Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?
Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear
Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?
Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear
Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public
Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract
Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??
Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract
Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??
Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear
Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
To demonstrate the league is well within their rights.
I believe the document (the by laws) is available. I saw reference to it in an article.
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.
Watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper is very entertaining.
Ask a lawyer about morals clauses. They've been boilerplate contract language since the 20s. The first sports contract to include one was Babe Ruth's.
No, watching you twist in the wind is most entertaining.
So Sterling's contract contained a morals clause, the text of which you dont know but swear it is boilerplate, that is the same as Babe Ruth;s? Are you going with that?
Did Ty Cobb's contract have a morals clause in it? Did the league ban him for being a racist?
RealClearSports - Top 10 Tarnished Baseball Reputations - 4. Ty Cobb
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract
Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??
Of course there's no "specific" clause about opinions or unpopular speech. There doesn't have to be.
There just has to be a clause that says "This contract is void and the signer will be forced to sell if his conduct reflects poorly on the organization he represents".
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract
Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??
Of course there's no "specific" clause about opinions or unpopular speech. There doesn't have to be.
There just has to be a clause that says "This contract is void and the signer will be forced to sell if his conduct reflects poorly on the organization he represents".
There doesn't have to be. It's Good Will. See how that works?What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public
Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract
Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??
That's why the NBA banned Dennis Rodman?Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Plus there is the whole thing about reflecting poorly in the NBA trademark.
He could probably keep his team, but i doubt the players would stay once they strip anything pertaining to the NBA from the team. I wonder if the Staple Center would allow them to play there after that?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
On November 5, 1999, Rodman and his then-wife, Carmen Electra, were charged with misdemeanors after police were notified of a domestic disturbance. Each posted $2,500 in bail and were released with a temporary restraining order placed on them.[111]
In December 1999 Rodman was arrested for drunken driving and driving without a valid license. In July 2000, Rodman pled guilty to both charges and was ordered to pay $2,000 in fines and was required to attend a three-month treatment program.[112]
He was arrested in 2002 for interfering with police investigating a code violation at a restaurant he owned; the charges were eventually dropped.[8] After settling down in Newport Beach, California, the police appeared over 70 times at his home because of loud parties.[8] In early 2003, Rodman was arrested and charged with domestic violence at his home in Newport Beach for allegedly assaulting his then-fiancee.[113]
In April 2004, Rodman pled nolo contendere to drunken driving in Las Vegas and was fined $1,000 and served 30 days of home detention.[114] On April 30, 2008, Rodman was arrested following a domestic violence incident at a Los Angeles hotel.[115] On June 24, 2008, he pled no contest to the misdemeanor spousal battery charges and was sentenced to one year of domestic violence counseling and three years probation. He received 45 hours of community service, which were to involve some physical labor activities.[116][117]
That's why the NBA banned Dennis Rodman?What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Plus there is the whole thing about reflecting poorly in the NBA trademark.
He could probably keep his team, but i doubt the players would stay once they strip anything pertaining to the NBA from the team. I wonder if the Staple Center would allow them to play there after that?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
On November 5, 1999, Rodman and his then-wife, Carmen Electra, were charged with misdemeanors after police were notified of a domestic disturbance. Each posted $2,500 in bail and were released with a temporary restraining order placed on them.[111]
In December 1999 Rodman was arrested for drunken driving and driving without a valid license. In July 2000, Rodman pled guilty to both charges and was ordered to pay $2,000 in fines and was required to attend a three-month treatment program.[112]
He was arrested in 2002 for interfering with police investigating a code violation at a restaurant he owned; the charges were eventually dropped.[8] After settling down in Newport Beach, California, the police appeared over 70 times at his home because of loud parties.[8] In early 2003, Rodman was arrested and charged with domestic violence at his home in Newport Beach for allegedly assaulting his then-fiancee.[113]
In April 2004, Rodman pled nolo contendere to drunken driving in Las Vegas and was fined $1,000 and served 30 days of home detention.[114] On April 30, 2008, Rodman was arrested following a domestic violence incident at a Los Angeles hotel.[115] On June 24, 2008, he pled no contest to the misdemeanor spousal battery charges and was sentenced to one year of domestic violence counseling and three years probation. He received 45 hours of community service, which were to involve some physical labor activities.[116][117]
What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.
