I would like to hear the board's opinion on the Sterling situation

My opinion:

1) Sterling is a racist
2) What does being a racist have to do with owning a franchise?
3) Everyone is free to protest, yell, etc. about this. Sponsors are free to take their dollars elsewhere. Players are free to sign contracts with another team, or even another league. They are NOT free to just take the man's property, unless he violated some bylaw in the partnership agreement I'm not aware of.
4) As ususal, the media is about entertainment......not news.

 

He'd probably just get a fine if this was the MLB.
If Silver wants to take him out of the NBA so be it.
Lets just see how long this drags in a courtroom.

 

I really hope it's a post op female lady boy. In fact, I would let him keep the Clippers so long as it is a post op.

Imagine the eternal lulz of 1) the hilarity of an 80yr billionaire old getting played/f-cked by a tranny 2) the puns on TNT over the name 'Clippers' 3) The LA gays finally being correct about how Magic caught the AIDS (Tranny party at Eddie Murphys mansion)

Plz plz lord make this happen!

 

No one is taking his property. It's more akin to him being a member of a club and the other members will vote to make him sell his membership to that club due to his behavior that negatively impacts the entire club.

 

Being a racist affects the image of the league, which affects all the partners. The bylaws he agreed to when joining the league allows them to attempt to remove him. We'll see if it passes, and if so, if he challenges it. If so, he'll have his day in court.

And they only would sort-of be taking his property - they'd be revoking his franchise rights, selling those rights, and giving him the proceeds. It would be a forced sale, not a seizure.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marge_Schott#Exit_from_ownership


On May 5, 1996, Schott aroused ire when she made statements favorable to Adolf Hitler, saying he "was good in the beginning, but went too far."[2] MLB again banned Schott from day-to-day operations through 1998. Later in the month, Schott was quoted in Sports Illustrated as speaking in a "cartoonish Japanese accent" while describing her meeting with the prime minister of Japan.[2] Further, she said that she did not like Asian-American kids "outdoing our kids" in high school.[2]

On April 20, 1999, Schott agreed to sell her controlling interest in the Reds for $67 million to a group led by Cincinnati businessman Carl Lindner. At the time she was facing a third suspension, failing health and an expiring ownership agreement with her limited partners, who planned to oust her. Schott remained as a minority partner.

 

Except that club is governed by laws, just like a nation is governed by laws. If he didn't violate their own rules, then they don't have a right to remove them.

 

*them should be *him

 

That has to include the NAACP. As bulkathon pointed out, they were set to give Sterling a Lifetime Achievement award next month. It would have been the 2nd one they gave him.

 

Privacy or not, that is truly the way he feels. Thus I feel no sympathy for him.

 

Pre op...let him keep the Clippers if it's pre op.

 

Ultimately there's no realistic way for Sterling to remain owner of the Clippers and have his asset maintain value. So, I hope they allow the people and players to force Sterling's hand to sell the team because from what we know it appears to be illegal for the league to force a sell.

I think he secretly wants the league to force him to sell so that he can not only pocket the money from selling the Clippers but drain extra money from the NBA after a lawsuit.

 

There would be a player revolt if they didn't ban Sterling. Even if you don't think the punishment was right (and I honestly don't know why anyone would think that) it was necessary from a practical standpoint. Not bringing down the hammer could really damage the league.

 

To me, it's a whole lot like the Wikileaks situation. The US Government was wronged by Bradley Manning, and has redress against him, but Asange has the goods now and they are his. He was given documents, and used them. It was not his duty to make sure his source acted legally, just like it wasn't Woodward and Bernstein's duty to make sure that "Deep Throat" didn't act illegally by revealing Nixon's protected info. Of course, the government will prosecute the hell out of Assange if they can, because they are the government and can change the rules however they want when they are pissed, but that doesn't make it right.

Sterling has a complaint against his gold digger assistant, but once she lets that crap out there, its out there, it is fair game and he has to deal with it. If he doesn't want his personal crap to get out there, he needs to do a better job of vetting the people who work for him to make sure they aren't criminals, gold diggers, or untrustworthy.

If a zoo has a legally owed tiger, and a dumb ass assistant zookeeper lets it out of the cage because he's mad at the zoo, and the police have to shoot the tiger to protect people, the zoo doesn't have issue with the police for destroying their property. They have issue with the assistant. The police responded appropriately to the situation they were presented with.

As I see it, Sterling's issue right now is with the assistant. Of course, he'll never recover the value of the damages that she caused him, but that's not the world's fault.

The NBA is built on the good will of the fans. The bad PR on Sterling damages that goodwill. Therefore, the NBA is entirely justified in protecting the good thing it has going and getting rid of Sterling to protect its profitability. Anything that hurts the profitability of the NBA is appropriate for the NBA to deal with.

 

I am of the opinion that the league's action is totally a business thing. I am pretty sure most of the owners and Silver himself don't care much about what kind of a person Sterling is as long as he's a cooperating business partner.

This is just a reaction to the public outcry. Everybody knew Sterling was a scumbag way before this thing happens. How many media outlets had reported the dirty things Sterling did?

 

I think he was set up. Thats not to say the guy isn't a racist piece of **** though

I just find it odd, that immediately after this news broke, there already was a financial plan in place for Magic Johnson and his group to buy the Clippers. Even before Sterling's punishment has been announced.

The tape, just seems fishy. Sure he did say those things, but I feel he was kinda led on the speak in that direction, like they wanted him to say those things on tape. The fact that Magic is brought up in the tapes, and his supposed dealings in place to purchase the team, and him being a huge LA figure head, it all just seems coincidental.

The NBA knew about his racist past and did NOTHING. Now all of a sudden this is something as huge as it is? Cause somebody said something in the privacy of their own personal life and the NBA is now forcing him out?

It just seems really fishy.

Though don't get me wrong, I am not saying the guy is a saint, I just think he is being wrongfully pushed out for what he said, on his own personal time.

 

I think a harsh punishment was needed and delivered. My only concern is that a dangerous precedent is now in place and could backfire on the NBA in the future.

Hypothetically: If (Insert superstar player here) said something scathingly racist would the league ban him?

 

There is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment means that an individual/entity cannot be politically persecuted, arrested, detained or unjustly held as a result of speech.

Speech does have consequences and Sterling's had business implications for the NBA. By determining that Sterling's speech was detrimental to the NBA's business, they were well within their rights and charter to revoke his membership and force a sale of his team. The consequences of Sterling's speech do not fall under the First Amendment, especially when his speech ties into the financial implications for 29 other owners.

 

Except that something similar already happened in the MLB with Marge Schott owning the Cincinnati Reds. Her offensive speech led to the minority owners of the team forcing her out.

 

1) The association has no more or less rights than Sterling does. They are both governed by the contract they signed. If the contract says he can be removed for any reason with a supermajority vote, then so be it. It would surprise me if that's the way it's written, but if he agreed to it, then that's the risk he took.

2) taking control of the property is no different than seizing it. If the government took your house and forcibly sold it, would you not say that they seized it? Eminent domain has destroyed the publics understanding of property rights.