Reply With Quote
i wonder if said court/jury would evaluate the fact sterling was with a black woman? hmm... this nation is nothing but pussies and PC wannabes when in their own confides of their homes they are probably more racist than sterling could ever be.
In b4 Sterling exposes publicly the fixing of NBA games
i wonder if said court/jury would evaluate the fact sterling was with a black woman? hmm... this nation is nothing but pussies and PC wannabes when in their own confides of their homes they are probably more racist than sterling could ever be.
pretty much. I like Sterling. I appreciate the fact he's a billionaire but it is still paying for a B grade , I always sympathize with fellow cheapskates.
I think the real issue is the league doesn't like him because he's sitting on a gold mine but is too cheap to really maximize it's potential. Like you said, too many players or business partners refuse to deal with him, plus some even wealthier people want to buy up the Clippers, so I bet the league will find a way to remove him. Hopefully he continues to expose their hypocrisy and bs.
No they won't because his beliefs on race won't be the issue. The issue will be whether or not the NBA has a right to protect their image and whether or not he signed a contract giving the NBA the authority to terminate his ownership. You cannot prove what he believes, even the slave owners had black girlfriends, but that's not the issue here. It's merely a legal proceeding to determine whether or not Sterling was in breech of contract or if the NBA can terminate ownership of a franchise. He's been tried in the media and found guilty, however most people have no idea what the real issues are.
i hope he brings this league to its knees and exposes everything wrong with the nba! this bs league!
well then... maybe the nba should be looked at for their views on who should run the nba.... just jews, right?
You obviously have no idea how corporations work and that the Feds don't decide who runs a corporation however the corporation can discriminate when it comes to a franchise being part of the NBA just as any corporation can decide to not allow your store to be part of its franchise if they so choose.
This aint about what should happen, but what will happen and why. It's all legal, nothing to do with morals or ethics.
If anyone took the time to read the report, his argument has serious validity, he countered each charge individually and used the law to back him up and was really critical of Silver overreaching. It was incredibly well written and worth a read and i would think he has an excellent chance to win in a court of law, especially since it was an illegal recording of him with his lover in her living room.
It's essentially a legal motion, of course it sounds persuading to a layman. That being said though, his points were valid and has procedural due process merits. Adam Silver didn't give Sterling a fair opportunity to be heard - many of Sterling's comments that were being "investigated" was only to the truth of its veracity and not based on an actual meeting to explain the situation at hand. Albeit the league only has to show that they have a legitimate purpose in forcing Sterling to sell the team, the fact that they didn't give Sterling the opportunity to be heard will ultimately be their flaw.
Knowing the way it works...the small market spurs teams championships will be the only ones that were "rigged". They'll have to take the brunt of it to protect all the laker bulls championships as legitimate.
bank bail outs... government owns everything!
I agree that this is a full legal bout between Sterling and the NBA, but if you strip all the Cons utional elements and free speech rights aside (since they don't apply), the true issue here is whether the NBA owns the Clippers organization, or the Clippers own the Clippers organization. Sterling's right in a sense that property cannot be deprived from an individual for their freedom of speech, but if it is ultimately decided that NBA owns the Clippers (which I believe is not the case), then NBA may force sale of the team. I don't think the NBA has any stake in the Clippers organization, but again you dig deeper and see just how much the Clippers have to pay dues to NBA each season, and determine if there is a symbiotic relationship between the two.
If the NBA owns the Clippers then why the is Sterling the owner of the Clippers? I just love how people over the whole "it's a franchise" and Sterling doesn't really own the Clippers .
I see an all out war, you dont with a billionaire lawyer using inadmissible evidence and threaten to force a sale to magic AIDS johnson and expect him to not drag you down with him
Silver went full re tbh. He should've taken some time and settled this in the offseason like Stern would have. Used heart over his head and got too emotional. It's now backfiring and could get very messy.
I did read the report. He admits in the report that the contract he signed states he cannot fight their decision in court. If anyone knows contracts is a billionaire lawyer.
Let's put it this way: if he for some reason was allowed to keep his team, the league could vote to contract and shut out the entire team making them worthless.
Ok! but not really!
You learned those from your experiences as a "President and CEO"?
Doesn't the league hold the rights to actually contract and shut out the Clippers if they vote to do so? If so, wouldn't that make them valueless?
Among other things rich people do.
Sterling is the controlling owner of the Clippers. He's being charged under the leagues Article 13 as an owner. The league can oust the Clippers "membership", assuming at least 22 board members vote against him. It's tricky, the Sterling trust could lose membership but there are cons utional rights that prevents the Clippers as a franchise itself from losing relationship with the league, but once Sterlings termination is in full effect, Silver would be the de facto owner.
I keep reading that people are looking for a quick resolution but there will be litigation which is a lengthy and exhaustive process in this case at least. The league hasn't even done any major legal proceedings, so they don't have anything to litigate.
At the end of the day, it's based off of factual situations. Sterling's obviously going to argue that he owns the team so the league can't take it away form him. But at the same time, there's tons of things that Clippers have to do that are intertwined with the league, like playing in the league, using their logos, the trade names, broadcasting rights, etc. From a legal standpoint, there's no denying that it's pretty much an uphill battle for Donald Sterling at this point.
Nobody except Adam Silver and Sterling / his lawyers are probably scouring through the bylaws right now to see whether Donald actually signed up to relinquish these rights.
There's a lot of creative legal issues that Donald can come up with, it's just a matter if it sticks or not. For example, he can even argue that by signing the bylaws to establish Clippers as a basketball team belonging to the NBA, the contract can be set up to be breached because it's violating 13th amendment cons utional rights for involuntary servitude - forcing someone to do something when they don't have to do it. There's many ways to attack this.
On a side note, all the points Sterling's legal motion pointed out is exactly the problem with the NBA and how they control their players. Saying something in their own private home that's recorded, or saying something stupid on Twitter, or any speech is over-broad on the NBA's power. At what point is the NBA infringing on the player and owner's private lives? For example, a player gets a DUI and is fined and suspended for a certain amount of games. A DUI has no bearing on the player's abilities on the court and his actions are not in concert with the NBA, so why does the NBA have the power to control his actions?
Sterling got upset over his tranny mistress being around black guys and gets banned for life. JR Smith killed someone and is still in the league. If you are caught by the thought or word police, it's basically a death sentence. I just think it's funny that saying something stupid or controversial is worse than killing or raping someone.
I don't think there is much validity at all. Just a transparent attempt to get people lost in a maze of moral relativism that will amount to nothing. Dude's dunzos everyone knows this at this point
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
