What's new

Looking for genuine discourse re: Donald Sterling/NBA

Sigh. I'll give you $5 - to the charity of S.B.A.M. stop being a moron. And I hated 12 Years a Slave - I'm obviously a racist. You found me out you dumb mother****er you.
Saying that my race prevents me from having an opinion different from the narrative being rammed down our throats by espn, cnn, the mainstream media is the definition of racism, dip-****. My race isn't relevant.



Well, he hasn't broken the law, so what we're left with is the NBA constitution, which you've cited the specific part you claim he is in violation of:

What position did he take? He's not a guy who chases the spotlight. Someone illegally recorded a conversation where Stiviano was on a campaign to get Sterling to say something dumb (which we all have seen isn't hard to do - even for a moron like Stiviano). She was the one who kept harping on "why don't you like black people!" and he's the cornered old man saying repeatedly "leave me alone" but she won't leave it alone. She totally baited him and he's a moron who walks into being baited.


This is so vague. What are these clauses? Don't be racist? He pays all of his players and staff - regardless of race, so where's the racism? "Oh, but Elgin Baylor said once that he treats his employees like plantation workers?" Well, Baylor is wrong because what plantation worker was ever paid salary? This is obvious - which might be part of why Baylor's wrongful-termination suit was rejected. (He also claimed age-discrimination, so he played the race-card and the age-card, any card that might get him his job back! Why would Baylor want to work for what he considers a "plantation owner." this is so dumb)
Also, STERLING'S ENAMORED OF V. STIVIANO!! How can he be a racist when he wants to sleep with her? His "crime" as far as I can tell is he's too stupid to avoid the trap being set for him, and letting slip things that prove him to be obviously old and not very savvy.

Ok, so what's the argument against his ex-wife owning the team? She's not accused of racism. But the mob is on a rampage and won't be dissuaded by reason.

I'm not pro-Sterling. I'm anti-all this "finger-wagging" as Abdul-Jabbar put it. Many people over 75 seem to still have a little residual racism left in them from the era they grew up in, but what, are we gonna go bananas over it? They're old people, they're nearing senility. I'm amazed anyone gets their panties in a bunch over what they say. If they DID something, then that would be different - but they aren't doing anything. In contrast, Sterling does employ blacks, whites, doesn't matter - and pays them healthy salaries. The law forbids him from discriminating against them based on their race.

And don't forget the NAACP was about to give Sterling his SECOND lifetime achievement award. This whole thing reeks of a set-up. Various people have been trying to buy the clippers for years and then in 2012 this Stiviano decides to start this love affair with Sterling, all the while being friends with Magic Johnson - who happens to want to buy the team. This is gross.

All this finger-wagging and calling people "racist" isn't helping race relations. The media's getting people all stirred up and everyone's pointing fingers in an effort to distance themselves from racism. But racism isn't against the law. If it was we'd have to lock up many of the geriatrics, who are too old to do anything with their racism. It's just a stupid mindset from an era long past. But where is the actual racism here?

tl/dr


But what it comes down to it is the NBA is a private entity made up of 30 owners. If you have signed up to it you must adhere to certain rules. If all the other 29 owners don't think you are fit to be operating the team, then they are perfectly within their rights to vote you out, under the NBA constitution. They key point here is the NBA is a private entity - this is nothing to do with whether or not he has broken the Law.




/discussion
 
tl/dr


But what it comes down to it is the NBA is a private entity made up of 30 owners. If you have signed up to it you must adhere to certain rules....

specifically what rule(s) has he broken? Is there a rule against holding unpopular views? Are there rules against using certain words? Is there some vague statement about "conduct unbecoming to a team owner" or something to that effect?

I think the NBA has dug itself a nice little hole. This entire episode is like a bad cartoon strip and Donald Sterling seems more like a caricature than a real person. And there might have been an opportunity for some constructive dialogue when the **** first hit the fan, but now that seems unlikely.
 
I don't love Sterling.

You know who else doesn't love Sterling? His players. When Howard Cosell made an unfortunate "little monkey" comment, black players from a variety of leagues came to his defense, in a time that was, if anything, more racially charged, because it was an unusual comment from someone they knew personally and professionally as a supporter of and believer in racial equality. When Stern made this comment, his players (as well as many others) threatened to boycott the game, risking their salaries and chances of advancing in the playoffs; even when playing they engaged in protests.

People who have interacted with Stern much more than you or I have decided he is worthy of condemnation, not support. That's a sign that anything he's done for the NAACP has been for public relations, not an expression of his true feelings.
 
specifically what rule(s) has he broken? Is there a rule against holding unpopular views? Are there rules against using certain words? Is there some vague statement about "conduct unbecoming to a team owner" or something to that effect?

I think the NBA has dug itself a nice little hole. This entire episode is like a bad cartoon strip and Donald Sterling seems more like a caricature than a real person. And there might have been an opportunity for some constructive dialogue when the **** first hit the fan, but now that seems unlikely.

These rules... (posted 2 pages ago). Pretty sure having the players boycott these playoffs if Sterling wasn't banned constitutes "action which materially and adversely affect a team or the league". Not to mention the bad PR with the whole racism in the NBA thing.

One of those documents, which Sterling signed when he first bought the Clippers in 1981, and signed various amended versions since, states that an owner will not take any position or action that will materially and adversely affect a team or the league. Owners also sign morals clauses, which state that they will be upheld to the highest standard of ethical and moral behavior.

When morals clauses are enacted and result in termination of agreements, including endorsement deals, the courts are often charged with interpreting who was right, but sources with knowledge of the NBA's legal strategy believe that they have enough to force Sterling to sell.
 
People who have interacted with Stern much more than you or I have decided he is worthy of condemnation, not support.

I imagine you mean Sterling rather than Stern. Force of habit I understand after 30 years of the ex-commissioner.

Yeah, nobody likes Sterling and whatever the NBA is legally able to do they'll do. Silver can't back-peddle now. And his action got him a lot of positive press, which I'm guessing he doesn't want to void out. Maybe he did what he did to avoid a boycott (I don't know how likely the boycott was - we're talking ifs and buts). I just hope the law trumps mob mentality. If the law can't protect Sterling's property then he won't be an owner for much longer.

But I find all the righteous indignation really annoying. And Anderson Cooper too - that guy sucks.
 
These rules... (posted 2 pages ago). Pretty sure having the players boycott these playoffs if Sterling wasn't banned constitutes "action which materially and adversely affect a team or the league". Not to mention the bad PR with the whole racism in the NBA thing.

It's vague and could easily get stuck in litigation trying to prove. He could argue that HE wasn't the one who did something to adversely affect the team. He didn't release the recording, so don't punish him for what someone else did. And he can argue he was baited to say those things. He could argue a buncha stuff. Then there's his ex-wife's ownership claim. This is so ugly. Not a slam dunk case (sorry for the pun). There are multiple points of contention that will get this thing stuck in litigation.

I apologize for calling you names, Nickkk. It was carryover from Anderson Cooper. What a douche.
 
It's vague and could easily get stuck in litigation trying to prove. He could argue that HE wasn't the one who did something to adversely affect the team. He didn't release the recording, so don't punish him for what someone else did. And he can argue he was baited to say those things. He could argue a buncha stuff. Then there's his ex-wife's ownership claim. This is so ugly. Not a slam dunk case (sorry for the pun). There are multiple points of contention that will get this thing stuck in litigation.

I apologize for calling you names, Nickkk. It was carryover from Anderson Cooper. What a douche.

He can argue all that as much as he likes, but the fact still stands, 9 law firms so far have turned down defending him.



I'm no lawyer but that tells me a bit about what kind of position he currently has.
 
He can argue all that as much as he likes, but the fact still stands, 9 law firms so far have turned down defending him.



I'm no lawyer but that tells me a bit about what kind of position he currently has.



it could be that those firms are afrai of public opionon.
aka dont go against mob.

law firms cant be labeled a racist firm.
 
it could be that those firms are afrai of public opionon.
aka dont go against mob.

law firms cant be labeled a racist firm.

