Banned for Life

[Eaglehawk]

I think Sterling is a bigot, and arguably a racist. But didn't seem to me from what he said that he deserved the ban. As Abdul Jabbar said, the gal that set him up should be in jail, and someone should have nailed Sterling on his actions way prior to his current speech.
And I would argue what he said was protected by the First Amendment.
I think others may disagree, but just my two cents.

[c_hawkbob]

She's a black and Mexican party girl, he never figured she'd get tired of him trying to get her to act like an old white bigot?

Sorry, no sympathy for embarrassed billionaire hypocrites here.

[kalibane]

Sadly I'm not surprised by your reaction Eagle. If you think there is a place for Donald Sterling in the NBA it really makes me wonder about you.

[burrrton]

He's a billionaire and *that* mutt was the best he could do? I think he should have lost his franchise for that alone.

Seriously, though, this @sshole's expulsion as an owner was long overdue, and I feel is warranted here. If they can deny ownership for a host of reasons, they can revoke it for same IMO.

I'd probably have to object if they tried to take the franchise from him in such a way that he lost his money, but AFAIK that's not happening here.

[c_hawkbob]

Oh I wouldn't call her a mutt;
... she's not pretty but she's got a porn star attractiveness I could see an old fart billionaire falling for.

[Eaglehawk]

She's a black and Mexican party girl, he never figured she'd get tired of him trying to get her to act like an old white bigot?

Sorry, no sympathy for embarrassed billionaire hypocrites here.

But as Abdul Jabbar said, so are all the other people crying to the media about this idiot! The NAACP had him up to give him a LIFETIME AWARD, yet they knew his past. Since this came out, they have back tracked. I am sure this is what has Jabbar irked. People knew that not only was this billionaire a hippocrite(didn't realize he was a billionaire) but all the other people that sucked his tit were hypocrites as well. They all knew and did NOTHING. Sure I guess I can ignore the past, but I am making a point that this bozo should have been kicked out of the NBA a long time ago.

So my point is that if you want to kick him out of the NBA because of his racist actions prior to this, I would understand that more than this illegally taped conversation with a bigot about being seen publicly with black people. In fact let's be clear Bob, I know some folks personally from Florida, and have been told by others that many people in various families across America still feel this way. I personally am Black. A Black Latino in fact. You already knew that brother. I do not think his comments were any more strange or out of place than the many comments I have heard from my white friends about their Aunt Mary or Uncle James about not wanting to hang out with black people or befriend them and indicating that in general they have no ill will towards them personally, its just a cultural(comfort) thing, etc.

In fact I have some friends that have "fears" about hanging out with black people. Obviously they have no problem with me, its just a "comfort" thing. Nothing to do with racism.

This guy, in my humble opinion did not deserve a lifetime ban from the NBA for THIS phone call. He deserved it for his body of racism through the years that everyone in LA ignored cause he was rich.

Look as how much this situation has spiraled out of control...

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/04/ ... -research/

UCLA rejecting 3 million dollars for kidney research because of this?

They are rejecting it because they were embarrassed!!!!! Because they and the NAACP all got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with this bigot.

[burrrton]

Yeah, it's that "About 6 months away from being spat out the bottom of the porn industry" look that gives me crabs just looking at her.

I suppose you're right, though.

[Eaglehawk]

Oh I wouldn't call her a mutt;
... she's not pretty but she's got a porn star attractiveness I could see an old fart billionaire falling for.

I think as you do she is an UGLY B.

But as you mentioned, she's got the LB factor about her Lips Breasts. And the lips as least are natural. (Breasts are as fake as hell).

[Eaglehawk]

Yeah, it's that "About 6 months away from being spat out the bottom of the porn industry" look that gives me crabs just looking at her.

I suppose you're right, though.

Agreed.

[kalibane]

I don't know why people run to the 1st amendment every time something like this happens. It's not a first admendment issue. The first amendment protects you from government persecution as the result of your beliefs and what you say.

It doesn't protect you from being removed from a partnership/company because your racist opinions and practices hurt the brand, value and reputation of the 29 other franchise owners. Or suffering financially otherwise because people don't want to be affiliated with your ugliness.

No one is forcing UCLA to give the money back and they shouldn't unless one of the stipulations is to put his name on a building or something. And the NAACP should be ashamed because they were bought and paid for.

