wolfriverjoe 1,523
Recommended Posts
turtlespeed 221
Iago************Holy balls! Anyone watching to see what the consequences are?! Banned from the NBA for life, max fine of $2.5 million dealt out.
This is something a private organization can do if legal and contractual. Good news.
The government certainly can't do this kind of thing. (in otherwords, I'm thrilled to see the NBA's response, but if any gov department did the exact same thing for an internal analogous situation, I'd be outraged. I wonder who understand why.....suspect most here do - those that really do understand the difference between libertarians vs hard core dems/reps)
great to see the private sector work to market responses as it should
Eh, we'll see if it goes through. The franchise is property and it can be difficult to force someone to sell property.
It is also a business. Preventing a business owner from being involved with the business is ridiculous.
Remember when the USPA tried to kick out a DZO(s) and their business? This could fall into the same anti-trust category as the people voting him out (other owners) have significant gains to be made by forcing him to sell.
The legal challenges will go on for years. Eventually I predict the NBA will buy his franchise at a significant markup just to get rid of him, after losing their lawsuits against Sterling.
The franchise is part of the NBA. I would bet very heavily that the NBA has a bunch of rules written into their franchise agreement, penalties for violating those rules, and a procedure for revoking the ownership of a team.
The problem that USPA had when they tried to boot Ben & Cary was that they didn't follow the disciplinary procedures. They didn't follow the rules.
I''m going to guess that the NBA has enough lawyers on the payroll to make sure that they can follow all the rules and still force Sterling out
Exactly.
And I would be surprised if they have a by-law where they can force out an owner simply for having an opinion that he expresses in a private conversation.
So, they're going to try some other round-about-way to get the other owners to vote him out and that's going to be tough. Even if they do there will be legal battles for years.
Is this "New Policy" and consequence just for one owner - or does it transfer evenly over the entire organization?
If not, then what is the true motivation behind all this?
I am going with "Not" can you see what the outrage would be if there was a player fined 2.5M and banned for life for a racially charged comment?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
wolfriverjoe 1,523
turtlespeed
Is this "New Policy" and consequence just for one owner - or does it transfer evenly over the entire organization?
If not, then what is the true motivation behind all this?
I am going with "Not" can you see what the outrage would be if there was a player fined 2.5M and banned for life for a racially charged comment?
I somewhat doubt that it applies evenly across the whole organization.
I would expect that owners and executives (all of them) are held to a different standard than players.
I would guess that non-executive staff (coaches, trainers, ect.) are held to another standard somewhere between the above 2.
But I would think that all the owners would be held to this standard.
Anyone who brings this much bad publicity is going to quickly become a pariah.
And Kareem Abdul Jabar had some interesting comments about the whole situation.
He hammers pretty hard on all sides.
http://toprightnews.com/?p=2777
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
wolfriverjoe
The franchise is part of the NBA. I would bet very heavily that the NBA has a bunch of rules written into their franchise agreement, penalties for violating those rules, and a procedure for revoking the ownership of a team.
and he didn't violate those clauses. They do have a vague catch all provision that they will be relying on, but they will have argue it in court to multiple appeals.
"Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."
Since this was a private conversation that was leaked by one member, they may have some trouble here. The language is not nearly so broad as the ones used by endorsement deals (see Tiger Woods) with morality clauses. There may also be a wrinkle around whether or not both parties consented to the recording (required in CA), but I recall something about them recording in general for some odd reason.
so they can suspend him, as they did. They can fine him as they did, and it appears can take away draft picks. Many sponsors have dropped anchor, the coach may walk off, and I could see the NBA giving the players an out if they want. All in all, they can seriously devalue the team so that it would be stupid for him not to sell. But ... I think it's a long road ahead if he decides to play the Al Davis angle.
GeorgiaDon 362
He really nails it. Plenty of muck to stick to all sides.QuoteAnd Kareem Abdul Jabar had some interesting comments about the whole situation. He hammers pretty hard on all sides.
Some commentator on NPR said that if Sterling is forced to sell, he could get up to a billion (with a "b"!) dollars for the team, and he bought it for $12 million. Definitely makes a $2.5 million fine look like lunch money.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
turtlespeed 221
Iago******
The franchise is part of the NBA. I would bet very heavily that the NBA has a bunch of rules written into their franchise agreement, penalties for violating those rules, and a procedure for revoking the ownership of a team.
and he didn't violate those clauses. They do have a vague catch all provision that they will be relying on, but they will have argue it in court to multiple appeals.
"Under the terms of Paragraph 13 of the constitution, the owners can terminate another owner's franchise with a vote of three-fourths of the NBA Board of Governors, which is composed of all 30 owners. The power to terminate is limited to things like gambling and fraud in the application for ownership, but it also includes a provision for termination when an owner "fails to fulfill" a "contractual obligation" in "such a way as to affect the [NBA] or its members adversely."
Since this was a private conversation that was leaked by one member, they may have some trouble here. The language is not nearly so broad as the ones used by endorsement deals (see Tiger Woods) with morality clauses. There may also be a wrinkle around whether or not both parties consented to the recording (required in CA), but I recall something about them recording in general for some odd reason.
so they can suspend him, as they did. They can fine him as they did, and it appears can take away draft picks. Many sponsors have dropped anchor, the coach may walk off, and I could see the NBA giving the players an out if they want. All in all, they can seriously devalue the team so that it would be stupid for him not to sell. But ... I think it's a long road ahead if he decides to play the Al Davis angle.
