I'm again not a legal expert. But can't the by-laws of the NBA be challenged in court. And can't Sterling sue the Commish, etc. the same way Vilma, etc. did in Bountygate.
how harmed is their business? prior to Silver's ruling there was no harm done to the NBA despite the public outcry of the revelation. claiming there is harm to the NBA and proving it are two different things. Are Spurs fans not going to go to games because Sterling is a sack of shit? Nets fans? Raptors fans? I don't think so. did consumer product sales for NBA teams plummet? was there a large public outcry associating the comments with the NBA as a whole and all teams, or were they attributed to Donald Sterling who just happens to be the Clippers owners? sponsors dropped the Clippers, which harms the Clippers, but they weren't dropping any other teams. now, it can be argued they don't want to wait to be damaged, and perhaps that can be a compelling argument, but I don't buy that they had been damaged by Sterling's comments and his banning stopped the damages from going further. you could argue that if the players boycotted that it damages the league because of loss of games, but the problem with that hypothetical is what about when player's strike over wanting more money? if the owners don't relent to the player's demands and the players strike, and games are lost, the league would be just as damaged. by the argument of lost games being damages in the event of a strike any owner that did not want to give the players their demands and would rather lose the games that can't be played would be damaging the league just as much as an owners whose behavior causes players to boycott games and games are lost. the NBA would have to claim that they would ban any owner that made any decision that caused players to not play games, since the damages are the same regardless of the owner's reasoning. I don't find that to be a reasonable position. I'm not compelled by the claim that his comments have damaged the league. they damaged the Clippers, and have made it impossible for him to continue as the owner if sponsors and coaches all quit, and no players want to play for him. the decision would then be his to walk away, which I think he would have. my contention with this entire scenario is not that he is gone, or disputing that he is a sack of shit that is reaping what he sows. I just have an issue with what appears to be the NBA over stepping their boundaries simply to appease the hysteria.
Ah, yeah, this is not harming the league at all. Lol. Most professional leagues HOPE that one of their teams gets embroiled in a racial catastrophe, it really helps the whole league. A forced sale is going to make the whole of the league MORE valuable, not less valuable. The best part is one member of a 30 group club loses all of its endorsements. That's called maximizing value. You're right, the other owners either don't care about this or are loving it. _
that's a complete strawman of what I said. you claimed damages. damages are a tangible thing, not a concept. whether they care or have a vested interest in every team being maximized and having a positive public perception isn't the same as saying the league and the other teams are suffering damages. one team harming its own reputation does not mean the league is being damaged if the other teams and the league don't suffer any tangible and provable damages.
None of the owners like it, obviously, even though they will all vote "yes", it does mean that owners ARE vulnerable. Owners like to feel safe, and having an owner get removed does set a precedent that no is truly safe no matter what they do. If one owner can go down, then another can go down in the future. They usually try to protect each other but obviously they feared the outcry of the people. NONE of the owners will be happy about having to vote yes.
Go read my post. Damages is a term of art, it has a defined meaning in litigation. I said "harmed". This whole debacle is harming one of 30 franchises and therefore it is harming the whole. The other 29 owners are being harmed right now and as long as this drags on. Don't play strawman with me if you can't understand what I've said or care to ignore it. _
But what about the "ownership laws"? Isn't Sterling somehow protected by them? And the Constitution? That's got to figure in, right? That's like 10th grade stuff. And what about felony charges against the other owners. You brought up a great legal strategy. _
Reportedly, 15 sponsors of the Clippers have either suspended or terminated their endorsement deals as of today. That's either adding value or diminishing value, it's one of those but I'm not sure. _
It'd be hilarious if the end result was a lower sale price for Sterling and better sponsorship deals for the new owners. Lose-lose
Unfortunately the celebrity billionaires enticed into bidding for this team is going to drive the price up. If this were a normal sale you'd have the usual suspects trying to buy. This is now a cause célèbre and Oprah and P Diddy and Magic and a half dozen other billionaires are going to try to outbid each other because not only are they buying an NBA team, they are rescuing the franchise from a racist satanic figure. The fact that it's LA is just fueling the fire. _
Am I the only one reading the title of this topic, "Donald Sterling and the Clippers," who thinks it's about the headliners of a fifties revival show at Westbury?
Yup. They're already showing pictures of the celebrities lining up to buy the team. Those egos alone will drive the price through the roof. One other one I forgot. Floyd Mayweather. He he that wealthy? _
He's the highest paid athlete in the world, but his net worth is about a third of what the Clippers franchise is estimated to be worth. Edit: I have seen him called the highest paid athlete in the world but further research on that is proving it not as clear as it is portrayed http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes'_list_of_world's_highest-paid_athletes
He's a pretty big bettor, isn't he? Can't see the club letting him in. You figure Magic is going to be the front runner. _
Black dudes are allowed to make racist comments. It's like I can call someone a dago or ginzaloon with impunity. _
