Should Donald Sterling be stripped of team ownership in the NBA?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
lp85253 said:
actually haven't played in about 5 years.. thinking I might again sometime soon , but lost interest when I quit playin tournaments and kind of faded into not playin at all...weather is good hear 80's ,don't know how long that will last..that 100 degree stuff isn't any fun in LA , Nobody knows how to act(they need to stay indoors in the afternoon):)
Click to expand...

When it's 65 degrees - we are cold and complain. When it is over 85 - we are hot and complain. When it is 100 - we have heat wave warnings and hide in the shade. LA people are bit soft when it comes to anything but near perfect weather. Oh, and don't get me started when it is humid, lol. But 80 degrees in AZ sounds nice, want to trade forecasts, lol. Alright Lee, I'm off. I'm sure I will see you around...have fun when you get a chance to hit the golf course! have a good night :)
 
As far as people insisting to 100% guarantee the path of this sports franchise, read what a hands-on authority says:
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140501/SPORTS0102/305010051#ixzz30RebriJz

“We are in uncharted territory here,” said Gabe Feldman, a law professor and director of the Tulane Sports Law Program.
.......................
Sterling built a reputation over the years as a stubborn litigator who revels in the chance to impose his will in a courtroom, so many across the league fully expect a legal fight............................................................

“The billion-dollar question is whether abhorrent, offensive, harmful comments made in a private conversation rise to the level of circumstances necessary to trigger this vote,” Feldman said.

................ there is no explicit mention of racist or otherwise offensive statements triggering a vote; rather, there is broader language that allows the owners to act if they believe a fellow owner is not acting in “the best interests of the game.”

That ambiguity could aid Silver and the NBA in their defense of the move while at the same time opening the door for Sterling to fight for the team he has owned since 1981.

“There’s certainly a possibility that Donald Sterling will sue saying that the commissioner and the owners exceeded their authority under the NBA constitution and that the owners never contemplated an ownership being terminated based on private, even if horribly offensive, statements,” Feldman said.

Feldman said the punishment for an unpopular statement has established “a fuzzy line” that cannot be crossed.

“It’s just a little bit risky, then, for other owners down the road,................. but what else would that allow other owners to force a sale for?” Feldman said.

“Where does one draw the line if this constitutes sufficient cause for other owners to be voted out?”

In the event of a lawsuit, Feldman said the league could argue for an expedited process, but acknowledged that the court system can only move so fast.
_____________________________________________________
His expertise is in Sports Law.
The voting owners' lawyers could warn them about opening themselves to future ousting too, for crossing "fuzzy lines" in private conduct. and what if some already have? :-o
Food for thought.

good night, yawn.
 
a mere 24 hours before the announcement an owner (mark cuban, dallas maverick's) already made a comment similar to what was expressed above about opening pandora's box.

this quote from pet spoilers article

Sterling built a reputation over the years as a stubborn litigator who revels in the chance to impose his will in a courtroom, so many across the league fully expect a legal fight

is why i bring up...why did he SETTLE on the discrimination/housing lawsuits and why it appears to be an admission of guilt. Seems right up his alley to want to fight it tooth and naiil until they end, not settle on it. Some people don't believe past allegations will come into play so we can dismiss this entirely if you like. To someone on the outside looking in it def looks like an admission of guilt just based off his reputation as a lawyer alone though.




there is no explicit mention of racist or otherwise offensive statements triggering a vote; rather, there is broader language that allows the owners to act if they believe a fellow owner is not acting in “the best interests of the game.”

That quote above kinda goes to show you that the comments may be the catalyst but not the sole reason for why they're attempting to oust him.






here's some clips from a different article that may explain that regular laws do not apply to nba rules, supporting my stance and lp's that it's a "good ol boys club"

The problem is that Sterling, as an NBA owner, had agreed to be bound by the NBA’s constitution. And that document gives the league’s commissioner, Adam Silver, broad powers to punish owners for actions including “conduct prejudicial or detrimental” to the league

Experts said the best of Sterling’s legal options would be trying to stop a forced sale of his team. That decision must be approved by three-quarters of the NBA’s owners. Sterling could stop it by persuading enough owners to reject the motion, or — if that doesn’t work — by persuading a judge to throw out the owners’ vote.

But even that wouldn’t be much of a victory. It would only allow Sterling to keep ownership of a team he couldn’t run — a business that might rapidly drown under the weight of his bad reputation.

“He may be a belligerent S.O.B., but he’s not insane,” said Gary R. Roberts, a professor of sports law at Indiana University. “I don’t think that the other league owners are going to be able legally to kick him out. But they’re not going to have to. This guy doesn’t want to own a business that will be bankrupt in short order.

If Sterling does bring a legal challenge, experts said Tuesday, the first thing to understand is that the First Amendment may not help him much.

“Under the First Amendment, people have the right to be morons,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer at the Davis Wright Tremaine firm and president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

But, Corn-Revere said, those hypothetical morons are protected only from punishment by the government itself. In this real-world case, Sterling’s punishment is coming from a private group — whose rules he agreed to obey.

“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law,’ ” Corn-Revere said. “Not ‘The NBA shall have no rule.’ ”

That means Sterling would have to convince a judge that the NBA had mis*applied its rules to punish him with the fine and the lifetime ban. But that, also, appears difficult. The NBA’s constitution says that a commissioner’s decisions are “final, binding, conclusive, and unappealable.”

“Courts have consistently held that it’s up to commissioners to decide what constitutes the best interest of the league. And how could you argue that this doesn’t,” Roberts said. “He might try to make an argument that it was a private conversation, and he didn’t do anything or say anything in public. . . . I think that’s a losing argument.”

To force Sterling to sell his team, Silver must convince three-
quarters of NBA owners to go along. At the close of the news conference, Silver said, “I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners to remove him.”

But there, his case could rest on shakier ground.

The league constitution allows owners to be forced out for *offenses such as gambling, rigging games or ordering the team not to show up for games. There is nothing that fits Sterling’s comments precisely. The closest might be a provision to force a sale if an owner should “fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations . . . in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.”

Some NBA owners might not think Sterling’s comments would qualify as that. On Monday, even before Silver announced the punishment, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban expressed skepticism about forcing a sale.

^ mark cuban the day of the announcement then said he agrees fully with the commissioner. The brand new commissioners may have the owners by the balls on this as no one will want to go against him and risk public backlash on their own franchise. i'm pretty sure most of them want sterling gone regardless though
 
Bye Bye D'Antoni!!
back on topic... my Vote is Sterling keeps the Team or they rid of the Clippers in all, we only need ONE TEAM in LA... LAKERS! hehe:headbang2
 
what's the point of keeping a team that he's banned from running? haha, the franchise would sink lower then it was during the elton brand era
 
ballinouttacntrol said:
a mere 24 hours before the announcement an owner (mark cuban, dallas maverick's) already made a comment similar to what was expressed above about opening pandora's box.

this quote from pet spoilers article

Sterling built a reputation over the years as a stubborn litigator who revels in the chance to impose his will in a courtroom, so many across the league fully expect a legal fight

is why i bring up...why did he SETTLE on the discrimination/housing lawsuits and why it appears to be an admission of guilt. Seems right up his alley to want to fight it tooth and naiil until they end, not settle on it. Some people don't believe past allegations will come into play so we can dismiss this entirely if you like. To someone on the outside looking in it def looks like an admission of guilt just based off his reputation as a lawyer alone though.




there is no explicit mention of racist or otherwise offensive statements triggering a vote; rather, there is broader language that allows the owners to act if they believe a fellow owner is not acting in “the best interests of the game.”

That quote above kinda goes to show you that the comments may be the catalyst but not the sole reason for why they're attempting to oust him.






here's some clips from a different article that may explain that regular laws do not apply to nba rules, supporting my stance and lp's that it's a "good ol boys club"

The problem is that Sterling, as an NBA owner, had agreed to be bound by the NBA’s constitution. And that document gives the league’s commissioner, Adam Silver, broad powers to punish owners for actions including “conduct prejudicial or detrimental” to the league

Experts said the best of Sterling’s legal options would be trying to stop a forced sale of his team. That decision must be approved by three-quarters of the NBA’s owners. Sterling could stop it by persuading enough owners to reject the motion, or — if that doesn’t work — by persuading a judge to throw out the owners’ vote.

But even that wouldn’t be much of a victory. It would only allow Sterling to keep ownership of a team he couldn’t run — a business that might rapidly drown under the weight of his bad reputation.

