or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Donald Sterling Banned for Life
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Donald Sterling Banned for Life - Page 2

post #19 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post

There not human beings, so they don't count.
b2_tongue.gif

Too late! f3_laugh.gif
post #20 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Sorry, they could have taken action any time. It's only because this became public that it's happened now.

I disagree.  None of his previous issues weren't already public.  Everybody has always know, but they were just all hearsay.  What could the NBA do if Rollie Massimino said he called the player's N-words, and he denied it?  What could the NBA do when somebody sued him for racial discrimination with his apartment buildings because they said he said black people smell and then he settled out of court?  What could the NBA do because Elgin Baylor said that he said he liked having a white coach and black players?

 

He was always a stain on their league and everybody knew it.  Not only has he always been a giant jerk, but he never cared if his team was any good - only that he made money.  That's why he earned the title of the owner of the worst franchise in all of the major American professional sports in history.

 

Now that they have actual physical evidence, then they can actually do something about it.  Also, it's probably good that they have a new commissioner, because he doesn't have to answer the questions about why he didn't at least try to do something about this guy before.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

He's an extremely litigious attorney with more money than he could ever spend. He's going to make it his life's work to prove that he's being treated in a manner that's inconsistent with how others are treated.

I don't doubt it.  Ironic as hell, that a bigot would demand fair treatment, but yeah, I wouldn't put it past him at all.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

This isn't going to end well for the NBA.

I don't see it.  I'm not a lawyer (paging @k-troop !!!) but I think this is a giant leap forward for the NBA.  Put this dillweed in your rearview mirror and I see only positives coming out of it.**

 

**Unless you are the Lakers.  Sterling has made it very easy on them - at least until the last two years - to claim superiority over the city forever.  Get him out of there, put in a competent management team, perhaps Magic Johnson, and the Clippers can very easily remove themselves from the ranks of the laughingstocks.

post #21 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


Sorry, they could have taken action any time. It's only because this became public that it's happened now.

He's an extremely litigious attorney with more money than he could ever spend. He's going to make it his life's work to prove that he's being treated in a manner that's inconsistent with how others are treated.

And truth be told, as disgusting as he is, in time, he's going to be able to demonstrate that. This isn't going to end well for the NBA.
True. Tolerance works both ways.

Too many people demand tolerance of their own point of view, but draw the line at those viewpoints with which they disagree.

I think everyone here knows me well enough to know how I feel about Sterling's asinine comments, but these things cut both ways....

 

Nah, it's hard to get away from such damning remarks, especially caught on tape. I am sure the NBA has enough money and lawyers that they did what they could legally. Basically the Board of Governors has a right to be prejudicial to anyone who wants to become an owner. They have out right refused people from buying a team before. I am sure that they will force Stirling to sell the team. It's probably all contract binding as well. I am sure there is a contract somewhere stating how an owner can be forced to sell the team. I am sure that there is stipulations in there about egregious behavior the reflects poorly on the other owners and the NBA. 

post #22 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Two late! f3_laugh.gif
Nobody's perfect.
c5_banana.gif
post #23 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

True. Tolerance works both ways.

Too many people demand tolerance of their own point of view, but draw the line at those viewpoints with which they disagree.

I think everyone here knows me well enough to know how I feel about Sterling's asinine comments, but these things cut both ways....

I was mostly being facetious. When there's a "right" answer, which I think there is with racism, IMO it's not intolerant to condemn the primary intolerance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

Too late! f3_laugh.gif

I was trying to save you @Ernest Jones! a3_biggrin.gif
post #24 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

I was trying to save you @Ernest Jones! a3_biggrin.gif

I appreciate the effort, but I already have my date with the devil!
d4_w00t.gif
post #25 of 192

I don't know much about the NBA rules, but I don't see how they can ban him from property that he owns.  I know that he operates under a franchise agreement from the NBA, and has probably agreed to abide by policies and procedures of the NBA and submit to the decisions of certain bodies....  But still, he's essentially being banned from his own property which is worth a whoooole lot of money.

 

And if he has more money than brains, maybe he will make this a big old pain in the ass for the NBA.  We'll see.  Contracts are one thing.  Defending your rights under those contracts (and the NBA may be well within their rights here) is another when the other party has the means and resolve to go the distance.  If he is as money-obsessed as some here mention, then he will probably sell the team, then sue the NBA for any loss of value in the sale as a result of his distress situation.  Honestly that's probably a fair outcome for all involved.

post #26 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

I don't know much about the NBA rules, but I don't see how they can ban him from property that he owns.  I know that he operates under a franchise agreement from the NBA, and has probably agreed to abide by policies and procedures of the NBA and submit to the decisions of certain bodies....  But still, he's essentially being banned from his own property which is worth a whoooole lot of money.

 

And if he has more money than brains, maybe he will make this a big old pain in the ass for the NBA.  We'll see.  Contracts are one thing.  Defending your rights under those contracts (and the NBA may be well within their rights here) is another when the other party has the means and resolve to go the distance.  If he is as money-obsessed as some here mention, then he will probably sell the team, then sue the NBA for any loss of value in the sale as a result of his distress situation.  Honestly that's probably a fair outcome for all involved.

 

Its probably a franchise thing. He probably owns the building, but the NBA runs the events there. So basically he is banned from any NBA event. So as long as the clippers play a game, hold practice, use the facility, he's not allowed there. Now I am sure he can grab the keys and open it up when its not being used, or if it holds a concert from another organization. He's just not allowed on the premise during any NBA event. That is how I take it. 

post #27 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Its probably a franchise thing. He probably owns the building, but the NBA runs the events there. So basically he is banned from any NBA event. So as long as the clippers play a game, hold practice, use the facility, he's not allowed there. Now I am sure he can grab the keys and open it up when its not being used, or if it holds a concert from another organization. He's just not allowed on the premise during any NBA event. That is how I take it. 

He doesn't own Staples Center, no.
post #28 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

Its probably a franchise thing. He probably owns the building, but the NBA runs the events there. So basically he is banned from any NBA event. So as long as the clippers play a game, hold practice, use the facility, he's not allowed there. Now I am sure he can grab the keys and open it up when its not being used, or if it holds a concert from another organization. He's just not allowed on the premise during any NBA event. That is how I take it.

Not Staples Center.  AEG owns it.  The same group that was trying like crazy to get a football stadium built downtown as well, to no avail.

 

He's just one of many tenants.

post #29 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

I don't know much about the NBA rules, but I don't see how they can ban him from property that he owns.  I know that he operates under a franchise agreement from the NBA, and has probably agreed to abide by policies and procedures of the NBA and submit to the decisions of certain bodies....  But still, he's essentially being banned from his own property which is worth a whoooole lot of money.

 

And if he has more money than brains, maybe he will make this a big old pain in the ass for the NBA.  We'll see.  Contracts are one thing.  Defending your rights under those contracts (and the NBA may be well within their rights here) is another when the other party has the means and resolve to go the distance.  If he is as money-obsessed as some here mention, then he will probably sell the team, then sue the NBA for any loss of value in the sale as a result of his distress situation.  Honestly that's probably a fair outcome for all involved.

 

There is a provision in the NBA constitution that allows the board of NBA directors (the owners) to force another owner out with a 3/4ths majority if the owner violated the ethics of the NBA. HE has no legal ground, fortunately, to keep owning the team. 

 

Simply, he signed a contract, he broke the rules of that contract, so he's gone. I couldn't be happier. 

 

Also, in regards to his private statements being recorded: I really don't care. If he's a racist in private, that's just as bad. I'm glad someone exposed him. Don't be an ******* and a bigot. This isn't a criminal case. 


EDIT: aw, it bleeped out a-hole! Can I get a special dispensation to say it this once? :-P

post #30 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbishop15 View Post
 

 

There is a provision in the NBA constitution that allows the board of NBA directors (the owners) to force another owner out with a 3/4ths majority if the owner violated the ethics of the NBA. HE has no legal ground, fortunately, to keep owning the team.

 

Simply, he signed a contract, he broke the rules of that contract, so he's gone. I couldn't be happier.

 

 

Agreed there are contract provisions, but there are also lawsuits--which is what I think @David in FL was referring to.  I think you can put safe money on the fact that 3/4ths of NBA owners don't want to be deposed--and cross-examined--on what constitutes the "ethics of the NBA."

post #31 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Agreed there are contract provisions, but there are also lawsuits--which is what I think @David in FL was referring to.  I think you can put safe money on the fact that 3/4ths of NBA owners don't want to be deposed--and cross-examined--on what constitutes the "ethics of the NBA."

 

 

Well its the lesser of two evils. You either stand there and try to be oblivious to an obviously horrible human being while he spews his hatred and bigotry. OR you stand up against it and battle against sterling's loosing battle as he goes down swinging. I rather take the 2nd, because its the right thing to do and honestly I don't think 2/3rds of the owners want to be associated with that many any more. They saw the backlash that happened. They want none of that. So what is worse, being associated, or having to testify. 

post #32 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

A concerning precedent.  A private conversation, recorded without knowledge.  Disgusting to be sure, but someone expressing a personal preference and opinion, whether we agree with it or not.

 

I wonder if the NBA will be consistent going forward when the next owner/coach/player makes an intemperate remark that is caught on mike.....

I agree, private conversations that were recorded with the sole intent to do harm to him or extort money from him puts this into a questionable position legally.  

 

No question the recorded comments indicate he's a racist and jacka$$ but he's hired minorities and dated minorities so I don't quite see how the NBA can justify the banning if this goes to court and the only evidence is a recording that was possibly coerced by his girlfriend for money or revenge.  

 

I am not defending him but the precedent scares me.  Will the NBA ban Shaq for making fun of the disabled and Jay Z for wearing his Five Percent Nation medallion (racist symbol) court side?  

post #33 of 192
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post
 

I agree, private conversations that were recorded with the sole intent to do harm to him or extort money from him puts this into a questionable position legally.  

 

No question the recorded comments indicate he's a racist and jacka$$ but he's hired minorities and dated minorities so I don't quite see how the NBA can justify the banning if this goes to court and the only evidence is a recording that was possibly coerced by his girlfriend for money or revenge.  

 

I am not defending him but the precedent scares me.  Will the NBA ban Shaq for making fun of the disabled and Jay Z for wearing his Five Percent Nation medallion (racist symbol) court side?  

 

First thing, private conversations are no longer private when they are recorded. Sorry in this day in age when you have social media, unless you are certain you are not being recorded there is no such thing as a private conversation. 

 

Also you have no clue if it was the sole intent to do harm. Well, ok it was the sole intent to show he was a bigot. His own bigotry caused the harm here. 

 

I don't really care if she was coerced or paid. Heck people have been wearing wiring taps for years in efforts of getting information out of people to prosecute them. This is just NBA prosecution. Since they have their own form of laws and justice, I see no problem with this. 

post #34 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

Agreed there are contract provisions, but there are also lawsuits--which is what I think @David in FL was referring to.  I think you can put safe money on the fact that 3/4ths of NBA owners don't want to be deposed--and cross-examined--on what constitutes the "ethics of the NBA."

You make a valid point, but I have two rebuttals: one, the court of public opinion is strongly in favor of removing him and the PR backlash against the owners and the league if they didn't follow through would be incredibly difficult to get through. Two, I don't think the NBA would've made such a strong statement if they didn't believe they had an airtight case. 

post #35 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 

 

First thing, private conversations are no longer private when they are recorded. Sorry in this day in age when you have social media, unless you are certain you are not being recorded there is no such thing as a private conversation. 

 

Also you have no clue if it was the sole intent to do harm. Well, ok it was the sole intent to show he was a bigot. His own bigotry caused the harm here. 

 

I don't really care if she was coerced or paid. Heck people have been wearing wiring taps for years in efforts of getting information out of people to prosecute them. This is just NBA prosecution. Since they have their own form of laws and justice, I see no problem with this. 

Well then I'm glad we're all perfect here and have no concerns that our spoken or written words shared with friends or family in private would ever be used against you to get you fired from your job or land you in jail.    

post #36 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

I wonder if the NBA will be consistent going forward when the next owner/coach/player makes an intemperate remark that is caught on mike.....

Sure; the next time there's overwhelming proof that an owner is a racist and continues to be one; this isn't an idle remark. The criminal version would be a three-strikes violation: you occasionally hear that someone's going to jail for life for stealing a bike, or been foreclosed upon for missing one house payment, and then you realize the first was a habitual criminal whose latest parole was a "last warning," and the latter's missed payments for a while, then was paying some at the deadline, and finally missed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

I don't know much about the NBA rules, but I don't see how they can ban him from property that he owns.  I know that he operates under a franchise agreement from the NBA, and has probably agreed to abide by policies and procedures of the NBA and submit to the decisions of certain bodies....  But still, he's essentially being banned from his own property which is worth a whoooole lot of money.

There's ample legal precedent to bar someone from property he or she owns -- I've seen it happen even in the building I live in, where a few condo owners were sufficiently disruptive they were barred from living here (or, rather, from being in the building during certain hours, which included weekends and evenings).


Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

And if he has more money than brains, maybe he will make this a big old pain in the ass for the NBA.  We'll see.  Contracts are one thing.  Defending your rights under those contracts (and the NBA may be well within their rights here) is another when the other party has the means and resolve to go the distance.  If he is as money-obsessed as some here mention, then he will probably sell the team, then sue the NBA for any loss of value in the sale as a result of his distress situation.  Honestly that's probably a fair outcome for all involved.

Similarly, if he sues the NBA over it, they'll almost certainly win (besides being legally right, they surely have hot and cold running attorneys and more resources), and will probably be able to recover their legal fees from him when they win.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › Donald Sterling Banned for Life