Sterling refuses to pay fine, plans to sue NBA

[Asclepias]

Really what can they do to him if he refuses to pay?

Nothing.

The NBA was hoping the media blitz and the pleas from people for him to step down quietly would sway him to just disappear. That isn't going to happen.

The biggest problem for the NBA is that they made it seem the issue was settled, when it clearly isn't even close to being settled. They went with the twitter timeline, less than a week from issue to resolution, and did not realize the real world (and especially the legal world) work far slower.

I also have a stinking suspicion that they do not have the votes among the owners to get rid of him. If they had the votes, they would have held it.

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

 

[martybegan]

The NBA was hoping the media blitz and the pleas from people for him to step down quietly would sway him to just disappear. That isn't going to happen.

The biggest problem for the NBA is that they made it seem the issue was settled, when it clearly isn't even close to being settled. They went with the twitter timeline, less than a week from issue to resolution, and did not realize the real world (and especially the legal world) work far slower.

I also have a stinking suspicion that they do not have the votes among the owners to get rid of him. If they had the votes, they would have held it.

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

 

[martybegan]

The NBA was hoping the media blitz and the pleas from people for him to step down quietly would sway him to just disappear. That isn't going to happen.

The biggest problem for the NBA is that they made it seem the issue was settled, when it clearly isn't even close to being settled. They went with the twitter timeline, less than a week from issue to resolution, and did not realize the real world (and especially the legal world) work far slower.

I also have a stinking suspicion that they do not have the votes among the owners to get rid of him. If they had the votes, they would have held it.

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

He has enough money to play legal defense for a decade at least.

 

[LockeJaw]

Sterling may sue the NBA for invasion of privacy and slander, for making a private conversation public. Using a blackmail and extortion, in order to take his ownership could cost the NBA not only hundreds of millions, but also fan support. The reality is, without white fans, the NBA will probably go broke, if the black players are perceived to be trying a hostile takeover.

Why would white basketball fans see this incident as a "hostile takeover" by the black players? It looks like Sterling may have grounds to claim extortion, but I fail to see how this would even appear to anyone as an attempt to takeover NBA team ownerships? That's one hell of a conspiracy theory.

 

[Asclepias]

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

They have enough money to wait him out and the ability to simply remove his team from the schedule and invalidate the players contracts. That would render his team worthless on the market by the way.

 

[Asclepias]

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

He has enough money to play legal defense for a decade at least.

They have 100x that amount and time on their side.

 

[Zander]

Really what can they do to him if he refuses to pay?

Nothing.

The NBA was hoping the media blitz and the pleas from people for him to step down quietly would sway him to just disappear. That isn't going to happen.

The biggest problem for the NBA is that they made it seem the issue was settled, when it clearly isn't even close to being settled. They went with the twitter timeline, less than a week from issue to resolution, and did not realize the real world (and especially the legal world) work far slower.

I also have a stinking suspicion that they do not have the votes among the owners to get rid of him. If they had the votes, they would have held it.

I think you're right.

Sterling will die before he sells and he'll never pay the fine. He's a stubborn old man with a shitload of money. He's also an attorney.....

 

[Zander]

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

They have enough money to wait him out and the ability to simply remove his team from the schedule and invalidate the players contracts. That would render his team worthless on the market by the way.

And destroy the NBA. that's a win-win!!

 

[Zander]

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

 

[Asclepias]

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

They have enough money to wait him out and the ability to simply remove his team from the schedule and invalidate the players contracts. That would render his team worthless on the market by the way.

And destroy the NBA. that's a win-win!!

That wouldnt destroy the NBA. They can just get another team with the same players if necessary. its only one team anyway.

 

[Asclepias]

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

 

[Zander]

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

He doesn't care and neither should you. It's his money, his life, and it's his TEAM.

Sterling's comments notwithstanding, the NBA is the real "retard" here. They shot their wad in 7 days......it will never hold up in court. They have to prove damages. How will they do that?

 

[Asclepias]

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

He doesn't care and neither should you. It's his money, his life, and it's his TEAM.

Sterling's comments notwithstanding, the NBA is the real "retard" here. They shot their wad in 7 days......it will never hold up in court. They have to prove damages. How will they do that?

I dont care. i hope he does lose everything in a protracted legal battle. That would be a best case scenario. I'm sure the law firms representing the NBA advised them of the best course of action. You must be silly to think otherwise.

 

[LockeJaw]

Because of course anytime anyone plans something out, the results are 100% guaranteed to be the way they want them...

Its doesn't matter if they have more money than him, the dude is in his 80's and has enough money to tie up the league legally for a decade.

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

I wouldn't say that. The fine is hardly going to break him & there is no way he will be hurt by taking this to court... He was rich before he bought the team you know?

 

[AceRothstein]

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

He doesn't care and neither should you. It's his money, his life, and it's his TEAM.

Sterling's comments notwithstanding, the NBA is the real "retard" here. They shot their wad in 7 days......it will never hold up in court. They have to prove damages. How will they do that?

They don't have to prove damages. Did Sterling violate the NBA Constitution & Bylaws? If so, they can do exactly what they are doing.

 

[Asclepias]

A decade? try a century! He's worth $2 Billion!!!

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

I wouldn't say that. The fine is hardly going to break him & there is no way he will be hurt by taking this to court... He was rich before he bought the team you know?

Depends on how he plays this. If he ends up making his team worth nothing that will take a big chunk of his money plus court costs. I never said he would be broke. The less money he has to leave his family the better in my opinion.

 

[Katzndogz]

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

He doesn't care and neither should you. It's his money, his life, and it's his TEAM.

Sterling's comments notwithstanding, the NBA is the real "retard" here. They shot their wad in 7 days......it will never hold up in court. They have to prove damages. How will they do that?

I dont care. i hope he does lose everything in a protracted legal battle. That would be a best case scenario. I'm sure the law firms representing the NBA advised them of the best course of action. You must be silly to think otherwise.

The problem with advising the NBA of the best course of action is that it doesn't mean the lawyers think the NBA has a prayer. They just have to represent them and take their money. Even if those same lawyers told the NBA their chances of winning were poor, they'd still take the case. If the NBA somehow (there's no way they would) invalidated the player's contracts, those players would have enormous cases against the NBA themselves for tortious interference with contract.

The NBA is clearly wrong. They want to punish an owner for an opinion that his girlfriend shouldn't take her black boyfriends to games and post pictures of the event on the internet. That the opinion deserves punishment is a very difficult position to have.

 

[LockeJaw]

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

I wouldn't say that. The fine is hardly going to break him & there is no way he will be hurt by taking this to court... He was rich before he bought the team you know?

Depends on how he plays this. If he ends up making his team worth nothing that will take a big chunk of his money plus court costs. I never said he would be broke. The less money he has to leave his family the better in my opinion.

Why take it out on his family? They weren't the ones that said the racist things, he did. Anyway, he should just sell the team and refuse to pay the fine, I would. None of this had to do with the NBA except for the fact he's an owner of a team.

 

[Zander]

He wont be after this is over. The retard is going to kill his families inheritance if someone doesnt stop him.

He doesn't care and neither should you. It's his money, his life, and it's his TEAM.

Sterling's comments notwithstanding, the NBA is the real "retard" here. They shot their wad in 7 days......it will never hold up in court. They have to prove damages. How will they do that?

They don't have to prove damages. Did Sterling violate the NBA Constitution & Bylaws? If so, they can do exactly what they are doing.

It is written very vaguely- which is why it will be litigated. Also, the owners haven't voted yet.....I wonder why? Maybe they don't have the 3/4ths they need?



Either way, I don't care. I am not an NBA fan.

 

[GHook93]

Below is the poorly drafted NBA constitution. First, the constitution states a $1 mil fee (no suspension) for poor speech and $2.5 mil for CONDUCT! Conduct means actions. Sterling so-called offense was speech not conduct. So what Silver did was against the NBA constitution.

The Board of Governors (owners) by a 3/5 vote can vote him out if he violates the bylaws or contract. The NBA constitution has no morality clause, so he HAS NOT violated the bylaws of the NBA.

He has a more than legit case and he should sue. He might be a despicable human being, but that shouldn't allow confiscation of the his personal property.

Go Get ‘Em, Donald! Why Sterling should sue the pants off the NBA.
First, was Sterling’s punishment (a $2.5 million fee and a lifetime ban) justified by the NBA’s Constitution and By-Laws?

The NBA based the punishment on Article 24 of the NBA Constitution, which reads:

Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

But notice the first bit: “[w]here a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws….” Sterling’s situation is, however, addressed in the documents – hence Article 24 does not apply.

Where are Sterling’s circumstances addressed? In Article 35A(c), which reads:

(c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the NBA did consider a situation such as this (a member of the organization making an ill statement), specifically addressed it, and prescribed the punishment. That punishment is $1 million (not $2.5 million) and no ban (certainly not a lifetime ban, as was imposed on Sterling).

It gets more complicated, however. The next clause, Article 35A(d), covers another area of discipline:

(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association. [emphasis mine]

You’re probably thinking: “What’s the difference between (c) and (d)” or “Was someone actually paid to write this terribly worded document?” (The NBA constitution, for the record, is five times longer than the Constitution of the United States.)

Both are excellent questions. But let’s stick with the first. While 35A(d) allows for a lifetime suspension, that disciplinary measure is limited to punishment regarding conduct. Sterling’s statements could fall under the umbrella of ‘conduct,’ but when there is a contradictory clause that more specifically touches upon the situation (e.g., a clause specifically addressing an ill statement) that would be the clause most courts would find applicable. Subsection (d) and its potential lifetime ban seem to refer to a broader situation: not a harmful statement/s but a harmful action.

And this is all assuming the ‘statement’ or ‘conduct’ referred to in the documents encompasses statements or conduct outside of one’s NBA-related or professional capacity. It is arguable – and likely – that they were not, in fact, intended to extend into one’s personal and private life.

It therefore seems the applicable clause to this situation is Article 35A(c), not Article 24, in which case the punishment should simply be a fine of $1,000,000.

Alright, but even if the fine imposed was incorrect under the documents, the other owners can still force him out, right?

Legal analysts have breathlessly proclaimed that yes, Sterling can be forced out by three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors (which consists of the other NBA owners). They are citing Article 13 of the NBA Constitution.

Article 13 requires certain violations for this to be allowed, with subsection (a) stating members may be shown the door if they “Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association,” and subsection (d) authorizing this sanction if a member is found to “Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.”

But what contract or agreement with the NBA did Sterling breach exactly? The Constitution and By-Laws make no mention of a morality clause for owners. The documents do, interestingly enough, mention such requirements for players (in the By-Laws, Section 2.01). But the lack of a morality clause for owners almost implies the owners are not subject to such restrictions. Even if Sterling and other owners signed separate morality contracts with the NBA, the wording of such would need to be closely analyzed. It would also need to be decided whether a private conversation was a breach of any such morality agreement.

In a Q&A regarding the legality issues, an ESPN legal analyst was asked: “Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?,” to which he answered:

Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner’s decision shall be “final, binding, and conclusive” and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process . . .

Don’t be so sure. While the documents do give Commissioner Adam Silver ultimate authority in this decision, that is only if Silver’s decision was grounded in, and supported by, the governing documents. As shown above, it is entirely arguable that the punishment was not, in fact, in line with the NBA’s rules.

So what would be Sterling’s recourse?

In addition to the breach of contract, breach of implied contract, or business interference claims, Sterling may also boost his case by arguing that the NBA has inconsistently applied its Constitution and By-Laws. Other owners and players have misbehaved yet have not received a corresponding punishment (see the New York Post’s Phil Mushnick’s piece, “NBA’s zero tolerance hypocrites feast on Sterling’s carcass”).

In addition, there is the angle of whether the provision in the NBA documents, allowing a member to be deprived of his ownership interest, is an unconscionable provision and should be void. A ban from attending games or actively participating in the organization’s events and decisions? Sure, fair enough. But depriving Sterling of his property? That does not seem to pass the smell test. When Sterling recently exclaimed: “You can’t force somebody to sell property in America!” , he hit upon a valid defense. Critics were quick to smirk by bringing up the existence of eminent domain, but the (controversial) practice of eminent domain exists because one’s property rights are balanced against a compelling governmental or societal interest. Where is the societal interest or need in forcing Sterling to sell his property?

The NBA may have reacted too confidently and too quickly in the wake of the Sterling witch-hunt, biting off more than it was able to chew. A more sensible approach of slowly exploring its true legal options would have been the prudent course, rather than rushing to those calling for Sterling’s head. Now, the organization finds itself in a pickle. To make matters trickier, as tempers slow down, public opinion is starting to shift in favor of Sterling, as Forbes’s Mike Ozanian reported this weekend. A Rasmussen poll last week found only 38 percent of Americans feel Sterling should be forced to sell the team – and that was before Sterling’s apologetic appearance with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.