“He may be a belligerent S.O.B., but he’s not insane,” said Gary R. Roberts, a professor of sports law at Indiana University. “I don’t think that the other league owners are going to be able legally to kick him out. But they’re not going to have to. This guy doesn’t want to own a business that will be bankrupt in short order.

If Sterling does bring a legal challenge, experts said Tuesday, the first thing to understand is that the First Amendment may not help him much.

“Under the First Amendment, people have the right to be morons,” said Bob Corn-Revere, a lawyer at the Davis Wright Tremaine firm and president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

But, Corn-Revere said, those hypothetical morons are protected only from punishment by the government itself. In this real-world case, Sterling’s punishment is coming from a private group — whose rules he agreed to obey.

“The First Amendment says ‘Congress shall make no law,’ ” Corn-Revere said. “Not ‘The NBA shall have no rule.’ ”

That means Sterling would have to convince a judge that the NBA had mis*applied its rules to punish him with the fine and the lifetime ban. But that, also, appears difficult. The NBA’s constitution says that a commissioner’s decisions are “final, binding, conclusive, and unappealable.”

“Courts have consistently held that it’s up to commissioners to decide what constitutes the best interest of the league. And how could you argue that this doesn’t,” Roberts said. “He might try to make an argument that it was a private conversation, and he didn’t do anything or say anything in public. . . . I think that’s a losing argument.”

To force Sterling to sell his team, Silver must convince three-
quarters of NBA owners to go along. At the close of the news conference, Silver said, “I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners to remove him.”

But there, his case could rest on shakier ground.

The league constitution allows owners to be forced out for *offenses such as gambling, rigging games or ordering the team not to show up for games. There is nothing that fits Sterling’s comments precisely. The closest might be a provision to force a sale if an owner should “fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations . . . in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.”

Some NBA owners might not think Sterling’s comments would qualify as that. On Monday, even before Silver announced the punishment, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban expressed skepticism about forcing a sale.

^ mark cuban the day of the announcement then said he agrees fully with the commissioner. The brand new commissioners may have the owners by the balls on this as no one will want to go against him and risk public backlash on their own franchise. i'm pretty sure most of them want sterling gone regardless though
Click to expand...
this pretty much says it all...it isn't about "legal"anything , when has a major sports ban of a participant ever been overturned by a court, and there have been plenty to choose from....btw , it is my opinion the players are calling the shots on this one....he stays, they go...until he does
 
petspoiler said:
As far as people insisting to 100% guarantee the path of this sports franchise, read what a hands-on authority says:
From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140501/SPORTS0102/305010051#ixzz30RebriJz

“We are in uncharted territory here,” said Gabe Feldman, a law professor and director of the Tulane Sports Law Program.
.......................
Sterling built a reputation over the years as a stubborn litigator who revels in the chance to impose his will in a courtroom, so many across the league fully expect a legal fight............................................................

“The billion-dollar question is whether abhorrent, offensive, harmful comments made in a private conversation rise to the level of circumstances necessary to trigger this vote,” Feldman said.

................ there is no explicit mention of racist or otherwise offensive statements triggering a vote; rather, there is broader language that allows the owners to act if they believe a fellow owner is not acting in “the best interests of the game.”

That ambiguity could aid Silver and the NBA in their defense of the move while at the same time opening the door for Sterling to fight for the team he has owned since 1981.

“There’s certainly a possibility that Donald Sterling will sue saying that the commissioner and the owners exceeded their authority under the NBA constitution and that the owners never contemplated an ownership being terminated based on private, even if horribly offensive, statements,” Feldman said.

Feldman said the punishment for an unpopular statement has established “a fuzzy line” that cannot be crossed.

“It’s just a little bit risky, then, for other owners down the road,................. but what else would that allow other owners to force a sale for?” Feldman said.

“Where does one draw the line if this constitutes sufficient cause for other owners to be voted out?”

In the event of a lawsuit, Feldman said the league could argue for an expedited process, but acknowledged that the court system can only move so fast.
_____________________________________________________
His expertise is in Sports Law.
The voting owners' lawyers could warn them about opening themselves to future ousting too, for crossing "fuzzy lines" in private conduct. and what if some already have? :-o
Food for thought.

good night, yawn.
Click to expand...
the one thing you have to remember,about FELDMAN, HE profits from a court battle(he's a" tv" lawyer)the more the crap is thrown around the more HE gets to self promote on national tv, so he is rooting for and enticing ,over the air , Sterling to do "battle"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom