Donald Sterling is not a progressive thinker

[irishog77]

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.

Not to mention the origin of the comments-- a jaded mistress, 50 years his junior, with questionable methods used in producing the tape (and to what end on her part??) are the smoking gun.


At the same time, I think the other 29 owners have full right to protect their property and interests.

I'm not really sure there is a "right" or "correct" way to go about meting out punishment here. It's bad on every side.

 

[gkIrish]

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?

Seriously? You think people should be able to lose their business based on what the public thinks of it?

So the owner of Chick fil-A should have to be forced to sell too because millions of people hate him?

 

[Emcee77]

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.

Exactly. If Sterling merely made an unpopular statement, I would not be in favor of such a harsh punishment, as a matter of fairness. But he has a long record of egregious conduct. I see nothing wrong with the NBA saying it doesn't want to be associated with him.

 

[Cackalacky]

Seriously? You think people should be able to lose their business based on what the public thinks of it?

So the owner of Chick fil-A should have to be forced to sell too because millions of people hate him?

That is not the scenario. Its most like what Lax laid out. He signed on to purchase the team within the rules laid out by the NBA. He agreed to the powers given to the Commissioner. Its his own damn fault. This is not like forcing someone out of their own business.

 

[gkIrish]

That is not the scenario. Its most like what Lax laid out. He signed on to purchase the team within the rules laid out by the NBA. He agreed to the powers given to the Commissioner. Its his own damn fault. This is not like forcing someone out of their own business.

Emcee said

"Wouldn't it be a good thing if the public, who is ultimately paying for [Chick-fil-A] by buying [food, merchandise, etc.], can have an impact on it?"

What am I misunderstanding?

 

[irishog77]

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.

I'd say that anybody that owns property may care.

I chose the part I bolded because I don't think it is as solid as you say it is. I didn't address the rest because I agreed with it. Are we know supposed to address every aspect of posts now?

 

[arrowryan]

Good for Adam Silver and the NBA. LeBron James was right, there is no room for Donald Sterling in the NBA. Whether it's legal or not, racism is wrong and it definitely can't be tolerated in African-American dominated sport like the NBA.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I would simply tell Sterling he has until the end of the business week to offer his team for sale. If that deadline is not met, the NBA will deny it continued association with the league. Basically making the Clippers as a business worthless.

It can't be worth anything of it has nowhere to play.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Among those groups, Magic Johnson and Guggenheim Partners will be front-and-center in pursuit of the Clippers.</p>— Adrian Wojnarowski (@WojYahooNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/statuses/461209587832471552">April 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Emcee77]

Seriously? You think people should be able to lose their business based on what the public thinks of it?

So the owner of Chick fil-A should have to be forced to sell too because millions of people hate him?

Who would be forcing the owner of Chick Fil A to sell in this scenario? I'm not sure I see how this example relates. I don't know how Chick Fil A is organized as a corporation but it's a private company, isn't it? No one can force him to sell if he doesn't want to.

What happened here is that Adam Silver took action to prevent a public relations nightmare from causing what would be, best-case-scenario, a costly distraction to the NBA, by choosing to dissociate Sterling from the NBA, a power he at least arguably possesses as commissioner under NBA rules. As Lax says, that's no different from partners in a law firm getting together and deciding to fire another partner. I see nothing wrong with the fact that they might do so because the public finds that partner reprehensible and they want nothing to do with him.

 

[Cackalacky]

Emcee said



What am I misunderstanding?

That Chick-Fil-A and the NBA are the same type of business and run the same way. They are not.

 

[gkIrish]

Guys this is what just happened.


"We didn't ban Donald Sterling for being a racist slumlord because he settled out of court"

"However, we are banning Donald Sterling for saying his friends don't like black people in a taped conversation with his mistress."

Do you guys not see how ridiculous that is???

 

[irishog77]

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.

Agreed. Except Silver can't actually force him out. The owners have to collectively do that (or 3/4 of them). But first, in order to force an owner out, he has to act in a certain manner. Based on Munson's brief take, I'm not sure Sterling acted in such a manner though.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Guys this is what just happened.


"We didn't ban Donald Sterling for being a racist slumlord because he settled out of court"

"However, we are banning Donald Sterling for saying his friends don't like black people in a taped conversation with his mistress."

Do you guys not see how ridiculous that is???

That's not it man. It's a pattern of egregious conduct, like Emcee said. This taping was the tipping point. Viewing this event in isolation is not the only factor that was taken into account.

 

[irishfan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Among those groups, Magic Johnson and Guggenheim Partners will be front-and-center in pursuit of the Clippers.</p>— Adrian Wojnarowski (@WojYahooNBA) <a href="https://twitter.com/WojYahooNBA/statuses/461209587832471552">April 29, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sterling HAS to have some some say over who he sells the team to right? I doubt he'd willingly sell to Magic.

 

[Cackalacky]

Agreed. Except Silver can't actually force him out. The owners have to collectively do that (or 3/4 of them). But first, in order to force an owner out, he has to act in a certain manner. Based on Munson's brief take, I'm not sure Sterling acted in such a manner though.

Yes. There will be a meeting and presentation of evidence and a vote by the owners. Silver began this process.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Sterling HAS to have some some say over who he sells the team to right? I doubt he'd willingly sell to Magic.

What's funny is there are conspiracy theories out there saying that Magic was instrumental in the recording as a way to position himself to buy the Clippers. Not saying I believe in it, but it's funny how everything may work out.

 

[irishog77]

Who would be forcing the owner of Chick Fil A to sell in this scenario? I'm not sure I see how this example relates. I don't know how Chick Fil A is organized as a corporation but it's a private company, isn't it? No one can force him to sell if he doesn't want to.

What happened here is that Adam Silver took action to prevent a public relations nightmare from causing what would be, best-case-scenario, a costly distraction to the NBA, by choosing to dissociate Sterling from the NBA, a power he at least arguably possesses as commissioner under NBA rules. As Lax says, that's no different from partners in a law firm getting together and deciding to fire another partner. I see nothing wrong with the fact that they might do so because the public finds that partner reprehensible and they want nothing to do with him.

And I agree with the collective owners of any business being able to look out for their best interest. But there are stipulations (some sort of contract) in place to force out one of your law partners.

People at your firm still have to have some sort of just cause to force you out. My issue and belief that this is a tricky situation is because what is the just cause for forcing out Sterling? What by-laws did he break? Literally.

 

[gkIrish]

That's not it man. It's a pattern of egregious conduct, like Emcee said. This taping was the tipping point. Viewing this event in isolation is not the only factor that was taken into account.

Where did you hear or read that Sterling's past was taken into account?

Adam Silver specifically distanced the NBA from the previous accusations.

QUESTION: " People knew in the past that he was a racist slumlord. Why was action not taken then."

ANSWER: "ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN WHEN EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO US"

 

[Emcee77]

Emcee said



What am I misunderstanding?

I am having trouble figuring it out myself. I agree with Cack that the Chick Fil A analogy is not relevant here, as I typed above, but even if it were, what on Earth would be wrong with consumers getting together and deciding not to purchase Chick Fil A? That's a boycott. If public opinion were united against Chick Fil A, it would absolutely ruin the company. What would be wrong with that? Similarly, if the NBA feared that consumers might boycott the NBA if it didn't expel Silver, why couldn't it expel Silver? How is that unfair to him?

I'd say that anybody that owns property may care.

Anyone that owns property? This situation has nothing to do with most people's property. Most people don't own NBA franchises. Sterling's agreement with the NBA gives the NBA the power to expel him under certain circumstances. Silver is exercising a contractual right (at least arguably ... litigation will determine his rights, most likely).

I chose the part I bolded because I don't think it is as solid as you say it is. I didn't address the rest because I agreed with it. Are we know supposed to address every aspect of posts now?

Word.

 

[Cackalacky]

Guys this is what just happened.


"We didn't ban Donald Sterling for being a racist slumlord because he settled out of court"

"However, we are banning Donald Sterling for saying his friends don't like black people in a taped conversation with his mistress."

Do you guys not see how ridiculous that is???

Its not ridiculous. He agreed to be a part of a group of people running a 32 partner venture. He jeopardized his own investment by being a douche. The owners and the league have every right to dissociate from him. How they do it is one thing but it is within the scope of the rules that ALL owners in the NBA agreed to, including Sterling.

 

[irishog77]

That's not it man. It's a pattern of egregious conduct, like Emcee said. This taping was the tipping point. Viewing this event in isolation is not the only factor that was taken into account.

Except Silver alluded to it not being a factor in his presser. He was asked about why are they just now doing something. My take from the press conference is that it was solely based on the tape.

