the claim that they are being harmed would then have to be validated by tangible damages that have been incurred as a result of the harm. The NBA can claim they are being harmed, but if they can't prove that tangibly it isn't going to hold any merit. And that harm is a very easy thing to quantify for a business like the NBA. If harm was done, you would see it in a loss of revenue for the NBA and the other teams by loss of ticket sales, decline in TV viewership, decline of consumer product sales. those are the damages incurred by Sterling's behavior that has harmed the NBA, and in their position can only be rectified by his removal, as long as the constitution permits such action for his actions. But if the other teams do not see a decline in attendance or ticket sales, a decline in TV viewership, or a decline in their consumer product sales, they are going to have a real tough time claiming his racism has harmed their business IMO.
You are mixing up "harm" and damages. This debacle is absolutely harming the league-the entire image of the league is on assault. Like in the NFL, it's all about protecting the shield. And since 15 sponsors have already dropped or suspended endorsement deals, actual dollars (shared revenue) is already being lost. Saying ticket sales or TV viewership needs to go down is a very myopic view. The adage "any publicity is good publicity" doesn't hold true with damaged good will. _
Maybe Sterling can begin to make amends by rocking Jay Z's Five Percent Nation medallion : ) The crazy thing is that Donald Sterling was born Donald Tokowitz and who legally added 'Sterling' as his last name since it was tough for Jews at the time to get positions at prestigious law firms so you'd think he would be even be more sensitive to the evils of bigotry and racism. In Sterling's case, he got to walk into an interview with his faux WASP-y last name in tow. Conversely, a black guy with impeccible credentials walks into an interview and like it or not, probably the first thing the interviewer notices is his race. Given that, what a tragic irony it would be to have 'waspy' Donald Sterling conducting that interview.
So how does Sterling actually run the Clippers. Was it an oppressive type of an atmosphere that discriminated against Black players. If so then why did Doc Rivers who played for the Clippers when Sterling was the owner accept the job. And Chris Paul signed to play there when he had many other options. And look at what he actually said. Did he use any kind of offensive language when talking about ethnic groups. No N word or anything else. And as for Magic, he asked if she admired him. And said he wouldn't blame her if she did. So he did not say or do the most terrible things in the world. All these people freaked out by this including rap artists who say 100x worse. Where are they coming from.
The most eloquent person in the world could make racist statements without once uttering the n word or using offensive language but that doesn't make it any less racist. Hiring and renting to those of a different race also does not mean someone is not a racist. Not sure what your trying to get at here.
that is a slippery slope. let's say a team performs poorly because of poor player management and scouting, and because they play poorly sponsors pay less to advertise with the team. now the league has lost shared revenue money simply because the owner has hired the wrong people to run the team and they have made bad decisions. if simply the loss of revenue equates to harming the league that falls under the contract violation that is being used to justify the punishment, owners could be stripped of their ownership simply for hiring a bad GM if that results in poor play and loss of advertising value. Problem for tat is two fold. First, I doubt that is what the contract violation is in regards to, but you would have to apply it that way if you are claiming the loss of revenue equals harm to the league that falls under the contract violation terms permitted to strip an owner of the club. Secondly, the NBA constitution spells out explicit financial reasons that can be used to strip an owner, and that is only an inability to pay the bills, not losing revenue. The founders included an financial clause in the constitution, there is a reason loss of revenue was not included in that -- because it (can be argued) that is not a financial reason to strip an owner of his club. sure, it is a hypothetical but one that you, or the NBA if it is their defense, have to concede to defend such a position. otherwise the claim of loss of shared revenue doesn't equate to harming the league to the extent that an owner can be stripped of his team if it loses their individual sponsors.
discrimination would get Sterling in legal trouble. It would be awfully hard to claim any discrimination against Sterling based on how he has hired management and personnel. but this isn't a law violation issue, it is a contract issue between he and the league, and whether his behavior violates the terms of the contract that an NBA owner has with the league.
Elgin Baylor claimed racial discrimination after he was fired (until his lawyer dropped it) but let's look at the facts. Baylor had the GM job for 22 years. Are there any GMs who last that long. And the team did very poorly on the court. So Sterling won in court because he didn't discriminate due to either race or age. He had reason to fire Baylor. Sterling also hired black HCs over the years. When most pro sports franchises didn't. As a matter of fact in the NFL the teams are forced to interview minority candidates because so few were hired. So if the NBA is going to build a case around a pattern of racial discrimination or harassment in the workplace is there proof of any of this except for these private conversations. The guy has not been quoted in public saying anything racially offensive.
You are confusing yourself. Seems par for the course. The league is right now being damaged by this fiasco. This isn't about him paying his bills or inability to do so, this is not an issue of an owners financial stability. This has to do with damage inflicted upon the league by the statements of an owner being made public. This first round of the playoffs is being touted as some of the best in recent memory and that's not what the buzz is about, it's about Sterling. And now about how quickly the league is going in for the kill. The players are still waiting to see how quickly the vote is going to be and if it's delayed, they may boycott games. The league does NOT want this right now, this is killing them to have to deal with it. Ask any league if they'd rather have a racial fiasco or not have a racial fiasco. But you are missing the point about loss of revenue or harm to the league, which is ok. _
Just because Sterling is a racist at heart doesn't mean he should be penalized or stripped of his team. As long as he didn't take it the next step and implement it which apparently he did in managing his rental properties. No one said anything about it then. But did he do it as the owner of the Clippers? How many of these people lining up to buy the Clippers are racists at heart, too. Did you ever see the movie, CRASH? All about racists in LA. And there are a lot of them.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with him being a racist. He can have all the evil thoughts he wants, he can even say them. Where he fucked up was allowing himself to be taped so that they could be made public. He did nothing wrong, but the consequences of the statements being made public are going to cause his crucifixion. Is it fair? Probably not. But life is not fair. The other owners HAVE to force him out. No turning back now. The toothpaste is out of the tube as they say in dental school. (I'm not sure they actually say that in dental school, but you get my drift). _
Why are so many people freaking out about these comments. It's not like they never knew these kinds of ideas or this philosophy didn't exist before. Of course the Black Panthers said all caucasians are white devils. And a lot of people still agree with that. So it's hard for me to accept this almost 100% backlash against one guy based on a couple of racist comments. When there are so many slurs of this type on a daily basis. It's always wise (to me) to question or reject an overwhelming majority. Because you can't trust them.
wait a minute. talk about confusing yourself. one response ago you said you were discussing being "harmed" not "damages," and now you are attempting to dispute my position by arguing damages. everything you just posted supports what I stated, doesn't dispute it. you can't have a claim of damages without tangible proof of damages that have occurred. it would be the league and the owners that would have to provide proof of damages, the claim doesn't just get accepted on its merit. and I am not confusing paying his bills with damages, I am discussing the specific clauses in the constitution that address the financial reasons to strip an owner of his club, and those financial reasons are stated explicitly and solely in regards to being able to afford the team and pays it bills, not whether market forces reduce its value and as such reduce its revenue, which in turn effects the revenue sharing amounts distributed to other teams. loss of revenue is not a violation of the contract clause, otherwise poor marketing that reduces the advertising value of a team could be grounds to strip an owner. you would have to concede that possibility, or simply ignore it like you have done because you know you can't dispute it, and if you attempted to would be applying your criteria inconsistently which reveals the weakness in your criteria. I'm not missing anything. you're the one dodging the specific argument and trying to confuse it with irrelevant arguments.
Sterling is not going to go gently into the night. He is an expert at suing people. Unless the NBA buys him out by overpaying for the commodity. In other words a settlement.
he is not going to go quietly because despite Stokes assertion there is no provision in the constitution that states behavior that has a negative economic effect on the league or shared revenue is grounds for stripping an owner of his franchise. an argument has to be made by the NBA's lawyers that the constitution applies to such behavior but it certainly isn't explicit or even an inherent interpretation of the wording. the wording of the constitution is intended to protect the owners by outlining what they can be banned for, not to give them unreasonably broad interpretational leeway that can then be applied to any behavior the others do not like.
Sterling should be able to easily prove that he actively promoted the team and gave equal access to all fans. As a matter of fact one of the reasons the NAACP was (foolishly) giving him an award is because he gave inner city kids free tickets to Clippers games. So in spite of what he said in private to his girlfriend he didn't try to bar anyone from attending games.
When people are in the public they often say or do stupid things that show their prejudices. In other words no one is perfect. For example Shaq in social media made fun of a guy with a disfiguring disease. And apologized for it. Of course Shaq is one of the people clamoring for Sterling to get banned and has even been mentioned as a possible co-owner of the Clippers. So why isn't he banned. Sterling apologized. And said those words don't reflect his true feelings (probably they do).
Isn't this supposedly what this is all about. Sterling telling his gf not to publically associate with or bring black people to "his" games. So is there any proof that he actively tried to keep any ethnic group out of the Staples Center when the Clippers played. I think he can prove there was equal access to Clippers games in spite of what he told her (in private).
