c_hawkbob wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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.
burrrton wrote: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.
kalibane wrote: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.
kalibane wrote: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.
First Amendment is the First Amendment.
burrrton wrote: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.
FA is the FA.
Tell me folks, what is the law regarding this?
I would love to hear from my friends Kal and Burr.
savvyman wrote:I would give her a go for a few times before I got tired of my Toy - Especially if I was 80 years old.
burrrton wrote:savvyman wrote: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.]
burrrton wrote: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.
The conversation was not on company time, or at a company facility and was purely personal, so let's see.
kalibane wrote: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.
kalibane wrote: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.
kalibane wrote: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.
kalibane wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests