show me the strawman of my evidence against his argument that the league has been harmed, which would require tangible damages to be proven to validate such a claim. you can't because it doesn't exist. I'm not getting owned simply because two of the worst posters on this board are ignorant to that basic aspect of the law. or the strawman in disputing his claim that the the teams are a single business entity by providing the evidence from the courts that have ruled that they are separate, competing entities, not a single entity. you can't. and likely because you don't even grasp the concepts that are even being discussed by the courts in such rulings.
sure, but only if any other business associate attempts to have him removed from any managing role that he has over their business. but if he actually suffers from a deteriorating mental condition (or argues that he does and can assemble enough proof to support the claim), such as dementia, that can be argued to be a disability, and the NBA bylaws certainly would not allow the other owners to strip an owner of his team because he suffers a medical disability.
don't bring up the concept of strawman if you don't want to address it. of course if you could actually dispute what I said you wouldn't depend on making such an asinine statement to begin with. beyond this exchange, how about you find out how many times I have even mentioned such in this argument and see if it supports your claim. it doesn't, which simply validates the assertion of how shitty a poster you are.
Is there a strawman to my shitty posting? Can you poke holes in it? Come on. Be completely honest here. How does it make you feel?
Exactly. Thank you. Sterling stays and has a long lasting partnership with the rest of the other 29 businesses. No harm to the league because no monetary loss to the other teams--no quantifiable damages. I can't believe the league is moving as swiftly as it is to get rid if this guy. I mean after all it is his property and he can do with it what he wants. I've claimed the entire league has been harmed whether the rest of the independent teams can show even a single dollar of damages. Your position is clearer than ever. _
You dopes are arguing in circles over nothing. Sterling's franchise agreement will govern whether or not the other owners can vote him off the island. End of story, full stop. If that says they don't have to establish any monetary loss or damage, that's what it says and that's what they can do if they so choose, because that's what he agreed to when he acquired him in. As long as they aren't treating him in a discriminatory manner, like because he is a crippled black woman.
exactly, you've claimed it has been harmed but haven't proven it has been harmed. two entirely different things. last I checked, if this went to court or arbitration claims have to be proven, not simply made. your position remains as clear as it has been -- clearly meritless.
the argument has nothing to do with whether the owners can vote him out. they can do whatever they want. the argument is whether Sterling has a credible challenge to their decision to vote him out based on the criteria Stokes has claimed would validate their decision. claims that have no merit. anybody can do anything they want, regardless of what a contract says. the contract doesn't force you to do anything, it simply gives each party legal recourse if the terms of the contract are not fulfilled by the other party. the owners can vote him out for any reason they like, but if Sterling challenges their reason, and a court or arbitrator agrees with his challenge that the constitution doesn't allow for an owner to lose his team for that reason, their vote if over turned. it is all in the interpretation of the terms of the contract, which don't spell out explicit behaviors or acts that would warrant termination of ownership. they are broad and vague for a reason. but because they are broad and vague it would require the league to validate their decision and convince a judge or arbitrator that the constitution does apply to their reasoning. but if they go to court and attempt to make the argument that they are one single business entity they will lose because that has already been ruled on by the courts to not be so.
No one here is qualified to make an assessment and prove whether the league as a whole has suffered a monetary loss, if any. You don't think the league was "harmed", just the Clippers. Your words. No loss of money no foul, as it were. Donnie gets to stay. I think the league has been "harmed" based upon his statements and his conduct over the past few days-regardless of whether or not the league has suffered even a single dollar of loss. We'll see if the owners kick him out. And whether the courts agree. _
the point isn't whether you are right or I am right. the point is whether we can defend the position we are taking; if evidence exists to support that position it is a stronger position. whether history proves one of us right in the future is independent of whether we can defend our arguments at this moment. I clearly disagree with the assertion the league has been harmed because that harm would have to be tangible and quantifiable. negative press does not equate to being harmed in my opinion. and because the teams are clearly independent, competing entities, the Clippers losing their sponsors does not equate to harm for the NBA or other teams. the NBA, as an entity, has its own sponsors. The Clippers sponsors are not the league's sponsor or the other team's sponsors -- their deal is with the Clippers. the teams have no basis to claim they have been harmed by the Clippers losing their individual sponsors because the Clippers are their competitors. they benefit if the Clippers have less money because it effects the Clippers ability to compete with the other teams. if the Clippers lose their players because of this, and the other teams sign those players, those teams have improved off of the harm done to the Clippers. and that is one of the goals for each team -- to be better than the other teams. by being better you generate more money for yourself. there is no harm to the Kings or Bucks if they are able to sign Blake Griffin and Deandre Jordan if they refuse to stay with the Clippers because of Donald Sterling. at this moment the only team to suffer any harm is the Clippers.
This is an interesting position since the other 29 owners who in your opinion have not been harmed are trying to kick him out and the one owner that has been harmed is refusing to leave. Yep, the other completely independent businesses (who happen to have franchises in the same league) have no interest how Sterling harms his team because he's not really hurting the league. In fact the other completely independent businesses will actually make out BETTER now because they'll be able to poach Clipper players. This is brilliant, really. I'm pretty sure when the other owners figure this out they'll INSIST that Sterling stays. _
yes, because clearly not being able to kick him out must equate to them wanting to keep him. this kind of nonsense is just par for the course for you. but you can continue to make arguments all you want despite the fact that the facts dispute your claim that they are not competing entities with separate business interests, despite being part of the same league. it has nothing to do with how the owners feel, that is just a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that your claims continue to have zero merit. it has to do with whether they have the ability to kick him out simply because the Clippers have been harmed but the NBA and the other teams have not.
Exactly. No harm to the league, no harm to the other teams. Sterling gets to stay. Clearly. I don't even know what the other owners were thinking. How can they kick him out if ONLY his independent business was harmed. Not sure what all the outrage is, those other owners should just mind their own business. _
Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 7m Donald Sterling has agreed to allow his wife Shelly to negotiate a forced sale of the Clippers, source tells ESPN. Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 3m The NBA has yet to accept the terms of this new arrangement between Shelly and Donald. She'll need to sell it all for them to consider. Ramona Shelburne @ramonashelburne 1m But if she's willing to sell the whole thing, this could bring a startlingly quick end to this affair
As much as I agree with your reasoning, the final outcome of an event is never "the [only] outcome". The alternative in this case being dissolution. Anyone who thinks Sterling isn't crazy enough to have possibly fought this tooth and nail just watch the CNN interview . The swiftness of this all shows the magnitude of damage caused by his attempts to mislead the investigation and the CNN interview IMO.
I get that but I'm just referring to what was meant to happen. There were many outcomes but this just felt like it was going to happen.
Sterling to drop lawsuit and will sell team for $2 billion lmao Guy made out like crazy!!! Haha bought for $12 million and sold for $2 billion!
