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.
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.
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.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.
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.
The NBA has the power to invalidate the players contracts. The players themselves would have no problem being reinstated to another team that could take the clippers place. What we could end up with is the Clippers being an NBA team with no one on it. Basically a team worth $0.
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.
The NBA has the power to invalidate the players contracts. The players themselves would have no problem being reinstated to another team that could take the clippers place. What we could end up with is the Clippers being an NBA team with no one on it. Basically a team worth $0.
The NBA has the power to object to a contract when it is first signed, I do not see it having the power to just declare a contract void for no reason.
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.
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.
The NBA has the power to invalidate the players contracts. The players themselves would have no problem being reinstated to another team that could take the clippers place. What we could end up with is the Clippers being an NBA team with no one on it. Basically a team worth $0.
The NBA has the power to object to a contract when it is first signed, I do not see it having the power to just declare a contract void for no reason.
Do you have a link for that?
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.
they would never do that in a million years. Again, Sterling has performed no ACTIONS against the league, its his own words that caused the issue.
MY suggestion is to offer him 2x the value of the franchise as soon as possible.
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 Sterlings punishment (a $2.5 million fee and a lifetime ban) justified by the NBAs 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 . Sterlings situation is, however, addressed in the documents hence Article 24 does not apply.
Where are Sterlings 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]
Youre probably thinking: Whats 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 lets stick with the first. While 35A(d) allows for a lifetime suspension, that disciplinary measure is limited to punishment regarding conduct. Sterlings 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 ones NBA-related or professional capacity. It is arguable and likely that they were not, in fact, intended to extend into ones 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 commissioners 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 . . .
Dont be so sure. While the documents do give Commissioner Adam Silver ultimate authority in this decision, that is only if Silvers 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 NBAs rules.
So what would be Sterlings 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 Posts Phil Mushnicks piece, NBAs zero tolerance hypocrites feast on Sterlings 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 organizations 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 cant 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 ones 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 Sterlings 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 Forbess 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 Sterlings apologetic appearance with CNNs Anderson Cooper.
The NBA has the power to object to a contract when it is first signed, I do not see it having the power to just declare a contract void for no reason.
Do you have a link for that?
Do you have a link showing they an invalidate a player's contract at will?
All of the contract in-validations I have seen have come at the signing time, or within a few weeks, or due to the actions OF THE PLAYER. NONE have ever occurred just because the league "wanted to"
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.
Actually according to the letter of the NBA Constitution and bylaws, he didn't.
Right about now, the NBA is having a collective case of the shits. Here are the facts in real life. Not every member of the NBA is black. Donald Sterling has in excess of 2 billion dollars to make this case his hobby. It's all his money. The money the NBA has isn't their money. Given even costs, do all the members of the NBA want to spend 2 billion dollars of their money so black members can pursue a vendetta against an old man who got mad at his girlfriend? Likely no.
Do you have a link for that?
Do you have a link showing they an invalidate a player's contract at will?
All of the contract in-validations I have seen have come at the signing time, or within a few weeks, or due to the actions OF THE PLAYER. NONE have ever occurred just because the league "wanted to"
So you don't have a link? The only thing that would stop them is if the player had an issue with it. None of the players want him as an owner so they would be fine with it. There is nothing stopping the NBA from doing it.
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.
they would never do that in a million years. Again, Sterling has performed no ACTIONS against the league, its his own words that caused the issue.
MY suggestion is to offer him 2x the value of the franchise as soon as possible.
What makes you say they would never do that? If Sterling fights this I'm pretty sure thats exactly whats going to happen.
Do you have a link showing they an invalidate a player's contract at will?
All of the contract in-validations I have seen have come at the signing time, or within a few weeks, or due to the actions OF THE PLAYER. NONE have ever occurred just because the league "wanted to"
So you don't have a link? The only thing that would stop them is if the player had an issue with it. None of the players want him as an owner so they would be fine with it. There is nothing stopping the NBA from doing it.
Again, show me where the league could terminate a contract, for no cause or rule violation, without the consent of the team issuing the contract. In other sports a clear rule violation must be seen, or obvious duplicity, such as extending a players contract well past his playing years to spread out the cost of the deal). The kovalchuk deal in Hockey is an example of this.
they would never do that in a million years. Again, Sterling has performed no ACTIONS against the league, its his own words that caused the issue.
MY suggestion is to offer him 2x the value of the franchise as soon as possible.
What makes you say they would never do that? If Sterling fights this I'm pretty sure thats exactly whats going to happen.
And sterling would get an injunction against it, stating anti-trust violations against his business.
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.
The NBA has the power to invalidate the players contracts. The players themselves would have no problem being reinstated to another team that could take the clippers place. What we could end up with is the Clippers being an NBA team with no one on it. Basically a team worth $0.
Sterling's attorney is Max Blecher, who I know. The NBA is going to be in the fight of their life. Max is a bulldog.
He has got one hell of a case and the means to pursue it.
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.
The NBA has the power to invalidate the players contracts. The players themselves would have no problem being reinstated to another team that could take the clippers place. What we could end up with is the Clippers being an NBA team with no one on it. Basically a team worth $0.
First they would have to find a team ready to take some very poor players. The Clippers are not exactly burning up the court. If the team has no players, the owners of the team could hire new players under new contracts. Heaven forbid, some might be white!
This case is going to settle. It will not be litigated.
Do you have a link for that?
Do you have a link showing they an invalidate a player's contract at will?
All of the contract in-validations I have seen have come at the signing time, or within a few weeks, or due to the actions OF THE PLAYER. NONE have ever occurred just because the league "wanted to"
So you don't have a link? The only thing that would stop them is if the player had an issue with it. None of the players want him as an owner so they would be fine with it. There is nothing stopping the NBA from doing it.