On the lighter topic of the girls appearance. I'd like to see what she looked like before the ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery. I bet she was probably attractive. Now though she looks like a gross caricature of "hollywood" beauty tropes I'm with Burrton on his assessment. She isn't "ugly" but she's kind of grotesque if that makes sense.

[Eaglehawk]

I don't know why people run to the 1st amendment every time something like this happens. It's not a first admendment issue. The first amendment protects you from government persecution as the result of your beliefs and what you say.

It doesn't protect you from being removed from a partnership/company because your racist opinions and practices hurt the brand, value and reputation of the 29 other franchise owners. Or suffering financially otherwise because people don't want to be affiliated with your ugliness.

No one is forcing UCLA to give the money back and they shouldn't unless one of the stipulations is to put his name on a building or something. And the NAACP should be ashamed because they were bought and paid for.

On the lighter topic of the girls appearance. I'd like to see what she looked like before the ridiculous amounts of plastic surgery. I bet she was probably attractive. Now though she looks like a gross caricature of "hollywood" beauty tropes I'm with Burrton on his assessment. She isn't "ugly" but she's kind of grotesque if that makes sense.

First Amendment is the First Amendment.
You agree with me on the UCLA and NAACP issue.
And no it doesn't make sense. She is ugly.

[kalibane]

Here is what I mean. All of her features are considered objectively desirable features.

Almond Eyes, full lips, high cheek bones, straight white teeth, nose well proportioned for the shape of her face, smooth skin, long hair, very symetrical face. There is literally no feature that's ugly in any definable way. But by undergoing this much cosmetic surgery it tends to throw off the overall equilibrium. Consequently she looks inhuman and therefore becomes unattractive. I can't look at her the same way I can look at say Sandra Bernhard and tell you what about her face is objectionable though so i don't think "ugly" is the best way to describe her.

[Eaglehawk]

Here is what I mean. All of her features are considered objectively desirable features.

Almond Eyes, full lips, high cheek bones, straight white teeth, nose well proportioned for the shape of her face, smooth skin, long hair, very symetrical face. There is literally no feature that's ugly in any definable way. But by undergoing this much cosmetic surgery it tends to throw off the overall equilibrium. Consequently she looks inhuman and therefore becomes unattractive. I can't look at her the same way I can look at say Sandra Bernhard and tell you what about her face is objectionable though so i don't think "ugly" is the best way to describe her.

Ok Kal,

YUP, since you put it that way, I see your point of view. HAHA. Damn Kal, you have medical training? I knew her breasts were fake from my experience. And trust me I have serious experience. But Kal, ur good bro. Damn good. Never thought about the face surgery.

[burrrton]

First Amendment is the First Amendment.

Well, it seems to me there are a couple different concepts:

1. The word of the FA.
2. The *spirit* of the FA.

This doesn't begin to violate the language of the FA which, as Kal pointed out, doesn't protect you from the social/contractual consequences of your speech.

However, there is an argument, it seems to me, that this might violate the spirit of the FA, which I think we can all agree should mean we should have little fear that we'll lose our livelihoods over simple political disagreements.

But this is more than simply thinking your taxes should be lower or higher, or even, in the absence of other information, thinking the classic definition of "marriage" should or should not be expanded.

This was good old fashioned bigotry of the ugliest variety, and due to the personal harm attitudes like that bring to others, I see no rational argument that speech like that *shouldn't* be "chilled", nor that it needs to be tolerated in the public arena.

[kalibane]

Just saw you edited your previous post. Bruh, if you think the first amendment applies to privately and legally instituted sanctions you're quite mistaken. If you need a more approachable example, think of it this way.

Imagine, a 3rd grade (non-union) teacher has a kid that's getting on their nerves and decides to completely curse the 9 year old child out. The first amendment protects them from being arrested. It doesn't protect them from being fired and you can bet that a teacher doing something like that wouldn't finish the day.

That standard does not change simply because Donald Sterling has more power and money. You may be thinking of it from the perspective that a private business owner should not have his business forcibly taken away and the fallout should be dictated by the market not patronizing them. You would still be wrong. He's not a sole proprietor of a business. He's a franchise owner within a larger business.

Best believe if you are granted a McDonalds franchise and you proceed to stop running your location up to the standards of the franchise agreement, McDonalds WILL come and take your franchise away because you are hurting the overall brand and thus the value of every other franchise owner's business in the course of things.

