Donald Sterling and the Clippers

Sterling is a bigot, but this is the most press the NBA has had in a while. No one watches regular season games and the playoffs are mismatches until the semi finals. The NBA could not have bought this much PR. If the Clippers win it all, who from the organization will hoist the trophy from the FO?

 

no, this has been my argument from the get go. the only one that has backtracked is you.

and these aren't two separate issues. every court case in which a sports league has attempted to claim they are a single business entity, whether it was American Needle vs the NFL or the Chicago Bulls vs the NBA the courts have ruled that each team is a separate business entity and not a single entity. that's a fact. I love it when lawyers don't even know the historical court cases relevant to an argument or how those rulings have far greater widespread meanings than just for the individual cases. there are broad assertions in each.

doesn't bode well for what it takes to make it through law school, but does show what it takes to actually be good at that practice. something you are clearly not.

based on the terms of your argument, yes indeed, because your terms are what I am disputing. if that is not a satisfactory answer that is because your argument is poor to begin with. which is clearly evident at this point.

 

You have changed your argument several times in this thread, but here's what you originally said--what prompted me to suggest you were wrong and shouldn't be making legal analyses.

You have consistently confused the term of art "damages" as it relates to litigation (i.e., monetary loss) with the concept of damage (i.e., harm) to the league and it's image.

The league may NEVER be able to show a single dollar of "damages" in litigation--in fact as TNJet points out and as I've suggested several times--the league may actually MAKE money off of this fiasco. As badly as this bigot has damaged the league--fans and celebrity society rallying around stamping out this bigot may actually INCREASE revenue and profits for the league as a whole. This may turn out to be a GOOD thing for the league--it exposes what lies beneath and what won't be tolerated.

Which is why they STILL have to get him out--whether they can show one dollar of actual "damages" in a litigation sense.

This league can not have this toxic figure owning a team, employing players that are 80% black with a coach who is black and who'll no doubt hire black GM in the future.

"Damages" are irrelevant. Damage is the issue.

_

 

Riddle me this NBA:

Latrell Sprewell (a black player) attempted to choke the life out of PJ Carlisimo (a white coach) on the court.

Sprewell was suspended for 68 games.

Donald Sterling made some ill advised racial comments in the privacy of his own home.

How does Sterling deserve a worse punishment than Sprewell?

 

Reverse racsim is pefectly acceptable--it's the price white America pays for 300 years of oppression. It's okay for black folks to use the "N" word but if white people use it they get kicked off of network TV. A black employee can choke a white employee, but a white owner cannot be a bigot. You can have the BET (Black Entertainment Network) but can you envision a WET? There is a Miss Black USA Pageant (or Miss Black America?), but can you imagine a Miss White America Pageant?

Whether that's right or wrong, it's the way society is.

I'm just a third generation Italian so what do I know?

_

 

no, you are confused. your use of harm/damage is irrelevant in any legal sense, which is the only relevant use in a discussion about their legal right to strip an owner of his team, without proof of damages that validate the claim that they have been harmed or damaged. being harmed or damaged is not something intangible for a business, it is something that occurs and can be quantified by showing the damages that are suffered. I am not using them incorrectly, I am simply applying whatever word you want to use, harm or damage, to how it would have to be legally validated. if the league suffers no legal "damages" there is no claim that they have been damaged or harmed, because as a business whose sole purpose is to make money the only damage that can occur would be loss of money -- the damages. even harm to something intangible, like their reputation, would have tangible results.

you claimed that simply harming the reputation was a valid argument, but that also would have to be validated by showing proof that the claimed harm resulted in damages. if there is no damages the claim of being harmed is without merit.

additionally, you attempted to defend that by making the completely ludicrous and false assertion that the teams are one big business, which would violate anti-trust laws, and which has been explicitly stated in the court cases that have heard such a defense by sports leagues. Courts have ruled explicitly that the teams are individual business that are their own entities, that compete with one another, and have individual interests. that is obviously tempered by specific areas where they have joint interest in the league, but individual team business does not apply as you are claiming.

I would be cordial and say you are confused, but at this point you are either simply ignorant of the facts that dispute your arguments or aren't bright enough to understand them. I'll stop insulting lawyers as a whole in my description of you and simply describe you as a law school graduate, because if you are ignorant of these facts or incapable of processing them there is a pretty sheer distinction on your part from someone capable of passing law school and actually practicing law. you can continue to snidely comment about non-lawyers talking law, but considering you have not validated your position with any evidence, mainly because it doesn't exist, it is clear most people here actually know more than you. no amount of snide comments can hide that fact.

 

You are still confused and still changing your position.

The league may NEVER be able to show monetary damages and they will STILL kick him out.

However, the position you have always taken, that since the rest of the league has not been damaged (your words) by the showing of actual losses (your words), that Sterling gets to stay.

Again, got it. Good job.

I think the league HAS been damaged and may NEVER show monetary damages and but he doesn't get to stay.

_

 

and you continue to be incorrect because there is no legal basis to claim you have been damaged or harmed if no damages have been incurred.

if Sterling challenges their attempt to force him to sell, which would be based on challenging their assertion that he has damaged or harmed their business, it will be up to the league to show tangible losses to validate their claim that they have been damaged. you have not been damaged if you do not suffer a loss of some sort, and for the NBA their business and losses can be quantified by many different elements -- tv ratings, ticket sales, product sales, etc. all the negative press in the world means nothing if it doesn't translate to any actual loss by the NBA. if they can't do that Sterling should, in principle, be able to win his argument. but just as you have shown that there are people who graduate law school who don't know shit about the law and can't formulate and defend a rational position, there are arbitrators and judges as well who suffer your same affliction.

you haven't been able to argue that the league and the other teams have suffered tangible losses, so you attempted to argue that the Clippers losses were able to be considered as their losses, and attempted to validate that by claiming the individual teams are not individual business but one big business, which is incorrect. your position was based on your ignorance that the teams are not one single business entity but are individual competing entities, and a loss for the Clippers does not necessarily equate to a loss for the other teams despite any revenue sharing agreements.

 

And you continue to change your argument and further confuse yourself, and the concepts you are arguing. And now you are attributing YOUR illogic to me.

That was YOUR argument--those are YOUR words I quoted. I keep saying the league may not be able to show a SINGLE dollar of actual damages--that monetary loss will be irrelevant in the leagues decision to and they will still get rid of him. They may actually make MORE money and they will STILL kick him out.

If Sterling damages HIS franchise he has damaged the entire concept of the NBA--EVERY team suffers. Even if they can't prove they've lost a dollar.

Again, you've proven your point quite well--'Sterling damaging his one franchise is not damaging to the league as a whole--it just effects his one little business and has no effect on the other 29 independent businesses who have no interest in seeing that franchise prosper'. LOLOLOLOL. And because 'his team is an independent business--he can just take his team and play somewhere else--maybe he can take it to Europe'. I mean, it's not as if he's part of one big business--it's an independent business that he can do with what he wants. Nothing ignorant there.

Geez, you keep arguing the same thing over and over and you've missed the bigger picture.

Whether the league can show it lost a single dollar is IRRELEVANT--they are kicking him out because the league cannot have an avowed bigot owning a franchise.

So again, by your logic, if the league can't show it had a monetary loss, or actually became MORE profitable, then Donnie gets to stay, right?

Good job, you've got this nailed.

_

 

Riddle me this, Hasty: How many sponsors withdrew their support of the NBA when Sprewell choked Carlesimo?

Follow the green brick road.

 

I will be my bottom dollar that the NBA did lose some sponsors after that incident.

 

I call bullshit on this one.

The door swings both ways.

This sort of nonsense only serves as a source of further racism.

 

Did they do it in secret? Don't bet, just find us some facts.

 

tough being a white man in America these days

 

This is partially accurate. The Warriors at the time tried to void Sprewell's contract. On top of that the NBA wanted to suspend him 82 games.

Sprewell appealed and got the suspension reduced to 68 games and got to keep his contract. An arbitrator decided this.

I don't think the NBA has voided a contract based on non health related issues or non substance abuse issues but they tried in this instance with Spree. For reasons I cannot remember, it didn't happen.

 

you haven't nailed shit because you haven't shown a single contradiction or change in my argument. Nothing in the three posts of mine you quoted contradict one another or change my argument. that isn't even confusion on your part, it is sheer comprehension disability.

I stated in the first post you quoted that I'm not compelled by the claim the league has been damaged by Sterling's actions. I then clearly differentiate the Clippers, as a single team, being harmed not equating to the league being harmed, which is not in contradiction to the first post only addressing the NBA. Then in the third post I show the legal basis from every court ruling that considers each team separate, competing entities, thus validating the second post that harm to the Clippers does not equate to harm to the other teams or the NBA.

you just got nailed and your back all cummed over.

you don't know shit about what you are talking about, have been proven to be a dumb fuck ignorant of the legal rulings that contradict the basis of your arguments, and now proven to have the comprehension of a zygote by claiming that those three posts change an argument when they defend the same argument -- the Clippers being harmed does not equate to the NBA and the other teams are being harmed.

your claim that the other teams are being harmed by the Clipper's loss is dependent on the claim that they are a single entity which has been proven false, and yet you continue to attempt to defend.

 

Not only do you keep arguing in cirlces and confusing yourself as to what is relevant and irrelevant, you've now gone totally sick and creepy.

Again.

So you don't think the rest of league has been damaged by Sterling's statements. Just the Clippers.

You don't think damage to one franchise damages all of the franchise unless they lose a ticket sale or a viewer or a sponsor--actually that EACH franchise would have to show a loss for each one of them in order to assert that Sterling has harmed the league as a whole and each individual franchise.

The Clippers are a completely separate business entity from the rest of the league and each other franchise and none of the other franchises has any interest--business or otherwise--in the profitability or success of the Clippers or how the Clippers owner conducts himself.

If each team cannot show an actual dollar loss--or if they actually show INCREASED revenues and profitability--then Sterling gets to stay. No harm no foul. What Sterling did does not impact or harm the league in any respect so the league won't kick him out.

Got it, your position is clearer than ever.

_

 

not my position, the Supreme Court's decision.

you keep arguing in circles attempting to make claims that contradict existing court rulings. this isn't an issue of opinion, it is an issue of legal fact at this point.

no matter how snidely you repeat my position, it is obvious you are simply avoiding even attempting to dispute them because as idiotic as you are you are obvisouly smart enough to know you cannot, so you resort to whatever deflection you can manage to try and save face.

now that has been finished all over too. is that creepy? of course. but it is still the perfect image to reflect your argument at this point. now, just lick, baby.

 

I made my position clear 10 pages ago, and it's getting boring to keep trying to get you to understand it. I can continue to explain it to you but I can't understand it for you too. Here's your position in a nutshell, your words--which started this discussion:

No harm to any other team, Sterling stays--is that right? Because that's what you're saying--and you don't think the league as a whole was harmed by his conduct. Just the Clippers.

The league as an entitiy, as a partnership of franchises has NO interest in how Sterling conducts his business or personal life if it effects the league in anyway other than in a monetary sense.

Regardless of whether the rest of the league loses a dollar or not.

You've made that position clear.

And now you've made it clear that you enjoy ejacualting all over men.

Got it.

_