Reply With Quote
Why doesn't Silver persuade a black billionaire to buy the team?
It'd be between Oprah or Mike Adenuga
Why wouldn't they stay at Staples?
Why doesn't Silver persuade a black billionaire to buy the team?
It'd be between Oprah or Mike Adenuga
Is Stuart Scott doing well? Ain't seen him in a minute.
Considering Sterling also has shares in AEG and in Staples Center, does that mean he has to forfeit those holds as well? A la Frank McCourt who tried to keep control of the parking lots around Chavez Ravine.
It was convincing until he got asked the right questions and then he dodged like Neo from the Matrix.
He's battling the big C again...
Espn has become an after school program trying to keep black people out of trouble after they retire.ESPN trotting out every black person they have on payroll tbh
The only part I agree with J.Hill on is that she shouldn't necessarily applaud Sterling for this. He finally did his job, but he was a part of letting this linger and get to this point.
Ahh... didn't see the press conference... a shame, really, since I thought he handled this swiftly and decisively.
comedy. But most of them never played in the pros: stu scott, Stephen A, Jemele Hill just media hacks.
The funniest part is the Clipper organization releasing a statement. The same guys suing him, not walking out and collecting those checks. I'll be damned.
Freedom of speech? Freedom of speech just means you can't be thrown in jail.
Well yeah, I know that.
He absolutely did. It was the right decision and the end game was achieved. Still many questions that will be swept under the rug and I am very interested to see this play out legally. Especially when the next private recording leaks and it's from a player and someone gets offended.
Like many have said before--it is a business. Remember that one CEO chick who got murked because she was tweeting racial stuff about South Africa? Or, the other CIO or whatever who yelled racial epithets to a black kid on an airplane? He got the boot. It doesn't pay to be racist in plain view and Sterling has been this way for decades and he's been nonchalant about it. The ultimate end game was to wrest control over the Clips and secure the 2nd team in the 2nd market to squeeze more blood from the L.A. stone.
They have been fine with it - it's exactly how they ended up under contract with this long and very publicly do ented history of racism.
Called it tbh. People are talking about forcing him to sell isn't going to happen easily. It's a long dark road the league quite honestly wants to avoid.
At at the end of the day, Sterling is going to continue making profits from his black players lol. Balls on your court Clipper fans and players.
SAS going in on NAACP and rightly so. He should be going in more on NBA and the coaches/players who buried their heads in the sand for money too. The focus is on Sterling and the result is great, but there are other issues at hand.
I don't foresee much of a problem, tbh... what Silver did is well within the commish power... we might not agree with his decisions all the time, but that already happened with Stern, tbh
We will see if it's within his power. I think it was within his power to envoke the vote, fine and suspend him. The point is, this now opened up rulings to judge by any means necessary any actions by players, owners, coaches or NBA employees even if it's private. There could absolutely be some nasty litigation because of this either now or down the road.
They already do that though. IIRC, NBA contracts stipulate certain conditions on what players are forbidden to do even on their private time (including random drug checks, prohibition from certain activities, etc).
That's basically a lot of what's fought over, besides money, during CBA negotiations.
No,no. The contract do stipulate conduct in public places. They don't regulate anything with regards to private life, especially without conviction of a crime. This is an entirely different thing and incredibly monumental from a policing state.
You can have things in the contract (like no riding motorcycles) but that is explicitly laid out. Someone essentially illegally recording you (which I am not sure if thats the case here) just expressing views (no matter how disgusting) is an entirely different thing. Who defines what is offensive? Racism is generally considered offensive, but what about views on gays? Religion? Sexual practices? There are a lot of moral questions and that is the grey area and why this is so big.
Ultimately, it's about what will impact the bottom line. But these are still important questions (although we all know nothing will be done overall).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions