Sterling refuses to pay fine, plans to sue NBA

[AceRothstein]

Would they dare let the owners vote by secret ballot?

There is no reason to.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...or-vote-to-force-clippers-sale-222551950.html

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Of course he violated it.

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

What CONDUCT did he engage in that was prejudicial to the Association? Speaking of CONDUCT only, not having a personal opinion about a girlfriend, nor expressing in words that opinion. It is conduct and it would have to prejudice the association. At best, the farthest stretch, he engaged in conduct prejudicial to himself.

His conduct is detrimental to the NBA. The NBA doesn't want racists as owners.

 

[GHook93]

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.

They have very little ability to do that and name ONE instance where they did that for speech made in public? Remind that worthless Muslim that REFUSED to stand during the national anthem? Many many fans were turned off by his unamerican act. It was a BIGGER black eye on the NBA then what Sterling did. Fans showed their disgust via ticket sales. The worthless muslim wasn't tossed off the team. His contract wasn't revoked.

So take you bullshit and shove it up your ass. Many times TEAMS have morality clauses in their contracts. The NBA constitution did NOT have a morality clause in it for owners. Owners are different than players. Players are employees that sign contracts with their clubs the employer. The Owners are the EMPLOYERS that part of a group. Much different.

 

[GHook93]

it would be kind of funny if this backfires and makes him even richer. This ought to be interesting.

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.

He isn't doing it for the money. He is already a billionaire. He could pretty much buy anything he wants. He is doing it to make a point. I believe he is also sick, he could die before a trial is over.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I dont have to. You just admitted they have voided contracts. You need to prove they cant do it in this case.

Yes, they voided contracts because players violated the terms of the contract, they have never voided contract because they decided they didn't like the owner. The way it works in the real world is the person making the claim offers the proof, but you really don't care if anyone believes you, all you care about is making things up and posting them.

 

[GHook93]

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.

You forgot 1 thing. The owners do not want to piss off their money makers. The Black players could easily turn the league on its head with a walk out.

You're a fucking moron. You think the players aren't materialistic and me-me people? No fucking way. Most of them came from humble beings and don't give a damn about principal at this point.

The league has had declining viewership for a while and for good reason. Let them decrease that image more.

 

[GHook93]

He has got one hell of a case and the means to pursue it.

He's got NO case. Zero, zilch, zippo.

He's throwing money away.

He's an arrogant bigot who experiencing a very public shaming. We need more of this.

Why because you say so. He has a great case and would probably win. I hope to god he fights it to the end. It's a precedent that should be on the books. We need case law that protects one's livelihood.

As a person I don't care for him at all, but the precedent that denying a man his lucrative business because he said a non-PC thing in private is HORRENDOUS on all accounts!

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

You forgot 1 thing. The owners do not want to piss off their money makers. The Black players could easily turn the league on its head with a walk out.

You're a fucking moron. You think the players aren't materialistic and me-me people? No fucking way. Most of them came from humble beings and don't give a damn about principal at this point.

The league has had declining viewership for a while and for good reason. Let them decrease that image more.

I agree with this, the part about the players and not about Asclepias. Most of the players would end their boycott as soon as they don't get that first paycheck.

 

[GHook93]

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

Nothing.

Sterlings problem is that he owns an NBA team that he expects to make a profit off of

As long as he is associated with the team, Sponsors will stay away. Corporations will refuse to buy season tickets. His TV deal will dry up as soon as it expires
He is dead man walking as an owner

Sooner or later he will have to sell the team. The NBA can take their cut from the sale or just deduct it from what he receives in league revenue

YES correct a liberal finally gets it. The NBA should have fined him $1 mil and advised him to sell.

Next season I bet most of his players demand a trade (the good ones at least). Then after the fans stop coming and advertisers leave, he would have been forced to sell at a huge loss!

 

[Asclepias]

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.

They have very little ability to do that and name ONE instance where they did that for speech made in public? Remind that worthless Muslim that REFUSED to stand during the national anthem? Many many fans were turned off by his unamerican act. It was a BIGGER black eye on the NBA then what Sterling did. Fans showed their disgust via ticket sales. The worthless muslim wasn't tossed off the team. His contract wasn't revoked.

So take you bullshit and shove it up your ass. Many times TEAMS have morality clauses in their contracts. The NBA constitution did NOT have a morality clause in it for owners. Owners are different than players. Players are employees that sign contracts with their clubs the employer. The Owners are the EMPLOYERS that part of a group. Much different.

You sound very angry that Sterling is going to lose his team. Must suck for you. The NBA has voided contracts in the past. Nothing stopping them from doing it as Sterling is in violation of the bylaws of the NBA.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

I dont have to. You just admitted they have voided contracts. You need to prove they cant do it in this case.

Yes, they voided contracts because players violated the terms of the contract, they have never voided contract because they decided they didn't like the owner. The way it works in the real world is the person making the claim offers the proof, but you really don't care if anyone believes you, all you care about is making things up and posting them.

Show me where it says they cant do it? They have voided contracts before. There is nothing stopping them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Everything about this 'story' makes my skin crawl.

I actually think he was telling the truth when he told Anderson Cooper--'I wanted her and would have said anything'. Taking carnal urges to a new low.

I have no idea how to explain his obsession with Magic Johnson. The thought of a black man having his 'prize'? Sick and perverted.

But --whatever--

You didn't answer the question. Should racists statements mean the person has to be permanently ostracized from society?

That would be a good solution.

Would that include banning people like you from internet forums?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You forgot 1 thing. The owners do not want to piss off their money makers. The Black players could easily turn the league on its head with a walk out.

You're a fucking moron. You think the players aren't materialistic and me-me people? No fucking way. Most of them came from humble beings and don't give a damn about principal at this point.

The league has had declining viewership for a while and for good reason. Let them decrease that image more.

Stupid comments like this is the reason they dont want racist as owners. You have no idea how many players are ready to walk on the league. Thats exactly the reason Sterling was banned so quickly. Silver got word there were going to be no playoffs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

That would be a direct challenge to the power of the NPBA, which means that, eeven if your addled brain actually produced something true, it is not going to happen.

Not really. They would cooperate with this as long as the players were signed elsewhere. You must be mad or out of your skull.

There aren't enough teams to pick up every single Clippers player without forcing the teams to cut other players. That proves I am the one using my brain, and you are using your racist scumbag lack of a brain.

 

[Asclepias]

You didn't answer the question. Should racists statements mean the person has to be permanently ostracized from society?

That would be a good solution.

Would that include banning people like you from internet forums?

No just people like you.

 

[manifold]

Republicans are all in favor of the free market and private business right up until it bites a billionaire racist **** in the ass.

Could you hypocritical twats be any more transparent?

 

[Asclepias]

That would be a direct challenge to the power of the NPBA, which means that, eeven if your addled brain actually produced something true, it is not going to happen.

Not really. They would cooperate with this as long as the players were signed elsewhere. You must be mad or out of your skull.

There aren't enough teams to pick up every single Clippers player without forcing the teams to cut other players. That proves I am the one using my brain, and you are using your racist scumbag lack of a brain.

You forget the NBA can expand 1 additional team to accommodate the players dummy. You are out of your skull like I said.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

If the owners vote to take Sterling's team, they vote to make it possible to have "their" teams taken. The commissioner will probably taken out.

The rules clearly state that the owners can hold such a vote. The problem becomes the reason why he is being removed, and is the reason solid enough to withstand court challenges.

The owners could hold a vote. Did they, or was it a Commissioner ruling based on a different provision of the NBA Constitution?

Even if they DID vote, if they fail to adhere to their own Constitutional procedures, or rely on "grounds" that simply do not apply, then the provision that makes such a vote "final" will be given no legal effect at all, by any judge worthy of the office.

One can see Sterling as a racist pig-dog even if HE chooses to be delusional and in denial. One can certainly find his words and thinking to be be foul and offensive.

That doesn't mean that the guy has no legal rights and options. In fact, so far, I'd say the balance of the legal analysis falls squarely in his favor (notwithstanding that he is a schmuck).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

They could probably run him out of money in 20 years or so. Considering that he is 83, and senile, I don't think that matters much to him. On the other hand, those other owners are going to be cutting into their profits and future earnings, and they are all younger, and saner, than he is.

It would cost the other owners a shitload more to do nothing.

Maybe, but all I am addressing is the idiot that thinks that the NBA owners are going to have an easy win.

 

[manifold]

They could probably run him out of money in 20 years or so. Considering that he is 83, and senile, I don't think that matters much to him. On the other hand, those other owners are going to be cutting into their profits and future earnings, and they are all younger, and saner, than he is.

It would cost the other owners a shitload more to do nothing.

Maybe, but all I am addressing is the idiot that thinks that the NBA owners are going to have an easy win.

There are no winners in this story. It's all about mitigating losses.