Donald Sterling's words (and behavior over the past 30 years), detracts from the value of the 29 other franchises. His presence as an owner has become an albatross for the league. He lost major sponsors, two of which were influenced by the players on his own team (State Farm, Kia). And last night players were going to walk out of all three games, which means the NBA was going to start losing National TV revenue which could not just hurt in the short term but could affect the negotiations for future TV deals. The agreement he signed off on provides for the Commissioner to levy the suspension that he did, and for 3/4 of the owners to get rid of another owner if they determine he is deterimentally affecting their ability to make their business as successful as it can be.

So yes Donald Sterling is free under the first amendment rights to express his hateful thoughts. And other people are free under the first amendment to react to his racism, which includes protests by the players and corporate sponsors withdrawing their business based on his ugliness. But the first amendment does not cover his "right" to own the Los Angeles Clippers. No such right exists. He was granted the privilege of being granted a franchise in the NBA and that privilege is subject to his franchise agreement which includes the provision that if the other 29 owners deem him a deteriment to the league he can be forced out by a 3/4 vote. This a contract he entered into voluntarily and has absolutely nothing to do with the first amendment.

[kalibane]

Burrrton,

I think it's important to note that Donald Sterling wasn't just caught on tape saying something offensive. If this was the first time he ever said anything like this or been known for something like this he'd be fined, suspeneded and the world would have moved on.

The problem in this case is that Donald Sterling has engaged actively in institutional racism as recently as 2009. He has been accused repeatedly by coaches, front office employees and players of racism and sexism. Someone quoted Phil Jackson when he was still coach of the Lakers in a game vs. the Clippers making reference to Donald Sterling saying, "How long are we going to put up with this guy? How many incidents do we already have on file already?"

The new Commissioner stated explicitly in his press conference the vote will be based on both the tape and his overall history of behavior. The tape is just tthe flashlight.

[Eaglehawk]

First Amendment is the First Amendment.

This was good old fashioned bigotry of the ugliest variety, and due to the personal harm attitudes like that bring to others, I see no rational argument that speech like that *shouldn't* be "chilled", nor that it needs to be tolerated in the public arena.

Any argument he makes will be difficult.

[kalibane]

If this were a legel matter, the tape might be inadmissable because California is not a one party state (meaning he must be aware that he is being recorded). Three problems. 1. This isn't a legal matter. 2. While unsubstantiated at this point, I've heard that he may have consented to being recorded in the past (it's been rumored when they argued in the past she obtained his consent to record conversations because he'd forget promises he made and she'd use the tapes remind him). 3. She (supposedly) isn't the one who leaked the tape.

But at the end of the day there are really only four instances where there are legal protections surrounding private conversations. 1. Spouse. 2. Clergy 3. Therapist 4. Attorney. His conversation with his mistress does not carry an expectation of privacy as far as the law is concerned.

Back to point #1. In the first paragraph though. This is an issue that falls under arbitration under the ownership/franchise agreement that Donald Sterling agreed to when he was allowed to purchase the team. So none of those protections may apply in this case, since it's not something to be argued before a judge.

Now Sterling may end up suing in a court to attempt to block being ousted from the league, but in that case the burden of proof will be on Sterling to prove that the other owners did not act in good faith or within the guidelines of the franchise agreement and league constitution to vote him out. That's a completely different argument than the expectation of privacy.

[Eaglehawk]

Cal is a two party state and let me quote the statute:
“California's wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). “
California Recording Law

Consent must be granted EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION. Again Kal. You are wrong.

It was REVENGE!!!!

Does she deserve praise for taping her private conversation with her boyfriend who got her a gig in the Clippers organization and has bestowed several years of gifts(2 Bentleys, 1 Ferrari , one 1.2 million dollar condo) No sir, she does not deserve praise at all.

Sterling is still the villain, but she is definitely not a hero

[savvyman]

I would give her a go for a few times before I got tired of my Toy - Especially if I was 80 years old.

[kalibane]

Eagle,

I think you are so invested in me being wrong that you didn't read what I actually typed. I said that California is NOT a 1 party state meaning the tape would be inadmissable legally.

Furthermore, I didn't say who I thought leaked the tape. As of right now though both she and TMZ deny that she was the one responsible. So unless you have additional evidence I have to work with what I have. I can't just make up something that I think is likely because I don't like what's available. But it is also why I put "supposedly" in parentheses in my sentence because if it ends up coming out that she was responsible it's not like I'm going to be surprised.

