I think that valuation is simply Ballmer having the cash to offer it. May be wrong but not sure there are other takers for that price.
Chris Paul and Blake Griffin gave this team its current value...as they start "sucking" in the foreseeable future, they will devalue soon enough. And the dreaded Lakers will return back to relevance...but then again, who knows. If Sterling was able to make billions of this team sale, the state of NBA ownership looks well indeed.
Actually, the usual routine is that your grand kids squander all your money before their kids can lay their hands on it.
True, Paul and Griffin make the Clippers more valuable. But the Clippers has been a profitable franchise even though they sucked for years. Sterling does care about winning. But he cares about making money.
Not having an article right now, but NBA multiple times stated that Sterling 100% knew he was recorded at the time, therefore their case about him openly saying it and not being blackmailed.
First, this was rehashed MANY times in the original Sterling thread. The NBA was fully within their rights as defined by the constitution to initiate a vote to force a sale. Once again, I refer you to this section of the NBA constitution... http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf Sterling violated section (c) in that he has still not payed the $2.5M fine levied against him. Even if he wanted to contest the fine, the rules of the NBA require that the owner pay the fine FIRST and then move to appeal. Sterling has chosen to refuse to pay entirely. That alone is grounds for removal. Sterling also violated section (d) in that he specifically violated secondary contracts regarding moral conduct that he signed with the NBA. http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...d-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-emerges Sterling violated the terms of the NBA bylaws and constitution in a way that was specific, measurable and provable and that had a materially adverse impact upon the NBA and their Brand. This was evidenced in sponsor flight, the threats of action by the NBAPA, and the cancellation of season tickets. Adam Silver is a lawyer. He's not just "winging" it. And if Sterling thought he had a hope in heck of challenging the NBA's bylaws, he would have been able to get an injunction against the proceedings. The fact is, Sterling doesn't have a proverbial legal leg to stand on... the NBA knows it, Sterling's lawyers know it, and Shelly Sterling and her legal team know it. That's why Shelly Sterling made the rational choice to salvage the situation as best as she could. As for the whole "Private Conversation" and "Free Speech" arguments, it's completely irrelevant. Protection of free speech only applies to the government when making laws. The government did not make any laws to abridge the rights of Sterling. And the sphere of "private" opinion ceases once that opinion becomes public, regardless of How that private viewpoint is released into the wild. The law only protects your rights against intrusions into your privacy, it does NOT protect you from the consequences of your statements or opinions once those become publicly known. The NBA didn't record Sterling's conversation. The NBA didn't write Sterling's comments on CNN for him. And the NBA has every right to protect the legitimate business interests of the 29 other owners and 400 players in the NBA from the fall out of Sterling's positions. There is only one person Sterling may have a legitimate case against, and that's against Stiviano... and that's only assuming that she doesn't actually have his recorded consent (which she claims she does). IF Stiviano has his recorded consent, then there is literally nobody that Sterling can go after legally with any realistic chance of winning. At that point Sterling has waived his right to privacy (by giving consent to the recording) and Stiviano as a party to those conversations is fully within her rights to keep them private or release them publicly. Donald Sterling is the only one responsible for the sale of the Clippers. If he just kept his mouth shut, or was more cognizant of the impact of his opinions and statements, or had a different set of views than he wouldn't be in the boat he's in now. The NBA responded to best preserve the value, integrity and continued success of the league... which is their one and only responsibility as a sports association. And if that means pushing a rogue Billionaire out of the league in the process, I for one am not going to shed any tears.
^^ and with all that said, the NBA never exercised the right to vote and terminate his ownership. Shelly Sterling sold before the NBA actually did anything against the franchise.