Yeah, Nickkk is right. I looked up reasons a firm will turn down a case:
Bad Publicity.

Firms may turn you down if they believe you'll tarnish their image. For example, TMZ reports that Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been rejected by at least eight law firms in his quest to sue the NBA because they think he's "toxic."

If your case (or your own publicity) has the potential to scare away a firm's current clients, you may have trouble finding someone to represent you.

Even with strong "sauce" as Nickkkk puts it, I can't see any firm risking their reputation by representing Sterling. I wish people would maneuver their pitchforks toward Stiviano - who is only slightly more lucid than Sterling and who actually broke the law. But going after her would take balls - someone might call you a racist. But she doesn't have anything of value to take from her. Going after a blithering old man nobody likes though - that's brave. And he has something of value - an NBA team a few guys have been trying to buy from him for some time now. He wouldn't sell to them before but now that Stiviano's recorded herself baiting Sterling into saying crazy jealous old man racist crap the opportunity to purchase the team now looks more likely.

The conspiracy theories don't sound that far fetched. Sterling said Magic said he knew the girl. Magic says he doesn't know her. Shrug.
 
Well, what you see and what I see is very similar. But is getting pissed about being teased and ****-blocked against the law?
Yeah, on the illegally recorded tape he sounded insecure and jealous of Magic Johnson, who Stiviano was posing with. It irritated him. And why? 'cause he's old and feels inadequate. His response was often focused on the color of Magic's skin (always guided back to this by Stiviano) but the racist stuff he said was in the jealous, unchecked heat of the moment provoked by Stiviano's incessant badgering. He's not bright. He's jealous. He's old. He said stuff in the heat of the moment - not realizing that it would be broadcast to the world. But his words here don't line up with his actions - the NAACP was about to give him his second lifetime achievement award. Also, just because people in the past have levied charges against you (of which you were found innocent) doesn't mean that you are, all of a sudden, guilty because everybody's swallowing the propaganda. Baylor had no case.

I don't love Sterling. Like he said of Magic, the guy's no example for the youth of L.A. either. I'm not defending him. I'm defending the rule of LAW. The mob is looking to overstep it.

Where are the lawyers to help me out here?

The problem is this has absolutely nothing to do with law. It is the nba bylaws and covenants being talked about here. There is nothing illegal by either side.


To illustrate this, what if you owned a mcdonalds franchise, and you had a reputation for not serving black people? Do you think McDonald's would continue to allow you to own and operate that franchise, even at the possible expense of losing business at all other franchises?

That is exactly why the nba is stripping him if his franchise. In my opinion, sterling is lucky they are forcing a sale, and not just taking the franchise back without monetary compensation (maybe they would have to pay him the original $12.5 mm fee he purchased it for 30 years ago). The nba has every constitutional right to protect their brand. And Donald sterling has zero constitutional right to own an nba franchise. The choice lies with the board of governors, which have already voted to kick the old dirtbag out.
 
specifically what rule(s) has he broken? Is there a rule against holding unpopular views? Are there rules against using certain words? Is there some vague statement about "conduct unbecoming to a team owner" or something to that effect?

I think the NBA has dug itself a nice little hole. This entire episode is like a bad cartoon strip and Donald Sterling seems more like a caricature than a real person. And there might have been an opportunity for some constructive dialogue when the **** first hit the fan, but now that seems unlikely.

The language is about the best interest of the league.

What if those players had refused to go play in game three of the first round? What if the players association pursued decertification and formed their own league? Personally as a fan, I would watch the league with the best basketball, and it would only take a few of the superstars to lead players to a new league, owned by players, with lucrative tv deals, and the nba would be dead in its tracks. Now that would be a ****storm.
 
The language is about the best interest of the league.

What if those players had refused to go play in game three of the first round? What if the players association pursued decertification and formed their own league? Personally as a fan, I would watch the league with the best basketball, and it would only take a few of the superstars to lead players to a new league, owned by players, with lucrative tv deals, and the nba would be dead in its tracks. Now that would be a ****storm.

I bet seattle would be interested in such a league.
 
