Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[Luissa]

Throwing insults. A sure sign you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I'm done with you. You haven't provided anything except your guesses and feelings.

Wrong.

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

Still looking for that clause that allows the NBA to strip an owner because he's said things that weren't PC.

When you find it, post it.

The fact he was fined can be used as the reason to vote him out. It's pretty freaking easy.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/221035054

That's the NBA constitution.

And in article 13a it clearly states an owner can be terminated if they violate any of the bylaws.
I wonder how you will argue that. It's pretty clear. They have every right to vote him out.


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

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Proof?
That cannot do so without cause. Saying unpopular things in your own home is hardly cause.

You keep complaining that others are "talking out of their asses", and yet you making these outlandish claims with nothing to back them up.

Add that to your admonishing of other posters insulting you after you had just insulted them two posts before, and you're really racking up the hypocrisy points this evening.

I am pointing out that others are making claims with no evidence at all.
Please post the text of the morals clause in the NBA contract. Surely you can do that, right?
Oh wait. First you admitted you didnt have access to it. Then you stated you were pretty sure what it contained.
Is that hypocrisy, lying or mere stupidity?

It's understanding of how contracts work.

Morals clauses are boilerplate. They're always the same.

 

[Luissa]

Sterling's wife is not a majority owner though. For her to become one all the other owners have to approve the sale of the team to her. Silver and the players association said that won't happen.

Also, I believe if he is voted out they are all voted out. It would force a sale of the team.

That is what I am hoping for. It's a long shot, but I want my sonics back.





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

She has a separate stake in the team. She did nothing wrong. They can't force her to sell the shares she already owns.

Look it up in the constitution.
Under the NBA Constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a 3/4 vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well," according to a statement from NBA spokesman Mike Bass. "It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...fe-pledges-to-keep-stake-in-clippers/8974663/



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

 

[DiamondDave]

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

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

 

[Luissa]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale



There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

Yes there is, if it reflects on the NBA poorly.
I really have no idea why this so hard for you guys to understand?


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

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, I do have a pretty good idea what his contract contains, because 1.) There's been a morals clause in nearly every public contract I've ever signed, 2.) the NBA has said, repeatedly, that his contract has a morals clause, and 3.) it would ludicrous for the NBA to NOT have a morals clause in it's contracts.

So your ass is still talking. We get it.
What is a "morals clause"? When is it invoked? Is it immoral to express an opinion in one's house? What is the verbiage of the NBA's "morals clause"?
You have nothing but opinion. And you know what they say about it.

A "morals clause" isn't about "morals". It is exactly what I posted earlier in the thread - a clause in the contract that will either void the contract or trigger another clause in the case of the signer doing something that reflects badly on another party to the contract.

It is "invoked" when the other parties to the contract want to.

The "morality" of Sterling's remarks is irrelevant, and not part of the "morals clause".

I don't know, but morals clauses are boilerplate.

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.
FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.

You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

 

[Luissa]

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

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



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

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

 

[Luissa]

So your ass is still talking. We get it.

What is a "morals clause"? When is it invoked? Is it immoral to express an opinion in one's house? What is the verbiage of the NBA's "morals clause"?

You have nothing but opinion. And you know what they say about it.

A "morals clause" isn't about "morals". It is exactly what I posted earlier in the thread - a clause in the contract that will either void the contract or trigger another clause in the case of the signer doing something that reflects badly on another party to the contract.



It is "invoked" when the other parties to the contract want to.



The "morality" of Sterling's remarks is irrelevant, and not part of the "morals clause".



I don't know, but morals clauses are boilerplate.

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.

FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.



You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Actually you do.


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

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale



There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

Yes there is, if it reflects on the NBA poorly.
I really have no idea why this so hard for you guys to understand?


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

Please post the relevant section of the NBA guidelines.

I mean, this is someone who cannot read an article critical of Obama and understand exactly what the critixcism is. Why should anyone think you have some special insight into the arcane world of contract law?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



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

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Charlie Sheen was an employee of the show. Sterling is an owner of the team. They aren't comparable in any way.
Surely you understand that, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So your ass is still talking. We get it.
What is a "morals clause"? When is it invoked? Is it immoral to express an opinion in one's house? What is the verbiage of the NBA's "morals clause"?
You have nothing but opinion. And you know what they say about it.

A "morals clause" isn't about "morals". It is exactly what I posted earlier in the thread - a clause in the contract that will either void the contract or trigger another clause in the case of the signer doing something that reflects badly on another party to the contract.

It is "invoked" when the other parties to the contract want to.

The "morality" of Sterling's remarks is irrelevant, and not part of the "morals clause".

I don't know, but morals clauses are boilerplate.

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.
FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.

You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.

And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.

You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

 

[Luissa]

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.

They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.







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

So owners do not have property rights?



I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

They can't force him to sale it for less than it's worth, that's about all the rights he has here. Your insults show your ignorance.


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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale
There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

Yes there is, if it reflects on the NBA poorly.
I really have no idea why this so hard for you guys to understand?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Please post the relevant section of the NBA guidelines.
I mean, this is someone who cannot read an article critical of Obama and understand exactly what the critixcism is. Why should anyone think you have some special insight into the arcane world of contract law?

Rabbi thinks that you should not be allowed to sign a contract that says if you screw up we can pull your chain apparently? It seems that this rich man, with a host of lawyers at his side, was duped, the poor soul.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Charlie Sheen was an employee of the show. Sterling is an owner of the team. They aren't comparable in any way.
Surely you understand that, right?

Sterling is a franchisee. He doesn't "own" the team, he owns the franchise.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



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

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

 

[The Rabbi]

A "morals clause" isn't about "morals". It is exactly what I posted earlier in the thread - a clause in the contract that will either void the contract or trigger another clause in the case of the signer doing something that reflects badly on another party to the contract.

It is "invoked" when the other parties to the contract want to.

The "morality" of Sterling's remarks is irrelevant, and not part of the "morals clause".

I don't know, but morals clauses are boilerplate.

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.
FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.

You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.

And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.

You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

Please post the relevance of the contract signed 30 years ago.
Please post the text of the morals clause in his contract from 30 years ago, a clause you dont know exists but somehow you know the text of it because it's all boilerplate. And I guess unchanged since, 30 years ago? WW2? The founding of the nBA? The Magna Carta?

You are completely ignorant. Ludicrously so. You post stuff and then contradict yourself two posts later.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale



There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

Yes there is, if it reflects on the NBA poorly.
I really have no idea why this so hard for you guys to understand?


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

Highly doubtful.. for than anything can subjectively used against the speech of any other owner in a ploy if the opinion is unpopular... as stated, it would have to be specifically worded to limit the opinions of owners...