I also don't see anyone here praising her. I don't have any respect for women like this but when you lay down with dogs you come up with fleas. Sterling entrusted an obviously gold digging mistress with sensitive information he'd rather not have public, I don't count him as a victim. I count him as dumb and arrogant to the point that he didn't believe someone like this woman could get the better of him.

That's all very interesting about Texas and about kind of an arms length extension of attorney-client privilege but they aren't in Texas and the arms length ruling is still for all intents and purposes attorney/client privilege. The only important point is that there is no such thing as an expectation of privacy between a man and his mistress.

[Eaglehawk]

Sorry, I am not invested in you being wrong. I DID read your points. However, sometimes statements can be quickly read as tautological statements, thus my quick reaction. Kal, you and I are cool.

[burrrton]

FA is the FA.

Eag, I don't think we disagree all that much, but if "the FA is the FA", then there is nothing more to discuss re: Sterling. He has no 'technical' First-Amendment protections here.

Tell me folks, what is the law regarding this?
I would love to hear from my friends Kal and Burr.

Honestly I have no idea. For all I know he may have a case (I doubt the NBA would take such a drastic step without thinking they had a strong basis for doing so, but hey, maybe they think the positive PR for simply taking a stand regardless of the legal outcome will be net benefit).

Also, the NBA ignoring his previous boorishness could figure into it for all I know.

The thought experiment considering whether he should be cut slack under the FA, though, seems pretty cut and dry.

[burrrton]

I would give her a go for a few times before I got tired of my Toy - Especially if I was 80 years old.

Eeeeeeeeeyech.

[edit- horse mouth, leather skin, overly sinewy, fake tits, unnaturally stretched face... dude... billionaires can do better... so can 40 year olds.]

[Eaglehawk]

I would give her a go for a few times before I got tired of my Toy - Especially if I was 80 years old.

Eeeeeeeeeyech.

[edit- horse mouth, leather skin, overly sinewy, fake tits, unnaturally stretched face... dude... billionaires can do better... so can 40 year olds.]

I know I did!

[Eaglehawk]

FA is the FA.

Eag, I don't think we disagree all that much, but if "the FA is the FA", then there is nothing more to discuss re: Sterling. He has no 'technical' First-Amendment protections here.

Tell me folks, what is the law regarding this?
I would love to hear from my friends Kal and Burr.

Honestly I have no idea. For all I know he may have a case (I doubt the NBA would take such a drastic step without thinking they had a strong basis for doing so, but hey, maybe they think the positive PR for simply taking a stand regardless of the legal outcome will be net benefit).

Also, the NBA ignoring his previous boorishness could figure into it for all I know.

The thought experiment considering whether he should be cut slack under the FA, though, seems pretty cut and dry.

Let's see, I do see his attorney arguing it though. The conversation was not on company time, or at a company facility and was purely personal, so let's see.
Private franchises have very little protection from the Head Office. So his rights are severely limited.
I don't see him winning here regardless of his argument.
I'll leave it at that.

[kalibane]

I don't think his attorney can argue it (I guess he could but what I mean is it would be meaningless). As I said, if this winds up in court it will be Sterling suing the NBA for taking away his team without grounds to do so.

At that point the case becomes about whether or not the board of governors have the power under the NBA constitution to force a sale for the reason they are doing so. His argument will be that he isn't a gambler, has never had a problem paying his bills and thus hasn't materially hurt the competitive balance and overall business of the NBA. The NBA will argue that sponsors pulling out and potential player boycotts (which would affect TV revenue) based directly on his presence as an owner are a materially hurting the over all business.

The nature of why he is distasteable (racism) and the manner in which this was discovered become irrelevant. His argument essentially is, "I'm a racist asshole but that's not hurting any of the other owners".

P.S. Read this last night on Grantland: "Supposedly there are more than a hundred hours of these tapes. Supposedly Sterling asked his assistant/girlfriend/whatever-the-hell-she-was, V. Stiviano, to start recording his thoughts because the 80-year-old Sterling couldn’t remember things as well anymore. Supposedly this is only getting worse."

Kind of kills the whole faux outrage about how he was in his home and secretly recorded which is against the law in California angle. Looking more and more like he knew he was being taped.

[burrrton]

The conversation was not on company time, or at a company facility and was purely personal, so let's see.

Well, the point from the NBA's perspective is that this information is public knowledge.

How it became public knowledge is immaterial to them (since they weren't the ones that recorded him), and only matters to Sterling and the recorder/leaker (and could conceivably give him an avenue for redress with that person, although that's becoming more and more doubtful as Kal said).

He should just take his money, find a girlfriend that doesn't look like she's been run through the wringer, and retire quietly to one of his mansions.

[RiverDog]

The new Commish pretty much had to secure the moral high ground and hit Sterling with everything he could. If he did anything less, he'd risk being charged with being insensitive to this hot button issue. A life time ban? They can probably get away with keeping him away from games, locker rooms, news conferences, etc, and I don't blame them for taking that action. But I have serious doubts whether the league has the authority to force him to sell.

If the NFL could not prevent Al Davis from moving his franchise, the only court case I know of that involved a professional sporting league forcing one of their franchises to act according to their dictates, I hardly think that the NBA can force an owner to sell his unless he broke some sort of law, which it's pretty clear that he didn't. Like the NFL found out with Davis and the Raiders, the league does not have complete control over independently owned franchises. It's Sterling's private property that we're talking about. This issue is very reminiscent of the Marge Schott scandal a few years back, where the owner of MLB's Cincinnati Reds made some very insensitive remarks very similar to those of Sterling's. MLB eventually forced Schott to sell her team, but she didn't contest it in court. Sterling will. The guy is not foreign to a court room and has already stated that he's not selling.

I don't doubt that the league has the authority to keep Sterling away from games or other official NBA functions or activities that doesn't hit his pocket book, even a lifetime ban. But forcing him to sell? I'll bet the league loses if it ever gets to court. My guess is that they'll come up with some sort of compromise.

Does anyone know of a precedent that might be relevant, like McDonald's forcing an owner of one of their franchises to sell even if the owner did not violate any laws?

[kalibane]

It happens all the time. I heard of a McDonald's owner losing his franchise because he underordered supplies and replaced them with cheaper non sanctioned ingrediants and such. McDonalds (and many other companies) feel like being granted a franchise opportunity is a privilege and all you have to do to make money is follow the blueprint that they provide. It's fairly hard to get a franchise and there are people willing to take your place in a heartbeat. So if you screw with their brand they will take it from you.

Now Al Davis moving his team is a totally different Animal. Some may believe that the NFL just didn't want Oakland to lose their team. The truth of the matter is that the NFL just didn't want Al Davis to tap the valuable LA market because they didn't like him. At the end of the day though with franchise agreements/control it all comes down to money. In order to keep Davis from moving from Oakland to LA the league had to show that it would either be bad for the Rams in particular, the reasoning being that LA was the Rams market and LA couldn't support two teams or the league in general. And they have nothing to base this on but speculation.

Basing your argument on speculation is bad enough but here is the absolute death blow to even that speculation. LA has a population 3 times larger than Oakland and San Francisco greater area combined. LA county is also geographically bigger than Alameda, San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo Counties combined. If Oakland and San Francisco can support two teams there is no logical reason to assert that LA couldn't. The league didn't have a financial leg to stand on. And to take your McDonalds question a step further. If you're approved for a McDonalds franchise, you don't get to pick where it is. They tell you where it is and you don't get to move it.

Now this is different. Financial loss and brand tarnishing isn't just speculation it's also real. The Clippers lost big time sponsors. The six teams that were going to play on Monday night were going to walk off the court. And the advertisers for those games would have wanted money back from the networks who in turn would want money back from the NBA. The players on the Clippers were also planning on filing court papers to secure releases from their contracts and to immediately become free agents at the end of the year based on hostile working conditions. This thing had the potential to really upset the NBA's apple cart. And even if the players lost in court (which I think they would ultimately), the ongoing scandal and ugliness that this would turn into would resulted in a massive loss of stability and profit for the entire league. I don't think it's going to be difficult at all to prove that Sterling's ownership presents a problem for the entire league.

[RiverDog]

It happens all the time. I heard of a McDonald's owner losing his franchise because he underordered supplies and replaced them with cheaper non sanctioned ingrediants and such. McDonalds (and many other companies) feel like being granted a franchise opportunity is a privilege and all you have to do to make money is follow the blueprint that they provide. It's fairly hard to get a franchise and there are people willing to take your place in a heartbeat. So if you screw with their brand they will take it from you.

Now Al Davis moving his team is a totally different Animal. Some may believe that the NFL just didn't want Oakland to lose their team. The truth of the matter is that the NFL just didn't want Al Davis to tap the valuable LA market because they didn't like him. At the end of the day though with franchise agreements/control it all comes down to money. In order to keep Davis from moving from Oakland to LA the league had to show that it would either be bad for the Rams in particular, the reasoning being that LA was the Rams market and LA couldn't support two teams or the league in general. And they have nothing to base this on but speculation.

Basing your argument on speculation is bad enough but here is the absolute death blow to even that speculation. LA has a population 3 times larger than Oakland and San Francisco greater area combined. LA county is also geographically bigger than Alameda, San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo Counties combined. If Oakland and San Francisco can support two teams there is no logical reason to assert that LA couldn't. The league didn't have a financial leg to stand on. And to take your McDonalds question a step further. If you're approved for a McDonalds franchise, you don't get to pick where it is. They tell you where it is and you don't get to move it.

Now this is different. Financial loss and brand tarnishing isn't just speculation it's also real. The Clippers lost big time sponsors. The six teams that were going to play on Monday night were going to walk off the court. And the advertisers for those games would have wanted money back from the networks who in turn would want money back from the NBA. The players on the Clippers were also planning on filing court papers to secure releases from their contracts and to immediately become free agents at the end of the year based on hostile working conditions. This thing had the potential to really upset the NBA's apple cart. And even if the players lost in court (which I think they would ultimately), the ongoing scandal and ugliness that this would turn into would resulted in a massive loss of stability and profit for the entire league. I don't think it's going to be difficult at all to prove that Sterling's ownership presents a problem for the entire league.

I'm sure McD's has a policy by which the owner of the franchise agreed to abide by as terms of owning the franchise and as such, the parent company had legal rights to terminate the relationship. I'm not so sure the league has a similar policy that governs the behavior of owners and spells out the consequences of the failure to comply with that policy.

This is an unprecedented move by the league, and as such, is bound to end up in court. Regardless of the strength and weaknesses of the case, it's bound to be tied up for years, and as such, I'm still saying that they'll eventually come to some sort of compromise solution.

[kalibane]

Michael Silver is a pretty brilliant attorney. I seriously doubt he would be invoking the the 3/4 clause for ousting a franchise owner if he didn't think he legally could. That's the whole point of this. Silver laid out the facts. When asked about the legality he made a point to say it's not a legal matter, its an arbitration matter. The Owners don't have to prove they have grounds. Sterling signed up for this... he agreed that if 3/4 of the owners wanted him out for being deterimental to the league that they could vote him out. If he sues to block the sale the burden of proof will be on Sterling to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the NBA constitution does not grant them the power to do this. The NBA just has to play defense.

Now it's true that without us knowing the exact language in the NBA constitution and franchise agreement we are all speculating, but at the end of the day whether it's McDonalds, Chik-Fil-A, the NBA or Jiffy Lube if you're doing something that hurts the overall brand of the company, the stock price or the earning potential of your fellow franchise owners they will have a mechanism in place to get you out. I'f you've done any work with contracts you know full well a lot of the languague is purposely vague in order to account for unforseen circumstances. I highly doubt it's written so that there are only 2 or 3 specific reasons an owner can be done away with.

[Eaglehawk]

Attorneys can argue anything that is relevant at trial or during SJ arguments. We don't know all the facts, he will argue that the permission to tape was not all emcompassing(maybe it was) but I am sure he will argue that it wasn't, and that it was to only apply to being taped for commercial purposes, again, guessing wildly here. The old geezer was probably stupid enough to give her consent to record everything.

He trusted her. And he should have known better. WAY better.
Didn't know there were hundreds of tapes. Really?

HAHA, what few balls he has left, she appears to have them strongly in her hand at this point. No wonder his wife is suing. She is trying to hold on to what is left after playboy 80 year old is busy giving away all their community property.

