Fair enough, but this puts the owners in a tough spot. Silver is just passing the buck. Now they HAVE to vote him out (and they will) or they will look bad. But we're talking about a private conversation here, so they are setting a precedent for themselves. I sure hope they've never had a conversation with someone that is bad once their lives... Especially when you consider they aren't choir boys themselves. Look at the Magic owner, that guy is a piece of shit as well, might as well kick him out too
Good and now the NFL can learn and ban Dan Snyder if he doesnt change the name of Redskins. Oh wait, no one cares about Native Americans but im sure if it was a derogatory term toward a dominant race in the NFL, the response would be heard. So much hypocrisy in this world.
How much money do they stand to lose if they don't change the name? That's the only question that matters to them and the only reason Silver did what he did today.
I have no clue but you are 100% right, the only reason Silver did what he did was because the sponsors were threatening/pulling and the players were threatening to boycott the game/media uproar. If none of these things happened, I doubt Sterling gets the punishment he got. Its a joke, you get these pieces of shit like Stephen A Smith who rages whenever a black issue arises, yet for Redskins, he believes its fine because there isn't a huge response from the native american community. How the hell are the Native Americans supposed to respond when they are all freaking dead? Lets be real, if you ask 10 people what "redskin" meant, none of them would have a clue. Just to inform em: Redskin - An offensive and derogatory term referring to Native Americans. Comes from when the government paid for each 'indian' one killed. Instead of carrying the bodies they would take the scalps to prove they had murdered a native american. Again, tell me the name is fine? after this Sterling debacle, all the people who are in an uproar about can turn their attention to Snyder, but we all know thats not going to happen.
Did the NBA commish ever say anything sexist. Did he ever call a woman a cunt. Or think something racially inappropriate. Or with a bunch of bros say bad things about homosexuals. Or is he perfect and never did or said anything wrong. Is TMZ in your shower. So if you sing an inappropriate tune while washing off (your sins) can they get you on that, too. Look none of the above things are recommended. And they aren't very nice. But they've been done by a lot of people, black, white, asian, etc. Including some of the people (like Charles Barkley) screaming the loudest. So don't keep trying to come off holier than thou.
Bingo you people now realize that the owners of all major sports our in it for the money? Everything is about money.
Help me out here Soxx since you're probably the keenest legal mind in this conversation. If the NBA Board of Governors recommends the franchise be stripped and 3/4 of the owners vote in agreement, if Stirling decides to sue in State Court in California, when the NBA seeks to have the action dismissed because the NBA by-laws require arbitration to settle all disputes, do you think the courts in California will entertain the claim or do you think they'll summarily dismiss it? I'm having a hard time getting a read on enforceability of binding arbitration in California, the cases seem to fly in the face of what you would think a fairly liberal court system. Or would the NBA seek to have the case moved to State Court in Delaware? And would that court dismiss the case because of the binding arbitration provision or would THEY hear that case? And let's say the parties go to arbitration and Sterling loses, how binding do you think that decision is? Does Stirling have the ability to appeal that decision? Even if he expressly agreed to binding arbitration? Would a court even entertain such an appeal? Do you think the Choice of Law jurisdiction will matter on such an appeal? Delaware? New York? Can't be California, right? And what about all those "ownership laws" you mentioned? Where do they come in? _
Finally, Stern starts to take some heat... http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/sto...tern-nba-letting-donald-sterling-stick-around
Yeah the owners would look totally cool voting for that. The new commish would rubber stamp that immediately. Good plan. Almost as good as trading 4 picks for Sammy Watkins. Oh sorry, wrong child. _
Where are the bye-laws? I cant answer any of your questions until I see the contract Sterling signed when he bought the Clippers.
Everything you stated has nothing to do with why these punishments are being handed down, Sterling represents a brand and when your beliefs are made public(illegally or not) you are now in violation of the by laws you chose to follow(NBA constitutional by laws). What makes it more egregious is the brand he represents is more than 80% black, that same ethnicity he seems to despise is what made his 15m dollar investment worth over a billion, where does he get the right to feel that way when these people made you beyond rich.
Not sure divorce court has any say in this. The NBA has the ability to control who owns it's franchises, not some court. I was involved in the bankruptcy filing of the LA Dodgers, at the end of the day our financing proposal was trumped by MLBs ability to convince the Bankruptcy Court that their DIP financing was superior to the interim financing put in place by a hedge fund we were competing with. A very interesting interpretation of Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code, it's as if MLB had their own priming subsection and till this day I still can't find it. _
You really think all native Americans are dead? You may be the best troll this forum has ever seen, soxxx. I'm being complimentary here, and I'm sure you used to be a regular poster, but good show either way.
I hate most of the NBA other than my Nets and whomever winning is most painful to Knick fans. I'd love to see anarchy break out right now. Seriously, I'm kidding about being a lawyer, I really am an astronaut. But I am seriously interested in your take on those "ownership laws". _
That's a little too simplified, a lot of factors decide whether they can lawfully strip his ownership without Sterling fighting it in the supreme courts or if it falls under the NBA's constitution, all we can do honestly is speculate on that. While what Silver says sounds nice in a conference many factors are going to decide whether they can ACTUALLY strip his ownership without dismantling the Clippers themselves.
Any thoughts on that whole binding arbitration thingy? Sounds like it could be a problem but as a non-lawyer I'd have no idea. _