And that Board of Governors is going to be a tough sell. If they do that it sets a precedent for all the others to be 'voted out.' I.E. Cuban (who has already come out not liking the idea) and is a known drunken, vocal, hothead on the sidelines. Can the others just 'vote him out' because his antics on camera are damaging the NBA?
Yes, they will have to be able to. Otherwise they are too limited in their power.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
normiss 801
Transaction fee.
QuoteIndeed.
Sterling has been a registered Republican since 1998. A search of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's website for Sterling's name, date of birth, and address confirms that he's registered as a Republican.
You're probably right about that one.
In the meantime...
Former Illinois state legislator, Keith Franham, a Democrat resigned office in March citing "health reasons." He has subsequently been arrested on child pornography charges. Evidence so far gathered shows he was collecting child porn on his personal and state provided computer.
So the Republicans are racists and the Democrats are pedophiles? Hardly. We got two INDVIDUAL dirtbags here and they come in all shapes, sizes etc. AND political parties (R or D).
kallend 2,027
Not disagreeing with you, just confirming the ERROR in brenthutch's thread title.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
+1
OK, no harm no foul.
But you and I have one huge disagreement on the death penalty.
OK, no harm no foul.
But you and I have one huge disagreement on the death penalty.
billvon 2,997
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
First post: Racist billionaire Donald Sterling is a democrat. Claim they are "enlightened" ones. What hypocrites.
Turns out he's a republican.
Inevitable followup: Well . . . why label a whole group of people for the actions of a few?
(This thinking will continue at least until the next democrat does something bad.)
Turns out he's a republican.
Inevitable followup: Well . . . why label a whole group of people for the actions of a few?
(This thinking will continue at least until the next democrat does something bad.)
billvon...great to gear from ya again! Bless your pea pickin' heart (with apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford).
I'm trying to track with your comments and have to admit some difficulty here (one brain cell thing along with being a neanderthal knuckle draggin' Conservative ya know). I don't think I called Sterling a Democrat or a Republican. So far so good?
And I admit to being a bit snarky about my last post about an Illinois legislator (a Democrat) arrested for kiddie porn discovered on his personal and state provided computers. Imagine that!
But you answered my implied plea about labeling a whole group of people for the actions of a few. Yea, it's a baaad idea.
But I'm kinda wondering what Sterling might do in light of California wiretap laws where it's a two party consent state (I know as I lived there for 38 years). Girlfriend has 100 hours of recorded conversation and Sugar Daddy Sterling probably did not give his consent to record.
Personnaly, I think this is just the first round of some real down home nastiness that could end up with a felony wiretap indictment. You know what they say, "Paybacks are a ......, well they just are.
You're not confusing me with someone else are you?!?!?! All the same...
Nice to hear from ya again!
I'm trying to track with your comments and have to admit some difficulty here (one brain cell thing along with being a neanderthal knuckle draggin' Conservative ya know). I don't think I called Sterling a Democrat or a Republican. So far so good?
And I admit to being a bit snarky about my last post about an Illinois legislator (a Democrat) arrested for kiddie porn discovered on his personal and state provided computers. Imagine that!
But you answered my implied plea about labeling a whole group of people for the actions of a few. Yea, it's a baaad idea.
But I'm kinda wondering what Sterling might do in light of California wiretap laws where it's a two party consent state (I know as I lived there for 38 years). Girlfriend has 100 hours of recorded conversation and Sugar Daddy Sterling probably did not give his consent to record.
Personnaly, I think this is just the first round of some real down home nastiness that could end up with a felony wiretap indictment. You know what they say, "Paybacks are a ......, well they just are.
You're not confusing me with someone else are you?!?!?! All the same...
Nice to hear from ya again!
IagoThe fact that anyone is making a big deal about this is what I find disturbing.
This could be said for over half the stories in most major American news outlets these days. Quite sad.
Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.
rushmc 23
He can register as anything he wishes and you will not ever know (unles he tells you) how he votes
However, his political donations are public record
He has no record (yet reported) that shows him giving any money to a republican or republican cause
But there are reported records of large donations to democrats and their causes
So, for me, I will judge him as his actions indicate
Do you know he voted?
However, his political donations are public record
He has no record (yet reported) that shows him giving any money to a republican or republican cause
But there are reported records of large donations to democrats and their causes
So, for me, I will judge him as his actions indicate
Do you know he voted?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
This is something a private organization can do if legal and contractual. Good news.
The government certainly can't do this kind of thing. (in otherwords, I'm thrilled to see the NBA's response, but if any gov department did the exact same thing for an internal analogous situation, I'd be outraged. I wonder who understand why.....suspect most here do - those that really do understand the difference between libertarians vs hard core dems/reps)
great to see the private sector work to market responses as it should
Eh, we'll see if it goes through. The franchise is property and it can be difficult to force someone to sell property.
It is also a business. Preventing a business owner from being involved with the business is ridiculous.
Remember when the USPA tried to kick out a DZO(s) and their business? This could fall into the same anti-trust category as the people voting him out (other owners) have significant gains to be made by forcing him to sell.
The legal challenges will go on for years. Eventually I predict the NBA will buy his franchise at a significant markup just to get rid of him, after losing their lawsuits against Sterling.
The franchise is part of the NBA. I would bet very heavily that the NBA has a bunch of rules written into their franchise agreement, penalties for violating those rules, and a procedure for revoking the ownership of a team.
The problem that USPA had when they tried to boot Ben & Cary was that they didn't follow the disciplinary procedures. They didn't follow the rules.
I''m going to guess that the NBA has enough lawyers on the payroll to make sure that they can follow all the rules and still force Sterling out
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites