Clippers sold for 2 Billion

[Stillriledup]

I have a question.

Instead of Ballmer giving Sterling 2 billion dollars, why couldn't the NBA just contract the Clippers, dissolve the team, pretend they "Went out of business" and award a new franchise, the Los Angeles Whatevers to Ballmer....? That way, he could save 2 billion, the new team can just assume the contracts of the current Clippers players........of course, they lose the brand of the Clippers, and that's worth something, but i can't imagine its worth 2 billion.

[_______]

[QUOTE=Stillriledup]I have a question.

Instead of Ballmer giving Sterling 2 billion dollars, why couldn't the NBA just contract the Clippers, dissolve the team, pretend they "Went out of business" and award a new franchise, the Los Angeles Whatevers to Ballmer....? That way, he could save 2 billion, the new team can just assume the contracts of the current Clippers players........of course, they lose the brand of the Clippers, and that's worth something, but i can't imagine its worth 2 billion.[/QUOTE

The short answer is that it would be completely illegal and no court would fall for the ruse.

If it weren't then the question for Ballmer (and any other owner) would be does he really want to be involved with an entity that can seize property without compensation?

Why are we worried about Ballmer spending 1/16 of his fortune on a new toy?

[Valuist]

I have a question.

Instead of Ballmer giving Sterling 2 billion dollars, why couldn't the NBA just contract the Clippers, dissolve the team, pretend they "Went out of business" and award a new franchise, the Los Angeles Whatevers to Ballmer....? That way, he could save 2 billion, the new team can just assume the contracts of the current Clippers players........of course, they lose the brand of the Clippers, and that's worth something, but i can't imagine its worth 2 billion.

Its worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. If I remember correctly, there was a number of buyers who were looking to buy the Clippers. Sure, that probably jacked the price up a bit, but Ballmer was still willing to pay.

[JustRalph]

Forcing this guy to sell is crap.

Purely Un-American. It's one step short of what SRU suggests

[DRIVEWAY]

Forcing this guy to sell is crap.

Purely Un-American. It's one step short of what SRU suggests


How does a forced sale affect taxation? This lawsuit unquestionable establishes "Forced Sale".

[TJDave]

Forcing this guy to sell is crap.

Purely Un-American. It's one step short of what SRU suggests

Sterling agreed to it when he purchased the franchise as, I expect, will Ballmer.

[Stillriledup]

So, what physical asset does the guy get for 2 billion? A few waterbuckets and a few basketballs?

[Dark Horse]

Forcing this guy to sell is crap.

Purely Un-American. It's one step short of what SRU suggests

Police state practices.

What someone says in a private conversation is private. Period.

By not standing up against this charade, the American public, stirred up by corporate media, and a divide-and-conquer political play, has practically signed away its right to privacy.

And the door to the next step was opened as well. So that the team could be sold a judge decided that Sterling is, essentially, crazy. Technically, he suddenly displays the first signs of Alzheimers. Right...

To summarize, in the new America you better watch what you say -or think-, because they can come after you, take whatever they want, and even declare you insane, so they can lock you up in some asylum and throw away the key. (Throwing away the key without due process has been accepted in the country ever since the Patriot Act.)

Be careful what and who you cheer for. The great majority of civilizations are destroyed not by invading armies, but from within.

[Stillriledup]

Police state practices.

What someone says in a private conversation is private. Period.

By not standing up against this charade, the American public, stirred up by corporate media, and a divide-and-conquer political play, has practically signed away its right to privacy.

And the door to the next step was opened as well. So that the team could be sold a judge decided that Sterling is, essentially, crazy. Technically, he suddenly displays the first signs of Alzheimers. Right...

To summarize, in the new America you better watch what you say -or think-, because they can come after you, take whatever they want, and even declare you insane, so they can lock you up in some asylum and throw away the key. (Throwing away the key without due process has been accepted in the country ever since the Patriot Act.)

Be careful what and who you cheer for. The great majority of civilizations are destroyed not by invading armies, but from within.

But you SHOULD watch what you say, right? We should want a society that "doesnt accept" this type of behavior...so if we just let Sterling slide, aren't we essentially saying that anyone can say whatever they want about anyone they want at any time without repercussions?

Also, Sterling didn't lose the Clippers because of his views or what he said in Private, he lost the team because the players and coaches were planning to revolt, strike and refuse to play....THATs why he lost the team. If Chris Paul and Doc Rivers came out and said "we love Mr Sterling, he had a lapse in judgment, he's not a racist we know this to be true and we want to play for this amazingly great owner" i doubt he loses the team. But, the way it went down, he insulted the wrong people and those people had the power to have him eliminated.

And they did.

[JustRalph]

Police state practices.

What someone says in a private conversation is private. Period.

By not standing up against this charade, the American public, stirred up by corporate media, and a divide-and-conquer political play, has practically signed away its right to privacy.

And the door to the next step was opened as well. So that the team could be sold a judge decided that Sterling is, essentially, crazy. Technically, he suddenly displays the first signs of Alzheimers. Right...

To summarize, in the new America you better watch what you say -or think-, because they can come after you, take whatever they want, and even declare you insane, so they can lock you up in some asylum and throw away the key. (Throwing away the key without due process has been accepted in the country ever since the Patriot Act.)

Be careful what and who you cheer for. The great majority of civilizations are destroyed not by invading armies, but from within.

Great post :ThmbUp:

[thaskalos]

But you SHOULD watch what you say, right? We should want a society that "doesnt accept" this type of behavior...so if we just let Sterling slide, aren't we essentially saying that anyone can say whatever they want about anyone they want at any time without repercussions?

Also, Sterling didn't lose the Clippers because of his views or what he said in Private, he lost the team because the players and coaches were planning to revolt, strike and refuse to play....THATs why he lost the team. If Chris Paul and Doc Rivers came out and said "we love Mr Sterling, he had a lapse in judgment, he's not a racist we know this to be true and we want to play for this amazingly great owner" i doubt he loses the team. But, the way it went down, he insulted the wrong people and those people had the power to have him eliminated.

And they did.

I wonder...

Would the owner of a high-profile restaurant be forced to sell his place of business if he made similar comments about, say...the Mexicans?

[JustRalph]

But you SHOULD watch what you say, right? We should want a society that "doesnt accept" this type of behavior...so if we just let Sterling slide, aren't we essentially saying that anyone can say whatever they want about anyone they want at any time without repercussions?

Also, Sterling didn't lose the Clippers because of his views or what he said in Private, he lost the team because the players and coaches were planning to revolt, strike and refuse to play....THATs why he lost the team. If Chris Paul and Doc Rivers came out and said "we love Mr Sterling, he had a lapse in judgment, he's not a racist we know this to be true and we want to play for this amazingly great owner" i doubt he loses the team. But, the way it went down, he insulted the wrong people and those people had the power to have him eliminated.

And they did.

Tough shit. The team is his property. If they don't want to play, have a nice day. Somebody else would have taken his money.

It's not against the law to insult someone. Seizing his property for words.........? Complete bullshit.

[Dark Horse]

But you SHOULD watch what you say, right? We should want a society that "doesnt accept" this type of behavior...so if we just let Sterling slide, aren't we essentially saying that anyone can say whatever they want about anyone they want at any time without repercussions?


In a free country you may not agree with what someone says, but you will protect and honor his right to say it. The alternative is an army of drones, controlled by Big Brother.

Hate speech (and a private conversation doesn't qualify) is one hot potato. What if you don't agree with Big Brother, and they can turn to their hate speech policies in response? Far fetched? Nope. They're already playing with it. According to some of these idiots, criticism against Obama is racism... And the drones all nod.

[Stillriledup]

I wonder...

Would the owner of a high-profile restaurant be forced to sell his place of business if he made similar comments about, say...the Mexicans?

He might not be forced to sell, but if nobody wanted to work for him, he would have to sell or just go out of business. You can insult anyone you want as long as people don't revolt and essentially put up a pickit line around your business.

[Stillriledup]

Tough shit. The team is his property. If they don't want to play, have a nice day. Somebody else would have taken his money.

It's not against the law to insult someone. Seizing his property for words.........? Complete bullshit.

The players weren't playing. Chris Paul wasn't playing and he had full backing of the league's most high profile player, Lebron. You dont have a team if you don't have players.

You're right, its not against the law to insult someone, but if you insult people who could make your life a living hell, you might have a problem if they decide to do so.

[Stillriledup]

In a free country you may not agree with what someone says, but you will protect and honor his right to say it. The alternative is an army of drones, controlled by Big Brother.

Hate speech (and a private conversation doesn't qualify) is one hot potato. What if you don't agree with Big Brother, and they can turn to their hate speech policies in response? Far fetched? Nope. They're already playing with it. According to some of these idiots, criticism against Obama is racism... And the drones all nod.

Drones and big brother are different from what Sterling did and said. Sterling has a right to say whatever he wants....and people have a right to decide to not do business with him.

[Dark Horse]

Drones and big brother are different from what Sterling did and said. Sterling has a right to say whatever he wants....and people have a right to decide to not do business with him.

When somebody says something in a private conversation, and the media jump on it to create a storm of public outrage, don't you think you're being played? And if not, how would you know that you or the public are being hypnotized by propaganda in far more important cases?

It's not the government's role to instill values in people. That role belongs to parents and families. Private. Not public. And it only becomes a public matter when that public is harmed by a transgression. For that we have the justice system. Was the public harmed here? By mere words, that were derived through eavesdropping? Or is this the pitchfork crowd swept into a frenzy, without even really knowing why?

Watch out for people preaching political correctness, especially when they do so while infringing on our individual rights and freedom.

[newtothegame]

SRU just doesn't get it!

As far as Paul and Doc saying they wouldn't play....YEAH RIGHT!!! :rolleyes:

Sterling has been known to be this way for years. This isn't something new. He has been sued previously for his racist ways. So why has Paul agreed to play all this time for the clippers? How about Doc coaching them? I guess THIS time was somehow different then his past??
Face it, Paul was not going to give up his contract and neither was Doc.

Dark mentioned it perfectly......we now live in a world where ANYONE can basically say they are offended and guess what? YOU LOSE!

Personally, I could care less what Sterling said or didn't say in a PRIVATE CONVERSATION. Honestly, I could care less what he says in public. I can either choose to or choose not too work for the guy. That choice is what makes (or has made in the past) this a great country.

SRU, think of it this way, I am offended by your beliefs .....now you need to turn over all your possessions to me to make me "whole" again lol. Where should I send my address so I can receive the things you are going to send because I am offended?

As to the contract, I am not in a position to say right or wrong on it as I don't know the exact wording nor am I a legal expert. But, if I were Sterling, I would drag it out as long as I possibly could. Then again 2 bill is a pretty large number for me to ride off in the sunset ;) .

I am sure you also feel that Chik Fil A should be forced to sell all of those fast food places as well. I mean they don't like gay marriages. Just think of the many people offended!!! How dare they !! -:rolleyes:

Hobby lobby? Yeah they should be forced to sell as well.... The nerve of them not supporting paying for that which they don't agree with!!!

I hope there is no food that you dislike, I am sure the farmer or producer of that food would have a claim against you......;)

[Stillriledup]

When somebody says something in a private conversation, and the media jump on it to create a storm of public outrage, don't you think you're being played? And if not, how would you know that you or the public are being hypnotized by propaganda in far more important cases?

It's not the government's role to instill values in people. That role belongs to parents and families. Private. Not public. And it only becomes a public matter when that public is harmed by a transgression. For that we have the justice system. Was the public harmed here? By mere words, that were derived through eavesdropping? Or is this the pitchfork crowd swept into a frenzy, without even really knowing why?

Watch out for people preaching political correctness, especially when they do so while infringing on our individual rights and freedom.

I personally wasn't offended because i could care less what Donald Sterling thinks or says, but some high profile people were offended....should they have been offended? That's something you're going to have to ask them, but they were, highly offended and felt that they couldn't play for him anymore.

[newtothegame]

I personally wasn't offended because i could care less what Donald Sterling thinks or says, but some high profile people were offended....should they have been offended? That's something you're going to have to ask them, but they were, highly offended and felt that they couldn't play for him anymore.

Ahh, so now it only matters if it's a high profile person that is offended??? :bang:

[Stillriledup]

SRU just doesn't get it!

As far as Paul and Doc saying they wouldn't play....YEAH RIGHT!!! :rolleyes:

Sterling has been known to be this way for years. This isn't something new. He has been sued previously for his racist ways. So why has Paul agreed to play all this time for the clippers? How about Doc coaching them? I guess THIS time was somehow different then his past??
Face it, Paul was not going to give up his contract and neither was Doc.

Dark mentioned it perfectly......we now live in a world where ANYONE can basically say they are offended and guess what? YOU LOSE!

Personally, I could care less what Sterling said or didn't say in a PRIVATE CONVERSATION. Honestly, I could care less what he says in public. I can either choose to or choose not too work for the guy. That choice is what makes (or has made in the past) this a great country.

SRU, think of it this way, I am offended by your beliefs .....now you need to turn over all your possessions to me to make me "whole" again lol. Where should I send my address so I can receive the things you are going to send because I am offended?

As to the contract, I am not in a position to say right or wrong on it as I don't know the exact wording nor am I a legal expert. But, if I were Sterling, I would drag it out as long as I possibly could. Then again 2 bill is a pretty large number for me to ride off in the sunset ;) .

I am sure you also feel that Chik Fil A should be forced to sell all of those fast food places as well. I mean they don't like gay marriages. Just think of the many people offended!!! How dare they !! -:rolleyes:

Hobby lobby? Yeah they should be forced to sell as well.... The nerve of them not supporting paying for that which they don't agree with!!!

I hope there is no food that you dislike, I am sure the farmer or producer of that food would have a claim against you......;)

There's zero chance that any of the Clippers would have played a single game for that team if he was still the owner. Zero percent.

As far as who's offended by anyone's beliefs....it came down to this. Sterling's biggest problem is that he deeply offended 10 or 15 people that are not replaceable. Its not like these guys are office workers and if they refuse to play, Sterling can just go out and get 10 guys to replace them.

[Stillriledup]

Ahh, so now it only matters if it's a high profile person that is offended??? :bang:

No, but it matters if the person who's offended is irreplaceable. Chris Paul or Blake Griffin don't play you're going to go out and get players as good as them as replacements? :D

Sterling offended people who he couldn't replace if they decided to not work for him anymore.

[newtothegame]

No, but it matters if the person who's offended is irreplaceable. Chris Paul or Blake Griffin don't play you're going to go out and get players as good as them as replacements? :D

Sterling offended people who he couldn't replace if they decided to not work for him anymore.
This is not about CP3 or B Griffins talents. But I can see how you think they are not replaceable..I mean after they won this years champiooooooo....oh wait, they didn't!!

EVERYONE is replaceable. You do know there was a time when DR J was the best in the game....Bird, Magic, etc etc.....

But, back to the topic at hand....You really think that someone's talent matters in how much they are offended???

Private matters should stay private......

For more then two years, Elgin Baylor was GM of the clippers AFTER sterling was sued for Racism by the DOJ. DOJ won, yet Elgin continued to be GM. ( This is Hall of fame player Elgin Baylor). I guess he wasn't important enough to not offend?????? :lol:
And amazingly, he continued to be GM even though.......

Might want to look at all of the players who have come through the Clippers since 2006. Guess none of them mattered either right???

After all, only Paul and Blake are irreplaceable.....:bang:

[Canarsie]

Tough shit. The team is his property. If they don't want to play, have a nice day. Somebody else would have taken his money.

It's not against the law to insult someone. Seizing his property for words.........? Complete bullshit.

Not if you sign this.

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

Trust me it will amended again sooner rather than later. Sometimes billionaires have less rights than we do.

So what marge Schott said was ok in your book? I'm not even going to post the sh*t she said yet they kept on suspending her because their constitution is different than the NBA's.

I understand what Mark Cuban was saying about the "slippery slope" and my hunch is he would have voted for the right of free speech as the lone dissent. The facts are the owners are "petrified" to vote on this because a bunch of them could technically be "exit stage right".

You seem to believe it was only the Clippers who will walk my hunch is the team playing them won't suit up either if it comes to that, which I highly doubt. It would be a nightmare for the NBA yet the public would be at least 75% behind the players bare minimum. It would be much higher but I respect the dissenters to say exactly what you did which OUR constitution allows.

You could be kicked off this board for bad words and it has been done in the past. You can post all the free speech you want on your own website or blog but not necessarily on forums and other types of media or corporate structures. If he knew the conversation was being recorded (disputed) then it is no longer private.

Just look what Stephen A. Smith said and received a week off. This is from a show that wants to "push" the envelope as far and hard as they can. Yet they don't hesitate to suspend or fire people for what they promote. So far I don't see (doesn't mean there isn't) any of those supporting Sterling going to Smith's defense.

Also his wife is attempting to sell the franchise right now the NBA can't "seize" it till there is a vote and none is forthcoming.

[jballscalls]

If you think the players wouldn't have played, I got a bridge to sell you.

[cj]

If you think the players wouldn't have played, I got a bridge to sell you.

So true. They all knew all about Donald Sterling when they signed contracts, and more so Doc Rivers did too.

[JustRalph]

Marge Schott got screwed too.

Btw, Marge was a very generous woman who did lots of great things besides talk about Hitler and call Eric Davis the N Word.

Three weeks after inheriting the majority stake in the Reds she told off all the other owners when they urged her to sell the team. That was the end for her.

[Dark Horse]

I personally wasn't offended because i could care less what Donald Sterling thinks or says, but some high profile people were offended....should they have been offended? That's something you're going to have to ask them, but they were, highly offended and felt that they couldn't play for him anymore.

I couldn't care less what Sterling thinks or says either. That probably goes for most. So why was the public being played through the media, on a topic that is part of Obama's second term?

The corporate media choose the strangest topics to cover, and often ignore far more crucial ones. I remember Fukushima. Minute-to-minute coverage in the first days after the disaster. Experts explaining the detail, and so on. But then it got more serious, and looked like it was getting out of control. I turned to my wife and said 'I bet you that coverage stops tomorrow.' And that's what happened. No crystal ball here, but a healthy dose of skepticism. From minute-to-minute coverage to radio silence. Why was that? Because of the corporate angle. Nuclear reactors... Bottomline. Always ask why a topic gets so much coverage in the mainstream media, and why others are ignored.

[_______]

Does that fact that this "seizure" involved the exchange of $2 billion matter in dark circle of conspiracy being discussed?

Or does the fact that the rights of a demented racist are being trampled trump all that?

[Dark Horse]

Does that fact that this "seizure" involved the exchange of $2 billion matter in dark circle of conspiracy being discussed?

Or does the fact that the rights of a demented racist are being trampled trump all that?

Any cool implants lately?

It's about rights. If I don't want to sell my house, that's a basic right. Doesn't matter if I'm the biggest a-hole on the planet. The two concepts are not related.

Who knows, next time it may be your turn to be eavesdropped upon. But you're already part of the collective, aren't you? So no worries.

"Re-sis-tance is fu-tile"

[Stillriledup]

Any cool implants lately?

It's about rights. If I don't want to sell my house, that's a basic right. Doesn't matter if I'm the biggest a-hole on the planet. The two concepts are not related.

Who knows, next time it may be your turn to be eavesdropped upon. But you're already part of the collective, aren't you? So no worries.

"Re-sis-tance is fu-tile"

But, if you sign a paper that says your local government (or whoever) can seize your house if you aren't of high moral character, would you feel that you had your rights trampled on? Or, would you feel that you agreed to a certain standard when you purchased the house and its "on you" for your own behavior?

[JustRalph]

But, if you sign a paper that says your local government (or whoever) can seize your house if you aren't of high moral character, would you feel that you had your rights trampled on? Or, would you feel that you agreed to a certain standard when you purchased the house and its "on you" for your own behavior?


Giving up your rights can invalidate a contract.

[lansdale]

I'm kind of surprised to see so many indignant supporters of Donald Sterling here. I would have assumed, that, like most NBA fans that I know, they would have been very happy to see this scumbag on the next space shuttle to the Andromeda Galaxy rather than continuing to own the Clippers.

But it's clear that many of his defenders don't understand the law(s) that constrained his actions. The purchase of an NBA franchise is a privilege, not a right. If you violate the terms of your agreement as a franchisee, by a majority vote of the other franchisees, you're out. Nothing complicated about this.

Those who think Sterling's right to privacy was legally violated are wrong. Not only was his statement made on tape (so legally admissible), but was part of a series of interviews for a book intended for publication. In addition, Sterling is, legally, a public figure, and thus not entitled to the same right of privacy as a private citizen.


Is it really so difficult to understand a pragmatic business decision made by the other NBA owners, a group of people who didn't get where they are by being stupid, that when you are part of business whose brand has been built almost entirely by African-Americans, and among your group is one owner who is not only a racist, but even seeks to prevent someone like Magic Johnson, a beloved figure, and one of the pillars of the NBA brand, from attending Clipper games, and this become public knowledge, that he is now badly damaging that brand and has to go? It shouldn't be.

Following are key excerpts from SI's M. McCann analysis of the court decision:
Total victory for Shelly Sterling

In ruling for Shelly Sterling, Levanas left no room for doubt that he categorically rejected Donald Sterling’s legal theories and witness testimony. Levanas described Shelly Sterling as “far and away more credible” on the stand than her husband. He also rejected Donald Sterling’s attempts to undermine the two physicians, neurologist Meril Platzer and psychiatrist James Edward Spar, who diagnosed Donald Sterling as incapacitated. Levanas similarly found no reason to believe that Donald Sterling lawfully revoked the trust on June 9. He also regarded sports business consultant Dean Bonham, who testified that Ballmer’s $2 billion offer for the Clippers was below market value, as wholly unpersuasive.

Somewhat surprisingly, Levanas invoked Section 1310(b), which permits Shelly Sterling and Steve Ballmer to complete their deal while Donald Sterling appeals. By law, 1310(b) is reserved only for “extraordinary circumstances,” as the default effect of an appeal would be to prevent completion of the Ballmer deal until after an appeal—a process that could take months. In a previous SI.com article (http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/22/donald-sterling-lawsuit-nba-adam-silver-shelly), 1310(b) was studied closely, as was its case precedent. Daniel Wallach (http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/dwallach), an appellate attorney with Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. who has closely studied 1310(b), notes that the California Supreme Court has ruled that 1310(b) only applies in “rare cases.”


http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/28/judge-rules-against-donald-sterling-permits-clippers-sale-steve-ballmer

[Canarsie]

If you think the players wouldn't have played, I got a bridge to sell you.

Did you read what I wrote? This is for the upcoming season and this is what I said at the end.

which I highly doubt

Looks like you'll be holding on to that bridge a while longer.

[Canarsie]

Giving up your rights can invalidate a contract.

Is there a supreme court decision on this pertaining to a corporate structure or business and not a sole individual? Please post a link I would love to see it and see how the NBA would wiggle out of its problem.

[JustRalph]

Is there a supreme court decision on this pertaining to a corporate structure or business and not a sole individual? Please post a link I would love to see it and see how the NBA would wiggle out of its problem.

Contract law and several court decisions state that you cannot sign away your rights. This normally refers to individual rights. Property rights have been included in these cases on a case by case basis. Normally they involve eminent domain etc. the Supreme Court chopped away at these rights recently in eminent domain cases. Nobody has challenged these rights in the manner in which Sterling would have to for one reason only. They always get paid. Why do you think Balmer is paying 2.5 times the initial estimates of the team value?

These owners know that they are basically operating outside the law. They have a monopoly just like baseball and football. In fact there are Congressional exemptions that apply to pro sports that no other business can receive. Without going to Congress first that is. But no way Congress would ever grant these exemptions again. Too political.

When John McCain threatened baseball during the steroids scandals he had a huge stick. Why do you think baseball hired an ex Senator to investigate? He didn't only investigate, he lobbied.

The bottom line is, basic contract law says you can write anything you want into a contract and agree to it. But you can't cross certain boundaries without getting into subjecting yourself to court decisions. If the NBA loses just one case, it could change their entire business model. Sterling is being bought off, plain and simple. Balmer just happens to be the guy willing to pay for the NBA not having to risk a court case.

Btw, free agency in baseball was similar except it dealt with individual rights. Why do you think that didn't go to the Supreme Court? Too much to lose for baseball. They passed the cost of free agency along to the fans. Just like every other business

I'll look around for relevant cases

[Dark Horse]

But, if you sign a paper that says your local government (or whoever) can seize your house if you aren't of high moral character, would you feel that you had your rights trampled on? Or, would you feel that you agreed to a certain standard when you purchased the house and its "on you" for your own behavior?

In that case, can we start with the White House? And then empty the entire House of representatives. Just for starters.

Unlike those charlatans, I'm not elected. I bought my house. The suggestion that 'questionable' character can undermine ownership comes straight out of police state manual. The result is not a better or free society, but a fearful society. And rulers who have manipulated the people, that they were supposed to serve, into that corner, will play upon those fears... Then the majority of people will fall in line, because they're too afraid to stand up for what is right, too intimidated to think for themselves. Pretty much America today...

[Dark Horse]

So this Sterling guy has build a franchise for more than 30 years, but now that they're becoming something, a tape is produced. And the tape isn't really that damaging. He just tells his girlfriend (not a word of adultery, by the way), whom he lavishes with expensive gifts, and who certainly doesn't pay admission to Clippers games, to be more selective in who she brings with her to games, also on his tab. Remember, sugar daddy pays for everything. Now, we don't know exactly who he is referring to, but it's a pretty good guess that he's talking about the LA gangsta scene. Assuming that is correct, who here would encourage his kids to hang out with that crowd? (if not, make sure not to say so over the phone...)

But hey, he's racist. That's why he has a Latina girlfriend, and build a franchise around primarily black athletes. It all makes perfect sense... He clearly can't stand being around non-Caucasians.

Kudos to the people who come up with this nonsense, by the way. Their ability to make it stick, one way or another, is criminally effective.

[Canarsie]

Contract law and several court decisions state that you cannot sign away your rights. This normally refers to individual rights. Property rights have been included in these cases on a case by case basis. Normally they involve eminent domain etc. the Supreme Court chopped away at these rights recently in eminent domain cases. Nobody has challenged these rights in the manner in which Sterling would have to for one reason only. They always get paid. Why do you think Balmer is paying 2.5 times the initial estimates of the team value?

These owners know that they are basically operating outside the law. They have a monopoly just like baseball and football. In fact there are Congressional exemptions that apply to pro sports that no other business can receive. Without going to Congress first that is. But no way Congress would ever grant these exemptions again. Too political.

When John McCain threatened baseball during the steroids scandals he had a huge stick. Why do you think baseball hired an ex Senator to investigate? He didn't only investigate, he lobbied.

The bottom line is, basic contract law says you can write anything you want into a contract and agree to it. But you can't cross certain boundaries without getting into subjecting yourself to court decisions. If the NBA loses just one case, it could change their entire business model. Sterling is being bought off, plain and simple. Balmer just happens to be the guy willing to pay for the NBA not having to risk a court case.

Btw, free agency in baseball was similar except it dealt with individual rights. Why do you think that didn't go to the Supreme Court? Too much to lose for baseball. They passed the cost of free agency along to the fans. Just like every other business

I'll look around for relevant cases

Good explanation and wording thanks for the effort it's an A+.

Even golf tournaments have exemptions I was shocked to read that this year.

The only thing that differs to me is Sterling's wife is the one being bought off. You know the one he say that he "loves" and in the next sentence he calls her a "pig".

[Stillriledup]

So this Sterling guy has build a franchise for more than 30 years, but now that they're becoming something, a tape is produced. And the tape isn't really that damaging. He just tells his girlfriend (not a word of adultery, by the way), whom he lavishes with expensive gifts, and who certainly doesn't pay admission to Clippers games, to be more selective in who she brings with her to games, also on his tab. Remember, sugar daddy pays for everything. Now, we don't know exactly who he is referring to, but it's a pretty good guess that he's talking about the LA gangsta scene. Assuming that is correct, who here would encourage his kids to hang out with that crowd? (if not, make sure not to say so over the phone...)

But hey, he's racist. That's why he has a Latina girlfriend, and build a franchise around primarily black athletes. It all makes perfect sense... He clearly can't stand being around non-Caucasians.

Kudos to the people who come up with this nonsense, by the way. Their ability to make it stick, one way or another, is criminally effective.

The problem with your saying is that while the tape isn't really damaging, people who could make Sterling's life a living hell thought it was.

The other problem is that if the players refuse to play and the coaches refuse to coach and rival players refuse to play that guy's team, that damages other owners teams.....so, while Sterling's comments may be "harmless" the idea that his comments could take money out of the pockets of the other owners is something that the league can't stand for.

