretty strong case which I will outline

1. Clearly Donald Sterling violated league rules and damaged the NBA by losing his sponsors and putting the next season in jeopardy with a strike by the players.

2. In criminal law - you must be advised of your rights before they question you. If a person, however records your conversation with you - that is not necessarily a violation of your constitutional rights and everything you say can be used against you. It is common for recordings to be thrown out sometimes, but that's criminal. Once a recording becomes public domain - it simply can't be ignored and in this case legal or not illegally recording him is irrelevant - what's more important is that he is racist and hid his racist views from the league

3. Both signed contracts and agreements - that allows the NBA to remove all owners in this case - they are screwed - it's just the matter of time

The bolded says it all. This is California, if there is one state in the union that is almost guaranteed to have a court that would try this case, it's this one.

Also, the NBA's case is based on it's own by-laws and the arbitration agreement. The NBA presents it's case as ironclad, but that doesn't mean it is, especially in this state. If Sterling finds a judge that agrees with him, especially regarding him not being able to get a fair vote and the fact that the recording was obtained illegally, it will go to court.

Sterling's lawyer is one of the best (and most well connected) anti-trust lawyers in the country. He's one of very few lawyers to defeat the NFL in court. He must be pretty confident that he has a judge that will hear the case.

I heard a pretty funny comment about this today. I forget who said it, but the quote was: "The NBA has confidence in their ability to win the case, but the problem is; they've picked a fight with the craziest guy in the room."

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The bolded says it all. This is California, if there is one state in the union that is almost guaranteed to have a court that would try this case, it's this one.

Also, the NBA's case is based on it's own by-laws and the arbitration agreement. The NBA presents it's case as ironclad, but that doesn't mean it is, especially in this state. If Sterling finds a judge that agrees with him, especially regarding him not being able to get a fair vote and the fact that the recording was obtained illegally, it will go to court.

Sterling's lawyer is one of the best (and most well connected) anti-trust lawyers in the country. He's one of very few lawyers to defeat the NFL in court. He must be pretty confident that he has a judge that will hear the case.

I heard a pretty funny comment about this today. I forget who said it, but the quote was: "The NBA has confidence in their ability to win the case, but the problem is; they've picked a fight with the craziest guy in the room."

I don't think the state of California would have jurisdiction in this case because of the federal laws that gives major league sports certain exemptions. I still believe that Sterling has lost before he got started

It's still crazy though because Shelly is suiting up buyers to submit by the deadline - I still believe that she is going to submit a sell which allows her to retain 50% as a minority owner. I don't believe that she is going to submit a sell of the team in it's entirety.

Sterling might be the craziest guy in the room, but that would be his only defense when he signed those contracts which forces him to binding arbitration

 

[True Lakers Fan]

By the way in the case of the NFL - the case was entirely different. Not the same situation at all

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think the state of California would have jurisdiction in this case because of the federal laws that gives major league sports certain exemptions. I still believe that Sterling has lost before he got started

It's still crazy though because Shelly is suiting up buyers to submit by the deadline - I still believe that she is going to submit a sell which allows her to retain 50% as a minority owner. I don't believe that she is going to submit a sell of the team in it's entirety.

Sterling might be the craziest guy in the room, but that would be his only defense when he signed those contracts which forces him to binding arbitration

The state has jurisdiction because the Clippers are a California based business and California's laws and constitution apply. I'm not saying Sterling can win, but that doesn't mean he can't find a judge to hear the case. Remember, this is California.

Also, it's not about whether he wins or loses at this point, it's about fighting this and not being told what to do. I agree that he'll likely lose. But it won't stop him from fighting.

As for Shelly. I could see that. But Donald's lawyer also says that Donald disavows any permission for her to sell the team. I think this is the tip of the iceberg on the level of crazy we're about to see.

 

[trojanfan12]

By the way in the case of the NFL - the case was entirely different. Not the same situation at all

That's not the point. The point is that he did the nearly impossible and won a lawsuit vs. the NFL. It means he's a very good lawyer who has won tough cases before. While it's unlikely that he'll win, it's pretty likely that he will present a strong case.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

That's not the point. The point is that he did the nearly impossible and won a lawsuit vs. the NFL. It means he's a very good lawyer who has won tough cases before. While it's unlikely that he'll win, it's pretty likely that he will present a strong case.

I don't think he can win this one because of the damage it would do to allow a racist own a NBA team. If I recall - Al Davis won because he wanted to change venues - in that case it didn't have the affect this would have and other teams had moved from city to City - There was no legal reason in the contracts that gave the NFL reason a legitimate reason to stop or block the move. In this case, the case would have to go to the federal court - the NBA is not in Ca and while California law applies for employees working in Ca, I don't think any court on the State of Ca level would have the power to over-turn a legal franchise agreement signed in good faith by both parties - Especially when that good faith contract was signed under the laws regarding major sports. I still maintain Sterling has lost before he started and I think he is blowing smoke out of his ass to see if he can scare the owners into backing off. When the time comes - he is going to crumble

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think he can win this one because of the damage it would do to allow a racist own a NBA team. If I recall - Al Davis won because he wanted to change venues - in that case it didn't have the affect this would have and other teams had moved from city to City - There was no legal reason in the contracts that gave the NFL reason a legitimate reason to stop or block the move. In this case, the case would have to go to the federal court - the NBA is not in Ca and while California law applies for employees working in Ca, I don't think any court on the State of Ca level would have the power to over-turn a legal franchise agreement signed in good faith by both parties - Especially when that good faith contract was signed under the laws regarding major sports. I still maintain Sterling has lost before he started and I think he is blowing smoke out of his ass to see if he can scare the owners into backing off. When the time comes - he is going to crumble

Actually, and this is going to sound bad, him being a racist owning an NBA may be his strongest case to keep it. After all, in a country established on freedom of speech and expression, since when do we take someone's property from them because we don't like their point of view?

I can hear Sterling's lawyer now. If we allow this man's property to be taken because we don't like his views on race, how soon until we're taking someone's property because we don't like their politics or religion?

Again, I think they lose, but I don't think it's the slam dunk (see what I did there.) that the NBA is claiming.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The recent problem with Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers, has led me to think again the exemption of the NBA and other national sports associations from the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I wonder how a black player might have felt when unable to avoid being drafted into an organization run by a known white racist.
Especially because the NBA organization is based in part on a 'constitution' which until now has not been publicly available, and which still involves this:

Owners are required to sign a series of moral and ethics contracts that bar them from expressing views that are considered detrimental to the league, according to a person familiar with the league’s policies who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the process. Those documents, unlike the constitution, remain confidential. An N.B.A. spokesman declined to comment​

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Actually, and this is going to sound bad, him being a racist owning an NBA may be his strongest case to keep it. After all, in a country established on freedom of speech and expression, since when do we take someone's property from them because we don't like their point of view?

I can hear Sterling's lawyer now. If we allow this man's property to be taken because we don't like his views on race, how soon until we're taking someone's property because we don't like their politics or religion?

Again, I think they lose, but I don't think it's the slam dunk (see what I did there.) that the NBA is claiming.

Read my above post - sorry - but Sterling loses before he gets off the floor because of those signed contracts and clause. Those signatures combine to circumvent the anti-trust law. Sterling most likely won't even get the case heard in court -it has been so well known in the news - that the average judge will know what's going on without reading the briefs.

 

[starbigd]

To me this case is very simple.

The NBA and its owners have decided they do not want to do business with Sterling anymore.

He does not have ANY right to decide he can continue to do business with them. They are ousting him under their by-laws to which he has already agreed.

What justification does he have to challenge this? According to Silver, he admitted he made the racist comments. That's the ballgame. The recordings are irrelevant, as are how they were obtained - because he already admitted he made the comments. He lost his sponsors......he's damaged the league. And they have every right in the world to remove them from THEIR league.