[NBA Gossip] Donald Sterling Hates the Blacks, Including Magic

So we should believe you or Adrian Wojnarowski .. hmm. easy choice.

 

Yeah because the NBA didn't act before on Sterling's racism, they shouldn't do anything as it progresses and hurts the image and business of the entire league. Good thinking.

Also you made another good point. If someone is a millionaire, then it's okay to be racist against them. They shouldn't dare to complain about that.

Wow! What points you make!

 

What happened was, first

An early story leaked that the group nominally led by Magic with Guggenheim backing was gonna buy the Clippers.

But the next day when Magic was asked about this, he denied any knowledge of the matter.

What's going on, as I assumed, is that (1) the decision for sale was made by the political bigs (2) and that the buyers would be the Guggenheim group as nominally headed by Magic (3) that this was done without anyone having bothered to tell Magic. Since he's an empty suit, and not expected to put out money. As I've suggested, he will probably receive a 1% stake for free, as a commission.

 

I bet he fights it. He seems like that sort of person.

 

That it was a private converation has no bearing. This isn't a criminal prosecution. It's business associates distancing themselves from him.

The conversation was made public...the NBA didn't make it public. That it went public is the problem...because it's caused sponsors to walk away and created a PR nightmare. That's why the league is dealing with it.

But everyone needs to stop with the private conversation line...that is of zero concern to a private entity...the NBA doesn't owe you the right to free speech or protections against search and seizure. Those limitations are for the government...not the NBA.

 

I think the NBA would look better now is they also issued a new blanket policy. Since diversity is so important to the brand and the league, they should say this action is the start of a new zero tolerance policy. They should even cite past acts, by players, that would result in serious fines and suspensions.

It's just ridiculous, on the face of it, to hold an owner to a certain private (yes, I get what you're saying MadMax, in terms of legality) standard while players have said bigoted things in public.

We all know it's because the players doing it don't set off a media firestorm, while the rich white owner doing it makes for great talking head fodder. (And hey, if that's the policy, why not state it that way.)

 

Clippers are a bunch of primadonnas.

Look, what Sterling said was deplorable, despicable, uncouth etc. and he deserved the ban.

However, the Clippers were acting linke a bunch of whiners. I mean common. I am sure Doc Rivers and Chris Paul knew of Sterling and his history of racism before they signed on that contract provided by the Clippers.

And yet aparently, if the NBA did not make that decision yday, they were going to pull out of their game. Not only that but apparently CP3 had agreements with Durant and Wall to do the same at their respective games?

I have a different conspiracy theory. This was not just the skank hoe but I believe the Clippers personnel (coach and players) were involved too. They wanted Sterling out and this was the best way for them to throw hissy fits and get him out. They'd beg for his money while signing that contract knwoing his history but then suddenly make a big 180 acting like they did not know about his past.

 

But Sterling's other dealings doesn't matter. The NBA specifically said it was taking punitive action because of Sterling's recorded tape, not any of his previous shady actions. How do you negotiate clarity along that?

How do you separate what's offensive vs. not offensive enough? Who decides that? Would you want $500M - $1B in your investments sitting in other people's thoughts on how offensive of what comes out of your mouth at any time (private or public)? This is a massive slippery slope.

While I agree Sterling will have a really hard time winning anti-trust, he can certainly drag it out through the mud.

Sure, he may have 800 hours of pure crap in his tapes. But is 800 hours of pure crap really marginally that much more significant than 2 hours? We have already established he's a terrible human being.

On the other hand, Sterling needs to literally find one or two racist or homophobic remarks on the NBA side to really really make this nasty.

 

You can believe whatever you want - but if Magic hasn't come out and said anything, you shouldn't claim that Magic came out and said anything. Your statement was simply untrue - that's not really a matter of opinion or believing anything.

 

Wait - why wouldn't you hold an owner to a different standard than a player? Their roles are different and their impacts on the financial dealings of the league are very different. It's no different than holding a CEO to a different standard than a random employee when it comes to public image.

 

the NBA Constitution & By Laws .... take note of the specific sections:

Art.24(e) - commissioner authority to investigate
(h)(i)(i) - power to suspend

Art.35A (c), (d) - for fines & suspension for conduct detrimental to league

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf

 

I change my prior stance. It appears that some of the players were going to strike and the silent protest was just the start. Way to go players!

 

No, Silver said that HIS decision did not consider the previous actions. He said that the BoG decision WOULD consider Sterling's history of actions.

If I'm a NBA franchise owner sitting in a room, most likely I would push for the publication of views not being sufficient. I would craft a clause that would specifically limit it to actions that are "materially detrimental to the integrity or health of the NBA".

In other words, you're limiting it to events that either severely damage the image of the NBA and/or pose significant financial/legal risk, and/or cause significant financial damage to the NBA. This gives the BoG some latitude and sets a bar that requires that there is an actual measurable negative impact on the league.

No business owner in their right mind would want to have their franchise removed purely on the basis of their opinions, however it is far more rational to agree to being removed on the basis of their opinions when those opinions are causing damage to the NBA brand and financial interests.

In other words, maybe you have a reprehensible world view, but if you want to have them they better not become public. And wouldn't it be functionally easier to NOT have those views than to be constantly aware of whether you're being taped?

Dragging it through the mud is an assumed outcome in litigation. It's why it's used as a tool to bludgeon your opponent into a settlement, or as a threat to avoid compromise.

In situations where BOTH sides are willing to fight it out (both sides believe they have too much to lose/gain), then dragging it through the mud is an accepted cost of the process. The NBA has top flight lawyers. Adam Silver is a lawyer. The decision was rendered with the assumption that Sterling would drag it through the mud, not that he would just roll over.

Yes, it is.

Only approximately 15 minutes of tape have been released out of 100 hours of tapes of interviews. Only Sterling knows what he said, but it's easily conceivable it could include information that would indicate illegal practices (opening him to criminal prosecution), or confidential information (giving his competitors an advantage), or proof of motive (opening him to civil actions), or negative aspersions on business partners (destroying business relationship).

For example, him laughing on tape and bragging about how he lied during a trial would open him up to charges of perjury. Talking about his specific strategy and approach to instituting racial discrimination in his businesses would open him to lawsuits, prosecution and legal liability by providing the smoking gun to potential litigants and the DA. Him talking about how he didn't tell his business partners about something that was materially relevant to a deal would open him up to lawsuits due to non-disclosure.

The number of potential landmines are innumerable.

That wouldn't be enough.

He would need to find something that is a "smoking gun" and it would have to be more than just a racial epithet or he'll just look like he's trying to discredit his accusers. A guy who is a confirmed racist screaming "I'm not the only racist!" has a very high threshold in terms of credibility.

And you can bet that if there are any owners who are closet racists/etc that they are quietly scrubbing their records clean and making sure that there are no smoking guns just lying around.

 

Art 14 (j) is interesting as well. It specifically references termination, and the fact that an owner has no legal recourse in the courts to overturn a decision relating to that. Not sure if this would be enforcable at all, though.

 

Is that an act to punish the owner or the fans who have stood behind them all year long, especially when players of other teams are involved?

 

Of course not - but that's the price you pay to get the rights to own one of 30 NBA franchises in the world. When the supply of what you want is limited, the sellers can negotiate much tougher contractual terms to allow you into their club.

 

It's an act to punish a league/entity that is doing something you don't agree with. Similar to any striking situation in any industry, it can impact others that rely on your talents. But at the end of the day you have to do what is best for you.

Playing for fans that support you doesn't trump disrecpecting yourself, and it isn't #1 on the list for these players. Whatever job you have, I'm sure the person you are serving isn't #1 on your list of priorities. Why should it be for these athletes?

 

Can this really be enforced? For instance, someone signed a contract to give at least one month of notice before quitting. But the organization can't really do anything if that person only gives 2 weeks of notice. Also, some non-competing clause rules a radius of 50 miles, for argument's sake, can your ex-employer really stop you from getting a job at a competitor with a distance of 40 miles?

 

It's not a slippery slope now that what's in the by-laws is out. It's exactly what you signed up for, actually. You agreed to join a private league where you can be booted if the majority of the other owners want you gone. If your thoughts piss off enough players to hurt the league's bottom line, which players boycotting a playoff game would do, then those other owners are completely justified in getting rid of you.