[Dark Horse]

The problem with your saying is that while the tape isn't really damaging, people who could make Sterling's life a living hell thought it could be.


Edited it for you. ;)

For whatever reason, they saw an opportunity and jumped on it. It was always a 'play'. People are gullible. Look how many believe today that he's a raging lunatic and racist. If that were true, wouldn't the Clippers have been ran into the ground after a couple of years of his ownership? Instead, they had gradually been developed into LA's number one team.

[Stillriledup]

Edited it for you. ;)

For whatever reason, they saw an opportunity and jumped on it. It was always a 'play'. People are gullible. Look how many believe today that he's a raging lunatic and racist. If that were true, wouldn't the Clippers have been ran into the ground after a couple of years of his ownership? Instead, they had gradually been developed into LA's number one team.

I think Sterling's previous reputation as a slum lord had a LOT to do with his downfall. If he was a "Great owner" and this came up and he begged for forgiveness and said his comments were taken out of context, he might have had a shot...but, because he's an owner that many people hate, this was an easy situation for them to get him out of the league.

I believe the only reason the Clippers developed into the team they've developed into was because Blake Griffin was a star from Day 1 (day 1 that he actually played). Now, i don't mean a great player, i just mean he was incredibly exciting to watch and has developed into a top 10 talent in this league...not to mention his "lob city" stuff that's worth the price of admission.

So, Sterling was essentially "Forced" to try and win. Griffin was selling jerseys and tickets from the moment he threw down a few dunks as the #1 overall selection and for the first time ever, it gave the Clippers and their fans hope. If Griffin turned out to be a bust and couldn't play, its not likely the ownership would have been "all in". Griffin's presence started stuffing their pockets with cash and realized "hey, this is fun, people arent idiots after all, if we put a dynamic product on the floor, people will come to the games, people will watch on TV and people will buy jerseys"

So, what i'm essentially saying is that its sort of an "Accident" that Sterling morphed into an owner who wanted to put a winning team on the court, Griffin's greatness forced their hand, they had no choice but to "go for it".

[davew]

So, what physical asset does the guy get for 2 billion? A few waterbuckets and a few basketballs?


come on now, office supplies and printed letterheads...

[Dark Horse]

So, what i'm essentially saying is that its sort of an "Accident" that Sterling morphed into an owner who wanted to put a winning team on the court, Griffin's greatness forced their hand, they had no choice but to "go for it".

Still siding with authority? 'They' had no choice. Of course they did.

In my view authority in this country has become very corrupt. But rather than admit to corruption with joyous exclamations for being exposed the characters painted in that light shake off accusations as 'conspiracy'. And so we don't have any corruption in this country. Isn't that nice? Such noble leaders.

Once you see the play, it's always the same. It's about destroying reputations of those who don't play along. And it's always about money and/or power. - - Back to the ponies. Careful today! ;)

[Stillriledup]

Ballmer official.

http://www.clipsnation.com/

[Stillriledup]

Still siding with authority? 'They' had no choice. Of course they did.

In my view authority in this country has become very corrupt. But rather than admit to corruption with joyous exclamations for being exposed the characters painted in that light shake off accusations as 'conspiracy'. And so we don't have any corruption in this country. Isn't that nice? Such noble leaders.

Once you see the play, it's always the same. It's about destroying reputations of those who don't play along. And it's always about money and/or power. - - Back to the ponies. Careful today! ;)

They had no choice. He had no choice. Griffin was "willing" the team to respectability with flair, he essentially forced the hand, the fan base wasn't going to sit back and watch Griffin do it alone. Also, Griffin's legendary dunks and the exciting play he and DJ and others brought to the Clippers got people excited, they sold jerseys and tickets and there was a buzz....and the ownership saw the $ signs and thought "this is good, we are raking in the bucks, all we need to do now is actually win" and it was a snowball effect.

I agree with you that this is a pretty corrupt country and its getting much worse...every politician is bought and paid for, they're all puppets who do whatever big business tells them to do.....and there are SO many lies, that people are numb to all of it at this point.....lying has become an accepted norm, we accept the lying....and, they don't even say "i changed my mind" they just lie to your face and have the attitude, "ok, so i lied, what are you going to do about it"

And the answer is nothing, America is too busy trying to follow Kim Kardashian or Justin Bieber's next drama.