 

[Emcee77]

And I agree with the collective owners of any business being able to look out for their best interest. But there are stipulations (some sort of contract) in place to force out one of your law partners.

People at your firm still have to have some sort of just cause to force you out. My issue and belief that this is a tricky situation is because what is the just cause for forcing out Sterling? What by-laws did he break? Literally.

Well, that's fair enough. It may turn out that Silver DOESN'T have the contractual right to force Sterling out. But that's what litigation is for.

Either way, Sterling's conduct is so egregious that I don't find this situation troubling at all.

 

[gkIrish]

Its not ridiculous. He agreed to be a part of a group of people running a 32 partner venture. He jeopardized his own investment by being a douche. The owners and the league have every right to dissociate from him. How they do it is one thing but it is within the scope of the rules that ALL owners in the NBA agreed to, including Sterling.

You are completely ignoring the facts of what he actually did though. The facts have been completely skewed. What happened here is that misinformation was spread quickly and ferociously.

Since the NBA is completely separating itself from Sterling's past, all we can look at is what is on that tape. Would you want to be fired from your job for something you didn't actually say?

If you think what he actually said is racist, fair enough. Agree to disagree on that. I just think what he said is ignorant and crazy, but not racist.

 

[Luckylucci]

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.

Very well said. This is how I feel about it.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Where did you hear or read that Sterling's past was taken into account?

Adam Silver specifically distanced the NBA from the previous accusations.

QUESTION: " People knew in the past that he was a racist slumlord. Why was action not taken then."

ANSWER: "ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT ACTION WAS TAKEN WHEN EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO US"

So I guess he's supposed to say: "Well, David Stern decided not to punish him for any of his actions, but he wasn't tough enough. So now I'm going to."

My justification for agreeing with the punishment, although recognizing that it's a dangerous precedent, is that everyone knew this guy was racist, but now there is indisputable evidence. Everyone's previous conceptions of him being racist are now sufficiently corroborated because we have an authenticated tape proving it.

I'm sure Sterling is as upset as you are, so we will see if he challenges it.

 

[gkIrish]

So I guess he's supposed to say: "Well, David Stern decided not to punish him for any of his actions, but he wasn't tough enough. So now I'm going to."

My justification for agreeing with the punishment, although recognizing that it's a dangerous precedent, is that everyone knew this guy was racist, but now there is indisputable evidence. Everyone's previous conceptions of him being racist are now sufficiently corroborated because we have an authenticated tape proving it.

I'm sure Sterling is as upset as you are, so we will see if he challenges it.

That's exactly what he should have said.

Don't paint as me as being sympathetic to Sterling because I'm not. I'm a very objective person who happens to be a lawyer and I like to call it how I see it. Do I think Sterling is a piece of shit? yes. But what the NBA did is not supportable based on the facts they took into account.

 

[Cackalacky]

You are completely ignoring the facts of what he actually did though. The facts have been completely skewed. What happened here is that misinformation was spread quickly and ferociously.

Since the NBA is completely separating itself from Sterling's past, all we can look at is what is on that tape. Would you want to be fired from your job for something you didn't actually say?

If you think what he actually said is racist, fair enough. Agree to disagree on that. I just think what he said is ignorant and crazy, but not racist.

I think it was totally racist and I really could not care less what the NBA does. Most likely they believe he is detrimental to a league that is primarily played by African Americans. He is a historic POS to me and he only has himself to blame, regardless of how or why the tape came to light. The Commissioner has the ability to act as he has done and the owners will decide the final outcome.

 

[gkIrish]

I am having trouble figuring it out myself. I agree with Cack that the Chick Fil A analogy is not relevant here, as I typed above, but even if it were, what on Earth would be wrong with consumers getting together and deciding not to purchase Chick Fil A? That's a boycott. If public opinion were united against Chick Fil A, it would absolutely ruin the company. What would be wrong with that? Similarly, if the NBA feared that consumers might boycott the NBA if it didn't expel Silver, why couldn't it expel Silver? How is that unfair to him? .

I think we are on completely different pages so I'm going to step away from this portion of the discussion.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

That's exactly what he should have said.

Don't paint as me as being sympathetic to Sterling because I'm not. I'm a very objective person who happens to be a lawyer and I like to call it how I see it. Do I think Sterling is a piece of shit? yes. But what the NBA did is not supportable based on the facts they took into account.

I know you're a lawyer and I framed my response in a way that I knew you would understand. I'm not attempting to paint you as sympathetic. We just view the facts differently.