Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[candycorn]

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.

Under the NBA constitution, if three-fourths of the board finds an accused owner guilty of conduct warranting termination, it is the membership of the team (which the constitution calls a "member") in which the guilty owner has an interest that "shall automatically be terminated." The team may remain in the league if two-thirds of the governors "vote instead to terminate the ownership interest of the guilty owner" or vote to impose a fine instead of termination of any kind.

The L.A. Clippers and Mrs. Sterling?NBA?ommentary

Since the owners own the sandbox, they get to decide who plays in it. Basically the same type of new country you guys want to set up everytime you've lost an election lately.

 

[Luissa]

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.

You are the ignoramus. The NBA has every right to decide who represents them. They are the Franchisor, they hold the strings, and you would be stupid if you thought they didn't have a contract on what their rights are.
How do you think they can block sales and ban players, or on this case owners. Silver is a hell of a lot smarter than you, and I am sure the NBA had quite a bit of lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Your posts are a waste of time, due tongue lack of knowledge on something so basic.


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

 

[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

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.

The owners can vote to deny the sale of a team to anyone they don't want as owner, similar to the NFL when they denied a sale of a team to Rush Limbaugh, but in Sterling's case he already owns the team.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

And Sterling will lose.

 

[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.

Maybe but some judge will make the final decision.

Did you see the Kings get anywhere on selling their team?


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

 

[Luissa]

"Lawyers with expertise in sports law gave Sterling little chance of successfully suing the NBA to block a forced sale, citing league governance rules that all owners must accept."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3S0UU20140430?irpc=932


Not sure if good source, but like I said, I am guessing Silver knew what he was doing.




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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You are the ignoramus. The NBA has every right to decide who represents them. They are the Franchisor, they hold the strings, and you would be stupid if you thought they didn't have a contract on what their rights are.
How do you think they can block sales and ban players, or on this case owners. Silver is a hell of a lot smarter than you, and I am sure the NBA had quite a bit of lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Your posts are a waste of time, due tongue lack of knowledge on something so basic.


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

Please post the contract clause or NBA bylaws that specify an owner can be stripped of his ownership for saying unpopular things privately.
You've already proved in other threads you cannot read and make reasonable conclusions. IT isn't a stretch here you are simply making this up.

 

[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.

The owners can vote to deny the sale of a team to anyone they don't want as owner, similar to the NFL when they denied a sale of a team to Rush Limbaugh, but in Sterling's case he already owns the team.

And they can also vote Sterling out, your point?

I guess he could keep his team, but they wouldn't be apart of the NBA and would have no one to play... But you get the point.


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

 

[GHook93]

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 *******.

So it was challenged in court already? Jesus, have morons like you never seen a contract voided because it's illegal under that law?

I know he willfully entered into the contract, but I don't think a court in this great country is going to allow a man to be forced to sell because of comments he made privately!

 

[Mojo2]

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 *******.

What if Donald Sterling actually DOES love Black men, but is constantly feeling inferior to them and THAT is why he didn't want V. Stiviano to be seen with Magic or any other rather well endowed Black men.

He loves them but he also resents their gifts.

Gifts Donald wasn't blessed with.

He could be a friend to the African American community yet still have his issues with big, younger, athletic guys with big schlongs , who he befriends but envies.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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 *******.

So it was challenged in court already? Jesus, have morons like you never seen a contract voided because it's illegal under that law?

I know he willfully entered into the contract, but I don't think a court in this great country is going to allow a man to be forced to sell because of comments he made privately!

What law do you think his contract violated?

There are morals clauses in a whole lot of contracts, I think you'd have a hard time showing that they're "illegal".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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 *******.

What if Donald Sterling actually DOES love Black men, but is constantly feeling inferior to them and THAT is why he didn't want V. Stiviano to be seen with Magic or any other rather well endowed Black men.

He loves them but he also resents their gifts.

Gifts Donald wasn't blessed with.

He could be a friend to the African American community yet still have his issues with big, younger, athletic guys with big schlongs , who he befriends but envies.

What Sterling "really thinks" about Black people is entirely irrelevant.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Lawyers with expertise in sports law gave Sterling little chance of successfully suing the NBA to block a forced sale, citing league governance rules that all owners must accept."
NBA sets wheels turning for Clippers sale; Oprah in wings


Not sure if good source, but like I said, I am guessing Silver knew what he was doing.




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

Notice the other owners are actually hesitant about setting this precedent. They wont say so publicly but you can bet behind closed doors they are looking for a way out.
I tend to think Sterling will win out one way or another. The NBA's case is very weak. What's next? Someone critizes Obama and the NBA strips him of ownership? It's a slippery slope.

 

[GHook93]

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.

Well if he holds on to the team it may lead to the biggest boycott in history!

Or maybe it'll be like Chick-Fil-A and the cons will flock in by the busload to show their support

The cons don't support this liberal Democrat! It's a double edged sword for many of us. We despise this asshole and like to see the liberals eating one of their own. But on the other hand we think it sets a bad precedent that a man could lose his business over what he said in private! If liberals can't understand that then they are lost!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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 *******.

So it was challenged in court already? Jesus, have morons like you never seen a contract voided because it's illegal under that law?

I know he willfully entered into the contract, but I don't think a court in this great country is going to allow a man to be forced to sell because of comments he made privately!

Very few contracts of this nature are ever voided. It's wasn't written on a napkin at Hooters.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Well if he holds on to the team it may lead to the biggest boycott in history!

Or maybe it'll be like Chick-Fil-A and the cons will flock in by the busload to show their support

The cons don't support this liberal Democrat! It's a double edged sword for many of us. We despise this asshole and like to see the liberals eating one of their own. But on the other hand we think it sets a bad precedent that a man could lose his business over what he said in private! If liberals can't understand that then they are lost!

I think it's really funny that you've assigned the label "liberal democrat" to Sterling, even though there's absolutely no evidence to support it.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

You are the ignoramus. The NBA has every right to decide who represents them. They are the Franchisor, they hold the strings, and you would be stupid if you thought they didn't have a contract on what their rights are.
How do you think they can block sales and ban players, or on this case owners. Silver is a hell of a lot smarter than you, and I am sure the NBA had quite a bit of lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Your posts are a waste of time, due tongue lack of knowledge on something so basic.


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

Please post the contract clause or NBA bylaws that specify an owner can be stripped of his ownership for saying unpopular things privately.
You've already proved in other threads you cannot read and make reasonable conclusions. IT isn't a stretch here you are simply making this up.

Its already been posted.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

The owners can vote to deny the sale of a team to anyone they don't want as owner, similar to the NFL when they denied a sale of a team to Rush Limbaugh, but in Sterling's case he already owns the team.

And they can also vote Sterling out, your point?

I guess he could keep his team, but they wouldn't be apart of the NBA and would have no one to play... But you get the point.


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

No, they cannot vote him out just because they dont like him or what he said was unpopular. It doesnt work that way. The two cases are completely different.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Well if he holds on to the team it may lead to the biggest boycott in history!

Or maybe it'll be like Chick-Fil-A and the cons will flock in by the busload to show their support

The cons don't support this liberal Democrat! It's a double edged sword for many of us. We despise this asshole and like to see the liberals eating one of their own. But on the other hand we think it sets a bad precedent that a man could lose his business over what he said in private! If liberals can't understand that then they are lost!

We understand that if you sign a contract for a business that is based upon the good-will of the American people, you are required to watch your damn mouth because if you don't, under the bus you go. He's hardly the first.

 

[The Rabbi]

You are the ignoramus. The NBA has every right to decide who represents them. They are the Franchisor, they hold the strings, and you would be stupid if you thought they didn't have a contract on what their rights are.
How do you think they can block sales and ban players, or on this case owners. Silver is a hell of a lot smarter than you, and I am sure the NBA had quite a bit of lawyers. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Your posts are a waste of time, due tongue lack of knowledge on something so basic.


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

Please post the contract clause or NBA bylaws that specify an owner can be stripped of his ownership for saying unpopular things privately.
You've already proved in other threads you cannot read and make reasonable conclusions. IT isn't a stretch here you are simply making this up.

Its already been posted.

Wrong.
Pwned again. Are you suicidal yet because you are a total zero?