[Eaglehawk]

Contracts are worded to be as specific as possible and apply to as many situations as possible or as few situations as possible. Contracts are between two entities, if they want it vague it will be vague.
If the k is vague, court might, just might, have to interpret the clause, which is something most attorney's would NEVER want. Its called a meeting of the minds Kal. There is not a one size fits all when it comes to contracts. General rule is that you want to be as specific as possible, litigation forum, Statute of Frauds, Assignment, Delegation, blah blah blah. etc, which is why you need attorneys to draft/review them on both sides. The reason for attorneys is because one side will want some portion vague, but the other side will want that same portion detailed to best help their client.
That's how it works in the real world.

[kalibane]

Eagle you are exasperating at times. I hate when people say someone proved their own point or dissenting point. It's such a trope. Plus you're completely and totatlly 100% wrong.

I've spent nearly my entire professional career working with contracts of various kinds. Insurance policies, commercial leases, residential construction contracts, purchasing agreements, mortgages, intellectual property, confidentiality agreements. Non compete agreements so on and so forth.

Even though terms are extremely specific on some terms. I can't think of a single contract that does not contain purposely vague language. It's impossible to to think of every single thing that might happen so vague language is often used to protect one party on the other from either severing the contract or being locked into the contract on a technicality that they just didn't have the foresight to envision. Look at nearly every player contract in professional sports that has standard language that players can be suspended, or even released (depending on the league) for "conduct deterimental". It doesn't get more vague than that.


And you continue to miss the point about the recording. Get this through your head. It doesn't matter how the recording became public. If the recording was obtained illegally (which you continue to speculate about some fictional confidentiality agreement that hasn't even been hinted at), it means it cannot be used as evidence a Court of Law. The NBA board of govenors is NOT a court of the law. Why is this hard for you to understand?

If this ends up in court the case will be whether Donald Sterling being an owner represents a financial albatross to the league's other owners. Not the method of information collection. If any legal action can be taken based on how the tape was obtained it will be against the person who actually taped the conversation. And the only way the NBA can be held liable in any way for the tape's method of collection is if Sterling can prove that the NBA conspired with V. Stiviano to make the tape illegally and then release it.

You are so lost in the sauce on this issue. It's not a first amendment issue. It's not a question of whether the recording was made illegally. You are focussed on all the wrong things. There is something a little skeevy about how this information got out, but it's not about what's righteous. It's about whether Donald Sterling being an owner materially affects the value, reputation and earning potential of the NBA and the other 29 owners, and whether the NBA constitution allows for the removal for an owner for that purpose.

[RiverDog]

Michael Silver is a pretty brilliant attorney. I seriously doubt he would be invoking the the 3/4 clause for ousting a franchise owner if he didn't think he legally could. That's the whole point of this. Silver laid out the facts. When asked about the legality he made a point to say it's not a legal matter, its an arbitration matter. The Owners don't have to prove they have grounds. Sterling signed up for this... he agreed that if 3/4 of the owners wanted him out for being deterimental to the league that they could vote him out. If he sues to block the sale the burden of proof will be on Sterling to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the NBA constitution does not grant them the power to do this. The NBA just has to play defense.

Now it's true that without us knowing the exact language in the NBA constitution and franchise agreement we are all speculating, but at the end of the day whether it's McDonalds, Chik-Fil-A, the NBA or Jiffy Lube if you're doing something that hurts the overall brand of the company, the stock price or the earning potential of your fellow franchise owners they will have a mechanism in place to get you out. I'f you've done any work with contracts you know full well a lot of the languague is purposely vague in order to account for unforseen circumstances. I highly doubt it's written so that there are only 2 or 3 specific reasons an owner can be done away with.

Silver has to throw the book at Sterling. He's brand new in the job and he can't afford in his first big defining issue to be condoning a racist owner. The fact that he's a brilliant attorney doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he's on solid legal ground. He can always back down at some point in the future if it looks like he might lose. The important thing for him is to stake out the high moral ground, and the best way to do that is to hit him as hard as he possibly can.

I'm not sure if the brand names of McDonald's and Chic-Fil-A are comparable to that of the NBA. McD and CFA are in a highly competitive marketplace with dozens of major fast food restaurant chains operating in many cases side-by-side while the NBA is much less so as they are the only major professional basketball league on the continent. Brand name is not nearly as important to the NBA as it is other more competitive businesses.

Although I am not a lawyer, I would think that the league would have to present some sort of evidence of a breach of contract or some other terms of which Sterling had consented to when he purchased the franchise and subsequently violated.

