Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[The Rabbi]

The contract under which Sterling obtained his ownership interest is 33 years old. It's doubtful that it mentions homosexuality. The bylaws that spell out termination of an owners interest say nothing about personal opinions.

If you are buying a car and engage in a vicious racist rant should your car be repossessed? How about having your home overrun to force you out? How far should this be taken?

It will revolve specifically around agreements he made with the NBA and their bylaws. But I cannot imagine that any agreement would necessitate someone give up his rights to express himself privately. Nor could I imagine Sterling, who is a sharp guy, signing such a thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

NBA teams are not "privately owned entities". They're franchises. It's all laid out in the paperwork Sterling signed.

Which clause necessitated him giving up his right to speak freely in his own home?

 

[Plasmaball]

i feel the NBA has the right to do what they did to sterling, but sterling has the right to sue the ever living shit out of that woman who recorded him. She should be brought up on charges. Beyond that i feel nothing for sterling. Dude cant even own up to his own words.

Why do you "feel" that? Is it just a vibe you get?
Because in the real world things like that are determined by contract language, case law and statute.

Contracts and such....Thats why

 

[Rocko]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

The NBA is not stripping him of ownership. The NBA is forcing him to sell, which it is allowed to do as according to the constitutionally bylaws.

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

Well that's what the commissioner is claiming. In any case I can't fathom Sterling coming back as owner. The players said they will not player for him under any circumstance next year and the whole league is willing to strike if he's not removed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As I've said, liberals listen to Rush, Hannity et al probably more than conservatives.

Anyway, that is exactly the point. Someone holds an unpopular viewpoint. Why is that reason to strip him of what he owns? What part of the nBA contract states no one can hold views or express them that cause outrage? I suspect Sterling is preparing a lawsuit as we speak.

I bet he is preparing one.

And he is going to have to explain why he should not be held to the bylaws of the owners' contractual agreement.

He doesn't stand a chance.

His wife, however, and her ownership role is another thing. She has been banned from ownership as well (but not attendance at games, I think), though she has violated nothing.

She has a chance and good luck to her.

 

[The Rabbi]

i feel the NBA has the right to do what they did to sterling, but sterling has the right to sue the ever living shit out of that woman who recorded him. She should be brought up on charges. Beyond that i feel nothing for sterling. Dude cant even own up to his own words.

Why do you "feel" that? Is it just a vibe you get?
Because in the real world things like that are determined by contract language, case law and statute.

Contracts and such....Thats why

Please cite the contract where Sterling gave up the right to speak freely in his home.

You're such an ignoramus. How dare you waste everyone's time with your shitty posts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.

Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.

He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?

And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...

...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

NBA teams are not "privately owned entities". They're franchises. It's all laid out in the paperwork Sterling signed.

Which clause necessitated him giving up his right to speak freely in his own home?

None of them.

But I have no doubt there's a clause that says if he does anything that reflects badly on the NBA he'd be forced to sell.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. He wasn't forced to sell because of what he said - he was forced to sell because what he said got released to the public.

He was forced to sell because the negative publicity reflected poorly on the NBA. Simple as that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The NBA is not stripping him of ownership. The NBA is forcing him to sell, which it is allowed to do as according to the constitutionally bylaws.

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

Well that's what the commissioner is claiming. In any case I can't fathom Sterling coming back as owner. The players said they will not player for him under any circumstance next year and the whole league is willing to strike if he's not removed.

People say lots of things until their livelihood is threatened.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Sterling should have been careful about two things. One, the contracts he signed, it's all legal, and two, his actual thoughts on the race of those who make him the big bucks, who he'd so easily call *******.

Not exactly a supporter of Conservatives Republicans. Can you site where he has supported them??

 

[Plasmaball]

NBA teams are not "privately owned entities". They're franchises. It's all laid out in the paperwork Sterling signed.

Which clause necessitated him giving up his right to speak freely in his own home?

None of them.

But I have no doubt there's a clause that says if he does anything that reflects badly on the NBA he'd be forced to sell.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. He wasn't forced to sell because of what he said - he was forced to sell because what he said got released to the public.

He was forced to sell because the negative publicity reflected poorly on the NBA. Simple as that.

this.....i have no tears for the lying racist

 

[The Rabbi]

NBA teams are not "privately owned entities". They're franchises. It's all laid out in the paperwork Sterling signed.

Which clause necessitated him giving up his right to speak freely in his own home?

None of them.

But I have no doubt there's a clause that says if he does anything that reflects badly on the NBA he'd be forced to sell.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. He wasn't forced to sell because of what he said - he was forced to sell because what he said got released to the public.

He was forced to sell because the negative publicity reflected poorly on the NBA. Simple as that.

Please cite that clause and where it appears.

There is none. If there were any owner arrested for drunk driving or sued in the course of business could have his ownership stripped. Since the owners tend to be successful business owners with other interests not a single one would sign something like that. Also, see the quotation I posted above.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which clause necessitated him giving up his right to speak freely in his own home?

None of them.

But I have no doubt there's a clause that says if he does anything that reflects badly on the NBA he'd be forced to sell.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. He wasn't forced to sell because of what he said - he was forced to sell because what he said got released to the public.

He was forced to sell because the negative publicity reflected poorly on the NBA. Simple as that.

this.....i have no tears for the lying racist

Because you're just like him?
When did he lie? He admitted the tape was him on it.

 

[Rocko]

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

Well that's what the commissioner is claiming. In any case I can't fathom Sterling coming back as owner. The players said they will not player for him under any circumstance next year and the whole league is willing to strike if he's not removed.

People say lots of things until their livelihood is threatened.

I don't believe it can possibly get to that point. The players union in the NBA is very powerful and the other owners are supposedly united against Sterling. I don't think Sterling has a chance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do you "feel" that? Is it just a vibe you get?
Because in the real world things like that are determined by contract language, case law and statute.

Contracts and such....Thats why

Please cite the contract where Sterling gave up the right to speak freely in his home.

You're such an ignoramus. How dare you waste everyone's time with your shitty posts.

Your inability to understand is showing, TR.

Any remarks in the privacy of his home that becomes public are not exempt from being considered by the NBA's ownership group and possible violations of the agreement.

You don't stand a chance with that argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would actually like to see that bylaw cited, verbatim

Well that's what the commissioner is claiming. In any case I can't fathom Sterling coming back as owner. The players said they will not player for him under any circumstance next year and the whole league is willing to strike if he's not removed.

People say lots of things until their livelihood is threatened.

Think Jay Cutler when the Denver Broncos' ownership lied to him about shopping him.

He caught them in it, told them he would not even talk to them, and they must trade him.

In other words, TR, he had the power to force management to do what he wanted.

The players have the same power, and the league management will toss Sterling overboard before letting him provoke a players' strike that hurt the huge market and solid ownership profits.

 

[Luissa]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.



Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.



He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?



And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...



...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

He owns a franchise, it's subject to different laws etc.. The NBA has every right to decide who they allow to own a franchise. Prime example of this, is them denying the sale of the Kings last year.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The players and the owners are united on the point that Sterling must go.

The owners can sell the team at cost, stripping Sterling of any profit he might get otherwise.

 

[dilloduck]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.



Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.



He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?



And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...



...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

He owns a franchise, it's subject to different laws etc.. The NBA has every right to decide who they allow to own a franchise. Prime example of this, is them denying the sale of the Kings last year.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Maybe but some judge will make the final decision.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

Well since the Bundy Militia's don't have jobs they need to get to they can go and defend the cons bussing themselves in for the chance to throw money at Sterling and his starless, winless Clippers team of 2015

Oh well, the Clippers have been pretty much winless for their entire history anyway.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So earlier today I mentioned to another poster that sometimes I like to tune in to Conservative talk radio to hear what it is that Republicans are mad about that day and to see what talking points they've got circulating throughout their media.



Well on my way home I happened to turn on Mark Levin and he was talking about the Donald Sterling story and I listened up until just a few minutes ago when I got home. He was very passionate about the ordeal and so were his callers over their concerns about what was going on.



He actually made some great points! Can the NBA really just declare that a privately owned entity can be stripped from a citizen who is the lawful owner? What kind of precedent does that set? How can it be that in a country where ownership rights are protected by law that 31 owners can get together, call a vote, and then gang up on a private citizen and demand that his property be taken? Because of a PRIVATE conversation?



And then I had another thought. These problems that Donald Sterling is having over this whole mess...



...sure seem like the type of things a union was designed to be able to help with

He owns a franchise, it's subject to different laws etc.. The NBA has every right to decide who they allow to own a franchise. Prime example of this, is them denying the sale of the Kings last year.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Maybe but some judge will make the final decision.

Only if Sterling tries to fight it.