Donald Sterling is not a progressive thinker

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Silver did it. Banned him for life


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[woolybug25]

Big brother is always watching soccer games so whoever did that is probably dead.

How do you know that it wasn't Big Brother that threw it?…

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I'm really happy with the punishment Adam Silver has handed down on Sterling.

The NBA is in good hands with the new commissioner.

 

[Huntr]

Shocked.

Lifetime B7 and

"I will urge the board of governors to exercise its authority to force a sale of the team and will do everything ... to ensure it happens."

Blows me away. Simmons was correct, at least on some of it.

 

[gkIrish]

I gotta be honest. This is a really dangerous precedent to set in the NBA and probably for all sports.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Wow. So I guess NBC News was wrong.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I agree 100% with Commissioner Silvers findings and the actions taken against Donald Sterling</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/statuses/461208183965351937">April 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Emcee77]

I gotta be honest. This is a really dangerous precedent to set in the NBA and probably for all sports.

What do you mean? What do you see as the potential danger?

 

[woolybug25]

I gotta be honest. This is a really dangerous precedent to set in the NBA and probably for all sports.

Totally agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, as this is the result most people wanted, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.

A line in the sand has been drawn that if you own an NBA team. One that states that your personal comments, said off the record, can get your business taken from you. In essence, public perception of you personally can cost you at any time. No crime was committed here, no law was broken. The commissioner has full ability to be judge, jury and executioner without due process.

Silver better have his legal p's and q's in line, because he just picked fight with a billionaire.


Question: What legal course do they have to fine him if they are forcing him to sell his team? Couldn't he just say, "screw it" and walk away?

 

[irishfan]

Totally agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, as this is the result most people wanted, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.

A line in the sand has been drawn that if you own an NBA team. One that states that your personal comments, said off the record, can get your business taken from you. In essence, public perception of you personally can cost you at any time. No crime was committed here, no law was broken. The commissioner has full ability to be judge, jury and executioner without due process.

Silver better have his legal p's and q's in line, because he just picked fight with a billionaire.


Question: What legal course do they have to fine him if they are forcing him to sell his team? Couldn't he just say, "screw it" and walk away?

Would be fascinating to watch a legal battle between a billionaire and the NBA. Actually rooting for this for the entertainment alone.

 

[Emcee77]

Totally agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, as this is the result most people wanted, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.

A line in the sand has been drawn that if you own an NBA team. One that states that your personal comments, said off the record, can get your business taken from you. In essence, public perception of you personally can cost you at any time. No crime was committed here, no law was broken. The commissioner has full ability to be judge, jury and executioner without due process.

Silver better have his legal p's and q's in line, because he just picked fight with a billionaire.


Question: What legal course do they have to fine him if they are forcing him to sell his team? Couldn't he just say, "screw it" and walk away?

See Cack's post above, #208. Silver stands on fairly solid, if not unshakable, legal ground.

But even if he loses the lawsuit, what does he really lose? Litigation costs? Who cares. Goodwill? Doubtful; he's on the side of the angels. Will prospective owners be wary of getting involved in the NBA in the future? Not likely; Sterling's conduct was so egregious that no reasonably civil and decent person will have a hard time staying on the right side of the line the NBA has drawn.

I don't see any danger here. Might as well throw the book at Sterling.

 

[gkIrish]

What do you mean? What do you see as the potential danger?

See wooly's post. Pretty much sums it up.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I gotta be honest. This is a really dangerous precedent to set in the NBA and probably for all sports.

I would ussually agree, but this doesn't seem like some guy who slipped and said something he regretted but didn't really mean (e.g., something stupid while drunk or in a heated fight), or some guy who harbors some non-PC belief who is getting punished by the thought police (gave money to traditional marriage group).

Sterling seems like a truly loathsome guy- a meglomaniac. That's what comes across any way.

It makes sense for his business partners to want to part ways permanently.

 

[irishog77]

Totally agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, as this is the result most people wanted, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.

A line in the sand has been drawn that if you own an NBA team. One that states that your personal comments, said off the record, can get your business taken from you. In essence, public perception of you personally can cost you at any time. No crime was committed here, no law was broken. The commissioner has full ability to be judge, jury and executioner without due process.

Silver better have his legal p's and q's in line, because he just picked fight with a billionaire.


Question: What legal course do they have to fine him if they are forcing him to sell his team? Couldn't he just say, "screw it" and walk away?

Good question. I bet, though, that certain revenue sharing streams (ESPN, ABC, TNT contracts) go to the league....and then the league disperses the money. I'd guess they could just withhold 2.5m if he doesn't pay.

But I agree, if somebody did that to me, I'd say fuck you and wouldn't pay it.

 

[NDdomer2]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I agree 100% with Commissioner Silvers findings and the actions taken against Donald Sterling</p>— Mark Cuban (@mcuban) <a href="https://twitter.com/mcuban/statuses/461208183965351937">April 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

isn't this kind of the opposite of what he said in his interview yesterday?

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Totally agree. I know it's not a popular opinion, as this is the result most people wanted, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.

A line in the sand has been drawn that if you own an NBA team. One that states that your personal comments, said off the record, can get your business taken from you. In essence, public perception of you personally can cost you at any time. No crime was committed here, no law was broken. The commissioner has full ability to be judge, jury and executioner without due process.

Silver better have his legal p's and q's in line, because he just picked fight with a billionaire.


Question: What legal course do they have to fine him if they are forcing him to sell his team? Couldn't he just say, "screw it" and walk away?

The fine occurred simultaneously with the ban, technically while he is still an owner. It's as if the SEC sued somebody, issued an injunction to ban them from practicing in securities, and simultaneously fines them. I think it acts as a sort of lien against Sterling, with the NBA bylaws acting as the governing law.

 

[IrishLax]

FWIW, to me this is no different than being a partner at a law firm or equivalent where you are 1/32 of the collective "ownership." At those kinds of enterprises, public and private comments routinely get you ousted if the other 31/32 partners think you are detrimental to the organization as a whole.

Dangerous precedent? Yes. Correct action? Probably. Only option to squash this before it became the story of the entire playoffs? Absolutely.

Even if Silver doesn't plan to follow through on the nuclear option he just said he's going for, he at least had to represent zero tolerance at this juncture.

 

[Emcee77]

I doubt the NBA cares whether he pays the 2.5 million if he sells his team and walks away from the league. It's just a disciplinary gesture.

 

[condoms SUCk]

I gotta be honest. This is a really dangerous precedent to set in the NBA and probably for all sports.

Yup, my thoughts exactly. Not that I agree with him, but if you can take away someone's property based on just their thoughts (NOT ACTIONS) whose to say that if you don't agree with gay marriage or other social hot topics that your stuff can't be taken away too.
Sterling has ran his organization just like other owners to my knowledge.

 

[irishog77]

See Cack's post above, #208. Silver stands on fairly solid, if not unshakable, legal ground.

But even if he loses the lawsuit, what does he really lose? Litigation costs? Who cares. Goodwill? Doubtful; he's on the side of the angels. Will prospective owners be wary of getting involved in the NBA in the future? Not likely; Sterling's conduct was so egregious that no reasonably civil and decent person will have a hard time staying on the right side of the line the NBA has drawn.

I don't see any danger here. Might as well throw the book at Sterling.

I'm not so sure. Without reading the constitution and by-laws of the league (i'm still waiting on my copy, Mark Cuban), I wouldn't necessarily say Silver stands on solid ground.

The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."

What did Sterling do that meets this requirement?

 

[gkIrish]

I would ussually agree, but this doesn't seem like some guy who slipped and said something he regretted but didn't really mean (e.g., something stupid while drunk or in a heated fight), or some guy who harbors some non-PC belief who is getting punished by the thought police (gave money to traditional marriage group).

Sterling seems like a truly loathsome guy- a meglomaniac. That's what comes across any way.

It makes sense for his business partners to want to part ways permanently.

I think he is just a crazy, old, ignorant man who is likely very racist but there's nothing on that taped conversation that justifies this penalty. If you take the slumlord shit into consideration, then sure. But Silver specifically said they weren't able to punish him for those accusations.

This sets a bad precedent because it's basically saying we can ban someone in the NBA for life based on public outcry. That's all this is based on. The public thinks he said he doesn't want black people in his arena. That's not what he said.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

FWIW, to me this is no different than being a partner at a law firm or equivalent where you are 1/32 of the collective "ownership." At those kinds of enterprises, public and private comments routinely get you ousted if the other 31/32 partners think you are detrimental to the organization as a whole.

Dangerous precedent? Yes. Correct action? Probably. Only option to squash this before it became the story of the entire playoffs? Absolutely.

Even if Silver doesn't plan to follow through on the nuclear option he just said he's going for, he at least had to represent zero tolerance at this juncture.

Was it voted on by the owners or did Silver act unilaterally? SIAP

 

[irishog77]

Was it voted on by the owners or did Silver act unilaterally? SIAP

So far, it's just Silver.

 

[kmoose]

What do you mean? What do you see as the potential danger?

IF his ownership is terminated, then that opens up a very slippery slope indeed. He's obviously an asshole, but he hasn't done anything illegal, nor has he gambled, cooked books, nor engaged in any other financial chicanery. So what's next? An NFL owner tweets that Justin Beiber is an idiot, just as the NFL is trying to nail down an agreement to meld the CFL into an "NFL Canada", so the Commissioner calls for him to be forced to sell his team? A professional sports team is real property. An ownership stake can be used as collateral to secure any number of loans. Taking that away is a very drastic step. One that should be reserved for criminal conduct, in my opinion.

Having said that, the guy is getting what he deserves.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm not so sure. Without reading the constitution and by-laws of the league (i'm still waiting on my copy, Mark Cuban), I wouldn't necessarily say Silver stands on solid ground.



What did Sterling do that meets this requirement?

I don't think it matters. If you read the last paragraph of the link I provided, Silver's decision is final and supercedes arbitration. I don't think it goes much past that....


Further I think the CUban tweet showing the NBA by-laws was actually him saying it exists for reason and that Sterling was a dumbass because he violated something in there.

 

[Emcee77]

I'm not so sure. Without reading the constitution and by-laws of the league (i'm still waiting on my copy, Mark Cuban), I wouldn't necessarily say Silver stands on solid ground.



What did Sterling do that meets this requirement?

Who really cares? First, I'm not gonna write the brief on this message board, but the language is loose enough to make the argument if you are a smart lawyer.

Second, I don't know why you chose to address only one part of my post. Even if Sterling sues and Silver loses the lawsuit, Silver actually loses nothing in the grand scheme of things, except some cash, which he will likely make up in the goodwill he generates by taking a stand for a minority that was slighted. I mean is this bet-the-company litigation? Doubtful. The financial consequences can only be so dire. Only doing nothing, or not enough, can really hurt Silver.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

He should have quickly apologized. Or at least tried to stop the bleeding.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He should have quickly apologized. Or at least tried to stop the bleeding.

Don't think he's sorry.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

IF his ownership is terminated, then that opens up a very slippery slope indeed. He's obviously an asshole, but he hasn't done anything illegal, nor has he gambled, cooked books, nor engaged in any other financial chicanery. So what's next? An NFL owner tweets that Justin Beiber is an idiot, just as the NFL is trying to nail down an agreement to meld the CFL into an "NFL Canada", so the Commissioner calls for him to be forced to sell his team? A professional sports team is real property. An ownership stake can be used as collateral to secure any number of loans. Taking that away is a very drastic step. One that should be reserved for criminal conduct, in my opinion.

Having said that, the guy is getting what he deserves.

I get what you are saying, and do agree it is a dangerous precedent, but this example is not really comparable.

Furthermore, he HAS done illegal things (DOJ suit). If the justification for the ban is all of his actions, TAKEN TOGETHER, then I guess I agree with the punishment.

 

[Emcee77]

I think he is just a crazy, old, ignorant man who is likely very racist but there's nothing on that taped conversation that justifies this penalty. If you take the slumlord shit into consideration, then sure. But Silver specifically said they weren't able to punish him for those accusations.

This sets a bad precedent because it's basically saying we can ban someone in the NBA for life based on public outcry. That's all this is based on. The public thinks he said he doesn't want black people in his arena. That's not what he said.

So what? That's a bad precedent for whom? Wouldn't it be a good thing if the public, who is ultimately paying for the NBA by buying tickets, merchandise, etc., can have an impact on it?