Plus there is the whole thing about reflecting poorly in the NBA trademark.
He could probably keep his team, but i doubt the players would stay once they strip anything pertaining to the NBA from the team. I wonder if the Staple Center would allow them to play there after that?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
That's why the NBA banned Dennis Rodman?
On November 5, 1999, Rodman and his then-wife, Carmen Electra, were charged with misdemeanors after police were notified of a domestic disturbance. Each posted $2,500 in bail and were released with a temporary restraining order placed on them.[111]
In December 1999 Rodman was arrested for drunken driving and driving without a valid license. In July 2000, Rodman pled guilty to both charges and was ordered to pay $2,000 in fines and was required to attend a three-month treatment program.[112]
He was arrested in 2002 for interfering with police investigating a code violation at a restaurant he owned; the charges were eventually dropped.[8] After settling down in Newport Beach, California, the police appeared over 70 times at his home because of loud parties.[8] In early 2003, Rodman was arrested and charged with domestic violence at his home in Newport Beach for allegedly assaulting his then-fiancee.[113]
In April 2004, Rodman pled nolo contendere to drunken driving in Las Vegas and was fined $1,000 and served 30 days of home detention.[114] On April 30, 2008, Rodman was arrested following a domestic violence incident at a Los Angeles hotel.[115] On June 24, 2008, he pled no contest to the misdemeanor spousal battery charges and was sentenced to one year of domestic violence counseling and three years probation. He received 45 hours of community service, which were to involve some physical labor activities.[116][117]
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
Plus there is the whole thing about reflecting poorly in the NBA trademark.
He could probably keep his team, but i doubt the players would stay once they strip anything pertaining to the NBA from the team. I wonder if the Staple Center would allow them to play there after that?
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
That's why the NBA banned Dennis Rodman?
On November 5, 1999, Rodman and his then-wife, Carmen Electra, were charged with misdemeanors after police were notified of a domestic disturbance. Each posted $2,500 in bail and were released with a temporary restraining order placed on them.[111]
In December 1999 Rodman was arrested for drunken driving and driving without a valid license. In July 2000, Rodman pled guilty to both charges and was ordered to pay $2,000 in fines and was required to attend a three-month treatment program.[112]
He was arrested in 2002 for interfering with police investigating a code violation at a restaurant he owned; the charges were eventually dropped.[8] After settling down in Newport Beach, California, the police appeared over 70 times at his home because of loud parties.[8] In early 2003, Rodman was arrested and charged with domestic violence at his home in Newport Beach for allegedly assaulting his then-fiancee.[113]
In April 2004, Rodman pled nolo contendere to drunken driving in Las Vegas and was fined $1,000 and served 30 days of home detention.[114] On April 30, 2008, Rodman was arrested following a domestic violence incident at a Los Angeles hotel.[115] On June 24, 2008, he pled no contest to the misdemeanor spousal battery charges and was sentenced to one year of domestic violence counseling and three years probation. He received 45 hours of community service, which were to involve some physical labor activities.[116][117]
I'm sure the NBA could have banned Rodman, if they had wanted to.
Sure, but unlike Sterling, he sold tickets. That's what counts in this case.I'm sure the NBA could have banned Rodman, if they had wanted to.
Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
To demonstrate the league is well within their rights.
I believe the document (the by laws) is available. I saw reference to it in an article.
Why should the league demonstrate that to you? The NBA doesn't give a shit whether or not Armchair Attorneys on message boards understand what their "rights" are.
They only have to demonstrate it to the courts, if Sterling fights it.
Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear
Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
Why?? Because the controversial issue would no longer be so controversial and their focus could be on their playoff revenue instead of negative press... for it would shut up critics... for it would show them being in a complete legal right instead of looking like reactionaries
Many reasons
Yep. Tossed him right under the bus and started driving, exactly as expected.Why would it be "put out there"?
To edify you?
Why?? Because the controversial issue would no longer be so controversial and their focus could be on their playoff revenue instead of negative press... for it would shut up critics... for it would show them being in a complete legal right instead of looking like reactionaries
Many reasons
The NBA isn't getting "negative press" for banning Sterling. In fact, they're getting a lot of positive press from it.
