First and foremost, while it wasn't the NBA who made the final decision it was the NBA who put this whole sale into motion in the first place. Second, please show me where in the termination of ownership section of the NBA constitution does it say anything that could resemble the reason Sterling could lose this team? The closest thing present is the idea that if an owner no longer has the funds to support his team. This is where the whole loss of sponsors argument takes place. You have to show that even with the loss of the sponsors Sterling doesn't have the financial means to support his team. He's a billionaire even without the Clippers, good luck on that one. But! That's not what this court case was about. This court case was about the competency of Sterling! Was Sterling actually incompetent? It's hard to tell. He's old, and in light of his racist comments it's really easy for a judge to rule in Shelly's favor (especially because Sterling get's an unprecedented $2 Billion as a consolation prize). This case was not about the right of Sterling to keep his team, rather the right of his estranged wife to declare him incompetent and sell the team.
Just as Sterling blew up the NAACP as being full of crap I was hoping he would hang on long enough to show Rivers was bluffing about quitting. I think Sterling got a raw deal but compared to the people he has screwed over the years he should have much more coming.
I think I simplified that post. It's never been much more complicated than that. Anyway, as others have said, this ain't over. No telling how long all the lawsuits will keep going.
You use "estranged wife" like she's a gold digger. She's been co-owner like forever. The Clippers are owned by the family trust, not Donald. She's an "alternate governor." She was fully within her rights to sell. She didn't trick him. The judge ruled in her favor on that. She fought to protect the value of the family trust/Clippers, and won the case; hence the 1310(b) ruling. But bottomline: you are saying both the NBA took his franchise, yet admit that the suit was between Shelly and Donald about her right to sell. You can't have it both ways. Either the NBA took it away, or she sold...which is it?
Yeah that's what I mean. They blocked him from appealing this particular case and the sale must go through so he can't stop that. He can sue for damages but I doubt he even wins that from her. Dude is wasting his last years for nothing.
What can the 2nd billion buy that the first billion didn't? The 2nd billion is for the grandkids, 3rd billion for the great grandkids, etc.
Open racist? He is being punished for things he said that was supposed to be in the privacy of his home! That's messed up. I understand the NBA wanting to save face, but they are going too far in my opinion.
It also sort of shows that if you cheat on your wife for decades, but leave her controlling half your assets, you might get bit in the ass.
Everything was set in motion by the NBA's threat of dissolving the team. Shelly didn't want a $2 billion company she had a stake in to be worthless. The NBA has no recourse to actually terminate Sterling's ownership (a 60% vote can only happen if an owner violates anything in Article 13 of the NBA constitution, I would challenge you to find something Sterling violated in that set of rules). The NBA may not have been the death blow to Sterling's ownership, but damn they did everything in their power to undermine him. Yes, Shelly Sterling also had a lot to do with it as well.
It's not like this is a one-time thing. Sterling has a well and long documented history of being a racist douchebag.
In principal, this is a bad call. Forcing people to conform is never good. Sterling was a terrible owner and he needed to go. However, all bad things start with white lies.
That may be true, but Silver specifically said his punishment had nothing to do with any past transgressions. It was based solely on this incident.
Well All you white bigots living vicariously through this demented goat, you guys lost this round.....
The punishment definitely does not fit the crime here. If you can call cashing in a billion dollars punishment, that is.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Shelly Sterling and Steve Ballmer's lawyers said they expect the sale of the Clippers to go through by Aug. 15.</p>— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/statuses/493880584276422658">July 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Shelly said she expects Donald's ban will one day be lifted and he'll be able to attend games again.</p>— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/statuses/493880075452809217">July 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Steve Ballmer's lawyer said Steve will keep the team in L.A. The team name will also stick for the foreseeable future.</p>— Arash Markazi (@ArashMarkazi) <a href="https://twitter.com/ArashMarkazi/statuses/493881486588669952">July 28, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If the team starts to devalue, sure. As it stands hell no. Part of the team's $2 billion value is them being in LA. If they leave LA, they would be between a $500-$700 million team. Horrible roi.
