Reply With Quote
I hope Sterling uses his billions to become a super villain tbh. Funding African civil wars and blaming it on Magic sleeping around.
Exactly, even though that argument is dubious at this point with the points I raised above. Morally, the NBA got it right and he should not be an owner. But the entire process was about as un-American and shady as you can get and that part doesn't sit well with me.
The best thing I can equate it to (and it's no where near the gravity of this situation) is sports and replay. It would be like NBA refs having a very defined rule and during the course of a game, while looking at a reviewed play, they notice a foul before the call being reviewed (which the foul is not reviewable) and instead of ruling on the part that is reviewable and the call made, they go back and supersede the rules because it's the right thing to do.
I hope Sterling uses his billions to become a super villain tbh. Funding African civil wars and blaming it on Magic sleeping around
Oh I don't blame the NBA for wanting Sterling out. I think they tried to wait him out instead of proactively dealing with this when the housing suit stuff came down. I just think this sets a bad precedent the way this went down. They should have made a move after the racial discrimination suit. I know on some level this was a lifetime achievement award for being such a , but I don't want to live in a world where we must appease the digital mob for violations of groupthink.
Great. Now Seattle has 10 years to build a new arena.
I agree with your overall view, but bullying/bribing your way to the jackpot is very, very contemporary 'Murica... We went from buying and owning things to licensing/renting things (ie: the IP world). Went from justice to "if you want this, you gotta agree not to sue and we'll pick the arbitrator" (ie: cell phone contracts). This is a rentier world now, formed basically of little clubs that force you to waive your rights if you want to be part of them. It's a larger topic than just this instance, and it certainly does't sit well with me either.
I don't think he should lose his team with no compensation, however it's silly to overpay for Clips ...Sterling had them in a ty deal. No suite money, Weakerr on court "spotlights" and stadium lighting, smaller lockerrooms...What a ing genius ...but he has two billion reasons to be happy.
And even if sponsors, Doc, Silver owners etc knew he was racist when it goes public they
Have to act. Players wanna boycott anyway since they took a ty CBA deal.
This has been public for years. This is not new. I don't understand why people keep acting like this was some unknown, private thing that just blew up. It's been a major story for years & I even brought it up when Granger choose The Clippers before this situation arose.
The conspiracy-minded part of me wonders if the whole thing was a set up. Pay off the woman to tape him, promise to get her a lawyer when the hits the fan. The ridiculous overpay is obviously to get the Sterlings to go away and not strand the franchise in limbo while this gets litigated for years.
I mean, it's well-known in NBA circles what a demented nutcase this guy is. What ended up getting taped is just the tip of the iceberg. Wouldn't at all be surprised if somebody decided a TMZ-instigated social media storm was the way to go to get rid of him.
Not seeing it, tbh.....
First of all, owning a franchise has always been different from owning a standalone business.... just like McDonald's can void your franchise for not living up to their standards and harming the company's reputation, the NBA can kick you out of the club for not playing by their rules.... that's not indicative of a new "IP/renting world," it's just the way it's always worked....
Second of all, despite Media's attempts to make this a purely racial issue in order to get more pageviews and ratings, this controversy has always been primarily an issue of contracts.... at the end of the day, DTS agreed to the league cons ution that gave the NBA the power to vote him out, he agreed to moral/ethical contracts to the league, he signed a contract with his wife allowing the sale of the team, and he signed a contract with the family trust requiring him to be of sound mind to continue to be a trustee.... those contracts don't just go away because he regrets signing them or because the tables have finally turned on him... he wasn't forced to waive his rights, he gave up some of his rights willingly....
Finally, whether the recordings were meant for public consumption or not doesn't matter.... if you can lose your job for tweeting out something negative about your boss/employer, even if it's from your personal account and not intended for the company to read, why should Sterling not have to face consequences for saying inflammatory things about his customers? Not to mention, it's not like his racist beliefs haven't already been public for decades in other forms....
Even if there really was a conspiracy, that's still better than Stern pussying out and doing absolutely nothing to remove this cancer from the league...
Welcome to the Soviet North American Union.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying the NBA isn't en led to do what it's doing, I'm saying we (including Sterling) has to willingly waive a good chunk of his rights in order to be part of the "select club". DPG said he feels that's un-American, but it actually is what America has been moving to in all sorts of areas. For example, if you signed a contract with AT&T, you waived your right to class action suits. It's a complex topic that goes beyond of what's happening in this case.
tl;dr
1)You tweeting something for public consumption is much different than being illegally recorded.
2) Cons utional rights do not get thrown out the window because it's a private company with it's own rules. You are free to have your own regulations from a company/contract perspective, but they do not supersede cons utional rights.
3) He did sign a contract allowing him to be voted out. Players also have contracts with stipulations. After he signed that contract, plenty of public things came out and they did nothing. It didn't damage the brand because players continue to sign there and high profile coaches.
4) Latching onto point 3 - many things, arguably just as bad (depending on your moral compass) have happened, very publicly and punishment has been no where near this.
If you can't understand the concept of precedent or consistency in punishment, then that is on you. I don't feel bad for Sterling - at the end of the day he's a crappy person who shouldn't own a team and he's making billions off of this anyways. It doesn't mean that I agree with the tactics, process & overall feel of what happened despite the decision being morally correct.
This is actually not entirely true. You CAN waive your cons utional rights as part of entering a contract. That's the power that allows the NBA to fine players for exercising their free speech (a cons utionally protected right) in ways that the league feels is detrimental.
The call took place on the soil of California correct? Don't both parties have to consent if the conversation is going to be recorded in California? Sterling, racist or not, had his privacy and rights violated. You can on him and say he's a racist even though you've probably said some stupid that you hope to God no one ever finds out about but at the end of the day, it was a private phone call. It was none of our business. It was not the business of the NBA, Clippers, the players, coaches, or the fans. If you are in your house, you should be allowed to have some privacy and that includes on your phone.
Only to a certain degree. You cannot consent, whether in the contract or not, to illegal recording for example (I think). Free speech is a cons utional right & as such you are free to do things (within the guidelines of the interpretation of the law). That doesn't protect you from ramifications such as this case (in a bubble).
The big picture problem he has with the league is that he waived his due process right to challenge the league determinations in court, and that's huge.
It wasn't the league that recorded him illegally. He likely does have a case against the , but that's immaterial to the league.
He agreed not to sue the league and to accept the Commissioner's determinations, along with putting his membership in the hands of the other owners as part of becoming member of the "club". He knew that and agreed with it when he signed up for it.
Sure, but even within that contract with the NBA, there were clear areas that he felt violated that agreement per his lawyers response to the league. If they breached their contract or went beyond their scope of enforceable punishment, I would imagine he has a case.
There was never any doubt that he'll sue, and he will always find a lawyer that takes his money from him. I also think he'll probably sue his wife. I don't think his lawsuit against the league will prevail, tho.
I don't get the cons utional rights objection. Free speech means you can't go jail for expressing unpopular opinions.
Should any of us lose any of our possessions for that we say in private at our homes? If Sterling has the Clippers taken away over stupid he said on an illegally recorded phone call then it's fair game for everyone else. Stop being in hypocrites and stone throwers. Don't act like you're holier than thou. Just tired of all the hypocrisy.
If you signed a contract allowing the HOA to take your home away for saying stupid , watch who you say stupid to.
I think it's more about the illegal recording part v the free speech part..
Sterling just wants to get the league to pay his capital gains taxes. That's all.
Ballmer is described as a "Seattle-based former Microsoft chief executive."
"Seattle Clippers" has a nice ring to it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