[kalibane]

What the league has to present depends entirely on what they need to rebut Whatever Sterling's case is (assuming he gets an injunction and sues). As of right now they are acting within the arbitration system that was set up by the owners for the owners, including Sterling. It's up to Sterling to prove they are acting outside that agreement, not the other way around. Subtle but important defense.

The idea of competition is a strawman, not that I think you're intentionally using it to distract in a disingenuous manner but it doesn't matter what the competition is. If you want to be an owner in the NBA you agree to the terms of the franchise agreement and constitution or you don't get a team. There is no negotiation. All you get to negotiate is the price.

[RiverDog]

What the league has to present depends entirely on what they need to rebut Whatever Sterling's case is (assuming he gets an injunction and sues). As of right now they are acting within the arbitration system that was set up by the owners for the owners, including Sterling. It's up to Sterling to prove they are acting outside that agreement, not the other way around. Subtle but important defense.

The idea of competition is a strawman, not that I think you're intentionally using it to distract in a disingenuous manner but it doesn't matter what the competition is. If you want to be an owner in the NBA you agree to the terms of the franchise agreement and constitution or you don't get a team. There is no negotiation. All you get to negotiate is the price.

I wasn't using the competition angle as the centerpiece of my argument. I was only drawing a distinction between the examples you gave (Mickey D's and Chic-Fil-A) and the NBA. They're apples and oranges IMO.

You have an interesting point about the burden of proof being on Sterling, and I agree, that could be a crucial distinction. But I think that the key here is how the bylaws governing owner behavior, if they exist, are written or implied. I still remain doubtful that the league will prevail in court, if it gets that far, of which I am of the opinion that it doesn't.

By the way, there is a common Seahawk thread in this saga. Our former owner, Ken Behring, was 'forced' to sell by the league after he attempted to move the Hawks to LA and after there was some sexual misconduct allegations pending against him. I can't remember the details about the sexual stuff, if it was a factor in the league's pressuring him to sell or not, but I do remember that he was reluctant to sell and did so only when the league intervened.

[kalibane]

Well yeah I would say Chik-fil-A and Jiffy Lube etc. are probably apples to oranges. My main point was that no matter what the franchise is, you're going to be subject to whatever guidelines the overall company takes place. Now obviously McDonalds is more "affordable" than an NBA team but I think it's more of an apples to apples comparison it's just on a smaller scale. They are a highly coveted franchise opportunity. 15 years ago you had to be at least 1 million liquid in addition to the franchise fee to be considered, who knows what it is now.

And it's not like they are just going to have racism to hold against Donald Sterling if it goes to court. He is one of the worst owners in major pro sports history. His business practices are slimy and lack scruples (he fires his sales team every year once the season is over to save on salary and benefits for instance, and then hires them back when the season starts). They have a lot of ammo to use against him, the racism is almost just the cherry on top.

[RiverDog]

Well yeah I would say Chik-fil-A and Jiffy Lube etc. are probably apples to oranges. My main point was that no matter what the franchise is, you're going to be subject to whatever guidelines the overall company takes place. Now obviously McDonalds is more "affordable" than an NBA team but I think it's more of an apples to apples comparison it's just on a smaller scale. They are a highly coveted franchise opportunity. 15 years ago you had to be at least 1 million liquid in addition to the franchise fee to be considered, who knows what it is now.

And it's not like they are just going to have racism to hold against Donald Sterling if it goes to court. He is one of the worst owners in major pro sports history. His business practices are slimy and lack scruples (he fires his sales team every year once the season is over to save on salary and benefits for instance, and then hires them back when the season starts). They have a lot of ammo to use against him, the racism is almost just the cherry on top.

Didn't they try to get rid of Sterling decades ago? It seems that I read an article about the owners trying to force him out way back in the 80's.

The underlined portion of your post is where I have the questions. What guidelines? Are they in writing or implied? Are there any consequences for violations? I can almost guarantee you that McD's and others like them have a very rigid set of guidelines that specifies a lot of things as requirements for owning a franchise of theirs and using their name. And suppose the league is successful in forcing him to sell. Who does he sell it to? Can he refuse offers? Will he be given some sort of deadline? Suppose no one steps up and wants to pay fair market value? Does the league buy the team?

I'm not defending Sterling. I'm simply saying that I'm doubtful that they can force him to sell. It's unprecedented and would be tied up in the courts for years.