The problem is this has absolutely nothing to do with law. It is the nba bylaws and covenants being talked about here. There is nothing illegal by either side.


To illustrate this, what if you owned a mcdonalds franchise, and you had a reputation for not serving black people? Do you think McDonald's would continue to allow you to own and operate that franchise, even at the possible expense of losing business at all other franchises?

That is exactly why the nba is stripping him if his franchise. In my opinion, sterling is lucky they are forcing a sale, and not just taking the franchise back without monetary compensation (maybe they would have to pay him the original $12.5 mm fee he purchased it for 30 years ago). The nba has every constitutional right to protect their brand. And Donald sterling has zero constitutional right to own an nba franchise. The choice lies with the board of governors, which have already voted to kick the old dirtbag out.

except sterling served black people. and hired them
 
The language is about the best interest of the league.

What if those players had refused to go play in game three of the first round? What if the players association pursued decertification and formed their own league? Personally as a fan, I would watch the league with the best basketball, and it would only take a few of the superstars to lead players to a new league, owned by players, with lucrative tv deals, and the nba would be dead in its tracks. Now that would be a ****storm.

they are welcome to try.


face it they dont have the know how, the guts and the balls
 
Yeah, Nickkk is right. I looked up reasons a firm will turn down a case:


Even with strong "sauce" as Nickkkk puts it, I can't see any firm risking their reputation by representing Sterling. I wish people would maneuver their pitchforks toward Stiviano - who is only slightly more lucid than Sterling and who actually broke the law. But going after her would take balls - someone might call you a racist. But she doesn't have anything of value to take from her. Going after a blithering old man nobody likes though - that's brave. And he has something of value - an NBA team a few guys have been trying to buy from him for some time now. He wouldn't sell to them before but now that Stiviano's recorded herself baiting Sterling into saying crazy jealous old man racist crap the opportunity to purchase the team now looks more likely.

The conspiracy theories don't sound that far fetched. Sterling said Magic said he knew the girl. Magic says he doesn't know her. Shrug.

Noone's going after Stiviano because everyone knows that the real story here is an 80 year old Billionaire being played by a 30 year old something skank. That's the underlying "lesson" if you will here - the skank's gonna do what she's gonna do, Sterling should have been smart enough to avoid this.


If some old fart is horny enough to want to be stroked by someone 50 years his junior, and he got played, nobody's gonna sympathise with him, plain and simple. He basically got what he deserved. Oh and $1b richer in the process.


Boo. ****ing Hoo.
 
Yeah, Nickkk is right. I looked up reasons a firm will turn down a case:


Even with strong "sauce" as Nickkkk puts it, I can't see any firm risking their reputation by representing Sterling. I wish people would maneuver their pitchforks toward Stiviano - who is only slightly more lucid than Sterling and who actually broke the law. But going after her would take balls - someone might call you a racist. But she doesn't have anything of value to take from her. Going after a blithering old man nobody likes though - that's brave. And he has something of value - an NBA team a few guys have been trying to buy from him for some time now. He wouldn't sell to them before but now that Stiviano's recorded herself baiting Sterling into saying crazy jealous old man racist crap the opportunity to purchase the team now looks more likely.

The conspiracy theories don't sound that far fetched. Sterling said Magic said he knew the girl. Magic says he doesn't know her. Shrug.

Poor sterling.
He will probably only make between 500 million and a billion dollars when he sells his team.... to add to his other millions or billions.

I hope welfare will help him out at least
 
they are welcome to try.


face it they dont have the know how, the guts and the balls

That is completely false. There are plenty of people in the nba and nba alums who could be very successful. Even on the jazz, Richard Jefferson has an MBA, and is known to be very intelligent. Look at Stockton and Malone, super rich and successful. Stockton is on his way to becoming a billionaire. When he was inducted into the hall of fame, I read his net worth was over $600 mm.

Pat Riley was a former player, Jerry Sloan was a former player, magic Johnson is a super successful business man. To say that these players could not fugure out how to run a successful league is beyond dishonest and is plain stupid.

Even if they couldn't figure it out, lebron alone could bankroll a league for a year with the money he has made.
 
Back
Top