Geezus this is the density I am talking about. That they've lost revenue is IRRELEVANT--my argument has NOTHING to do with losing a dollar. It has to do with the image of the league-they have a public pariah as an owner--losing a dollar because the players boycott, because a sponsor leaves is so far besides the point it's not worth mentioning. The league can survive losing millions from the players boycotting a game or sponsors leaving--the league can NOT survive having a public racist owning a team--dollar damages be damned--not in this league. It's about the image of the league that is the "damage" that I have ALWAYS been talking about. You've completely missed the point. _
Wrong. The foundation of the league is it's image. Maybe the league makes MORE money because of this, maybe fans buy MORE Clipper gear, get MORE viewers, sell MORE tickets. This may be a profitable venture for them. And they STILL need to get him out because of the public pariah he is--the league cannot have him as an owner--the damage to the image of the league is paramount. Not a dollar. _
no, you are wrong. they are a business which is solely about making money. if they lose no money from this incident then there is no basis to defend the claim of harm. here is a pretty basic article about these basic principles: http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...for-damage-to-reputation-in-sport-sponsorship of particular note for your ignorance: these principles apply to the NBA. if they claim their brand is being damaged by the actions of a contractual party (Donald Sterling), they have to (1) establish the existence and scope of a term which prohibits his behaviour; and (2) prove the existence of loss which was caused by the breach of the term. you don't know what you are talking about. that makes you a horrible lawyer, it doesn't make me dense.
LOL, holy shit. You realize that's an article about a SPONSOR claiming damage, right? I am an expetional lawyer, you're so dense you picked an article that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Sponsors have already dropped the Clippers without the showing of any damages--but that is IRRELEVANT as to why the league needs him out. The league is not a sponsor--the league needs him out because he has become a national toxic pariah. You know you're losing it when you have to resort to google to try and state your position and then you get it wrong. Talk about ignorance. Again, they could actually MAKE money off of this and they will still try get him out. He cannot stay whether or not they lose one dollar. The image of the LEAGUE is at issue, not whether sponsors can claim damages for having him there. _
no, it is not an article about sponsors claiming harm, it is an article about damage to reputation, which is what you are claiming, that uses sponsors as the example. I didn't get it wrong, you are just too dense to grasp what is being discussed. or are you attempting to claim there are separate laws for damage to reputation that would apply to sponsors but not the brand owners. talk about being a horrible lawyer. this is so basic that it is embarrassing for you. the image of the league is their reputation. you can't dispute the article so you attempt to criticize the mere act of finding supporting information. how pathetic are you? the answer is pretty obvious. very.
Wow, still not getting it. It's an article about how a sponsor is damaged by the actions of the subject of their sponsorship. They league could not lose a PENNY because of what Sterling has done--shown NO actual monetary damages and they will STILL get rid of him. Again, it has NOTHING to do with losing one dollar, one viewer, one ticket sale, it has to do with the image of the league and whether it can survive having Sterling as an owner. Google all the articles you want, you're still not getting it. The league needs him out whether or not they lose a dollar, whether or not they can PROVE they lost a dollar. Again, they could MAKE money off of this and they will STILL kick him out. This is all too complicated for you so I don't expect you to understand it, especially with how dense as you are. _
Honest question--if viewership stays the same, and tickets sales remain the same and merchandising stays the same and revenues are constant or actually increase, do the owners just throw in the towel and say "no harm, no foul-- you're still in the club Donny"? _
no, you don't get it. the article is using how an the athlete's actions harm the sponsors reputation to discuss the legal principles to harm of reputation claims -- the exact same thing you are arguing. you can't even grasp the title "Contractual remedies for damage to reputation in sport sponsorship." not financial damages. damage to reputation. it then states explicitly that to prove the damage the plaintiff needs to prove the financial damage. that is the same legal principle that applies to the NBA -- if they claim damage to reputation (which is your argument) they have to prove that damage to reputation by showing the financial damage that is incurred. the legal principle doesn't just apply to sports sponsors, it is simply using sports sponsorship to show how the principle is applied. you can keep throwing out the ad hominem "dense" claims, but nobody is getting distracted. you have been wrong about every legal claim and argument you have attempted to make in this thread. stick to making bolognese.
He argued with me in the Darren Sharper thread that got deleted that a District Attorney does not press charges. That pretty much sums up his legal knowledge.
He probably practiced law in some third world country that does not reflect the United States law. So sure, he was technically a "laywer", but he was a laywer in some country like Madagascar, Zimbabwe, or Haiti.
Geezuz--again, even if they can NEVER prove actual monetary damages--they are going to kick him out of the league. They cannot have Sterling as an owner irrespective of whether or not they have lost a single penny. This isn't an IP litigation where the NBA is going to sue for monetary damages--they are going to kick him out of the league because of the harm he has caused to the image of the league--dollars notwithstanding. _
no, they are going to attempt to kick him out of the league (if he fights it) based on the claim of damage to reputation. the damage to reputation has to be proven if he contests it. it is very simple. if he doesn't contest it they don't have to prove anything and their claim can go unsubstantiated. if Sterling contests it they have to validate the claim of damage to reputation, if they seek your suggested strategy as their defense to kicking him out. hopefully for the NBA they have better lawyers than you that know that any claim has to be tangibly proven to have occurred, or perhaps likely to occur. as I stated, this is very easy for the league to quantify if it occurs.
And if the rest of the league can't quantify actual monetary damages, then he stays, right? If profits theoretically increase all around the rest of the league, all is good? If only the Clippers are monetarily harmed, that has no effect on the rest of the league so he can stay and take his own lumps, because these are 30 seperate businesses, not one BIG business with 30 different partners. Got it. _
he remains as owner, not that he can't be banned. Our discussion is the right to strip him of his ownership. actually the Supreme Court has ruled that sports teams are not one big business or an individual entity, and are separate profit-maximizing entities, so this claim is par for the course for your lack on knowing what the hell you are talking about. the Supreme Court's ruling is in direct contradiction to your broad assertion that the NBA is one big business, which would actually violate anti-trust laws. the NBA has a very narrow anti-trust exemptions. specifically, you argued that the teams all have an interest in each others revenue they are shared. obviously they have an interest in each team maximizing their value, but not the legal right to interfere in those activities simply because they all benefit from each team's revenue -- unless the team acts in a way that violates the specific clauses in the NBA constitution. the NBA then has to defend their claim that Sterling's behavior violates the constitution and harms the league and the other teams, not merely the Clippers. If the Clippers are devalued, but the NBA and the other teams are not harmed or lose their value, the other teams have no collective claim to damages on behalf of the Clippers loss. They have to show damage to the NBA and the individual teams.
NBA flexing http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-president-andy-roeser-20140506-story.html
I LOVE when non-lawyers give legal analysis. You are arguing two separate issues that are not inter-related. Best part is you are now are backtracking on your original premise and arguing something completely different. So if the rest of the league can NOT show monetary damages, he gets off scott free. All's good, he keeps the franchise. And if the rest of the leagues profitability actually goes UP, he's owner for life. Got it. Well done fine sir. _
