LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling's Racist Rant Caught On Tape

[mchammer187]

The NBA might put that in the contract, but if it deemed not legal in courts (which is what I suspect Sterling would fight to find out) those rights aren't stripped. Quite a few agreements contain less than legal stripping of rights, but never hold up in court.

I think if people can be forced out of their homes for failing to comply with HOA rules I think an the NBA contracts would be relatively bulletproof. Not saying he can't get out of it just that I'd put his chances at less than 5%.

 

[werepossum]

Where did you read this? I haven't read any of the NBA bylaws, but I really doubt Silver would say "The owners can force a sale with a 75% vote" if that wasn't specifically and conspicuously in the NBA somewhere. He didn't just make it up.

Silver is banking on Sterling's relatively mild racist statements being considered failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. I am doubting that will stand up in court, but if so then the owners can force a sale of the Clippers franchise because that is subject to League bylaws, just as McDonald's can force the sale of any McDonald's restaurant. If not, then they cannot force the sale of the Clippers team and Sterling could own exactly what he owns now, but it would be essentially worthless. Hopefully DVC weighs in here, but in my layman's experience "contractual obligation" means a specific, quantifiable obligation, of which "not be a dickhead" is not one.

Every sponsor has already abandoned Sterling. No NBA team would play the Clippers and it's arguable whether the players would even be bound by their existing contracts to play in a league no longer available to the Clippers. Frankly one would be better off being forced to sell a McDonald's restaurant because at least one would own a fast food restaurant, albeit one from which all McDonald's trademarked decor must be removed, even if one no longer owns the franchise because the relative loss of value would be much worse on an NBA team kicked out of the NBA.

Right now the Clippers are at their peak and this will no doubt start a bidding war which will inflate the value of the team, so Sterling's options are to sell the team at a huge profit or continue to hold the team and watch it's value plummet. There is zero chance of this blowing over, and it forms a very real threat to the NBA's main revenue streams. Therefore whether or not they can legally make Sterling sell, he's going to sell. Sterling can probably make a good case for reducing the $2.5 million fine to a $1 million fine based on the text of the contract, but the other owners do not have to legally have the right to force him to sell to force him to sell.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...rling-suspension-la-clippers-sale-adam-silver

 

[momeNt]

Silver is banking on Sterling's relatively mild racist statements being considered failure to fulfill a contractual obligation. I am doubting that will stand up in court, but if so then the owners can force a sale of the Clippers franchise because that is subject to League bylaws, just as McDonald's can force the sale of any McDonald's restaurant. If not, then they cannot force the sale of the Clippers team and Sterling could own exactly what he owns now, but it would be essentially worthless. Hopefully DVC weighs in here, but in my layman's experience "contractual obligation" means a specific, quantifiable obligation, of which "not be a dickhead" is not one.

Every sponsor has already abandoned Sterling. No NBA team would play the Clippers and it's arguable whether the players would even be bound by their existing contracts to play in a league no longer available to the Clippers. Frankly one would be better off being forced to sell a McDonald's restaurant because at least one would own a fast food restaurant, albeit one from which all McDonald's trademarked decor must be removed, even if one no longer owns the franchise because the relative loss of value would be much worse on an NBA team kicked out of the NBA.

Right now the Clippers are at their peak and this will no doubt start a bidding war which will inflate the value of the team, so Sterling's options are to sell the team at a huge profit or continue to hold the team and watch it's value plummet. There is zero chance of this blowing over, and it forms a very real threat to the NBA's main revenue streams. Therefore whether or not they can legally make Sterling sell, he's going to sell. Sterling can probably make a good case for reducing the $2.5 million fine to a $1 million fine based on the text of the contract, but the other owners do not have to legally have the right to force him to sell to force him to sell.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...rling-suspension-la-clippers-sale-adam-silver

I think the vote technically is the proof that he failed to fulfill that obligation. They decide whether he has adversely affected the NBA or its members. A judge deciding that, or overturning the decision would be stripping the NBA of powers that all the owners consented and contracted to.

Just my opinion though, not an NBA owner or a lawyer.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

What happens when the NBA decides owning a the worst team in the league is bad for business? Do the owners get to vote to force them to sell? Or if an owner fires a beloved coach or GM or something that causes fans to boycott a team?

That would never happen. You know how I know? Because Donald Sterling did literally all of that and wasn't forced out for any of it. The Clippers, prior to getting Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, spent the last 30 years racking up literally the worst win-loss record in American professional sports history. Not basketball, ALL American professional sports. They didn't force Donald Sterling to sell then. Nor did they force him to sell when he was sued, successfully, by the US Department of Justice, for racial discrimination in housing. Nor was he forced out when he was sued by a former player and legend, Elgin Baylor, for allegations of wrongful termination. The Los Angeles Clippers fanbase has hated Donald Sterling basically as long as he's owned the team, he spent thirty years leading them to the worst record in the history of American sports and he was literally sued by the Government, and none of that affected his ability to own a team. It wasn't even SUGGESTED that he be forced out until this particular scandal. So, no, you aren't going to have a big run of owners being forced out of ownership; it still requires a 75% vote of all the other owners, and you won't get that outside of something truly egregious.

 

[Retro Rob]

They didn't force Donald Sterling to sell then. Nor did they force him to sell when he was sued, successfully, by the US Department of Justice, for racial discrimination in housing. Nor was he forced out when he was sued by a former player and legend, Elgin Baylor, for allegations of wrongful termination.

This is the sole reason why the Commissioner, the owners, and these black players celebrating this move are all fools.

He didn't get expelled for actions befitting a racist, but for mere words. So as long his racism wasn't public knowledge, they were OK with him, as evidenced by the past 10 years of turning an eye to it.

In other words, refusing housing to minorities isn't enough to get kicked out of the league.

 

[emperus]

This is the sole reason why the Commissioner, the owners, and these black players celebrating this move are all fools.

He didn't get expelled for actions befitting a racist, but for mere words. So as long his racism wasn't public knowledge, they were OK with him, as evidenced by the past 10 years of turning an eye to it.

In other words, refusing housing to minorities isn't enough to get kicked out of the league.

But what is telling his g/f she shouldn't bring black people (Magic Johnson) to the games?

 

[Retro Rob]

But what is telling his g/f she shouldn't bring black people (Magic Johnson) to the games?

Wanting a black only league isn't racist, then?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04...johnson-appears-to-call-for-all-black-league/

I don't want to even see the reaction if a white exec called for an all-white league. With all the "white-guilt" some blacks like to hurl on white people, we likely won't hear anything from anyone as regards LJ's statements.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you want to live in a world where you essentially cannot trust anyone?:\

Or, don't be an ass and you won't have to worry...

 

[Victorian Gray]

Of course you don't, and that's the point. You're basically being hypocritical here.

You don't want some of your views known, but you're OK with people recording others' views and leading a public execution. :whiste:

You're not being consistent.

Sterling was executed? Lethal injection or hanging?

 

[Retro Rob]

Sterling was executed? Lethal injection or hanging?

Honestly, I did give you more credit than this and didn't think you were this obtuse.

If you disagree with me, I would really appreciate if you'd explain why....

 

[Victorian Gray]

So its vigilante based thought crime enforcement. That seems even worse to me.



They kicked him out because of bunch of thought crime vigilantes. People who felt the need to crucify a man because he held private views they disliked.

Yeah, I *LOVED* it when they nailed him to that cross. It was sooo cool!
And then they shoved that spear into his side, man....

 

[mchammer187]

This is the sole reason why the Commissioner, the owners, and these black players celebrating this move are all fools.

He didn't get expelled for actions befitting a racist, but for mere words. So as long his racism wasn't public knowledge, they were OK with him, as evidenced by the past 10 years of turning an eye to it.

In other words, refusing housing to minorities isn't enough to get kicked out of the league.

I'd like to think that his past transgressions(doj lawsuit) would have gotten him kicked out had twitter existed and had the media been as prolific then as it is today

To be honest the only owners I've heard of up till now are Mark Cuban and Michael Jordan but I only follow basket during the playoffs

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd like to think that his past transgressions(doj lawsuit) would have gotten him kicked out had twitter and all th media was as prolific then as it is today

...and this lends to the undeniable fact that as long as he was a private racist (relative to the infancy of social media), everyone was fine with it.

I agree with you, though. But why does something have to become public before it is dealt with? Is racism only racism when it hits twitter?

I can see the other 29 owners saying: "Dang, Don...why'd you have to get caught? Now we can no longer be friends....and as for the rest of you, keep your racism to yourself".

 

[Victorian Gray]

Honestly, I did give you more credit than this and didn't think you were this obtuse.

If you disagree with me, I would really appreciate if you'd explain why....

It doesn't make your arguments any better.

 

[Retro Rob]

It doesn't make your arguments any better.

Wonderful, I'll stop using it.

Now please, tell me why you disagree.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Wonderful, I'll stop using it.

Now please, tell me why you disagree.

I don't. I believe the NBA are being massive asshats. They were perfectly fine with working with this jerk until it became a public relations issue (And I wouldn't be surprised if there were other owners who hold similar beliefs and act in a similar manner). Now they're acting in a manner that they hope will take care of that public relations issue.

Far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. There is no hero in this story.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't. I believe the NBA are being massive asshats. They were perfectly fine with working with this jerk until it became a public relations issue (And I wouldn't be surprised if there were other owners who hold similar beliefs and act in a similar manner). Now they're acting in a manner that they hope will take care of that public relations issue.

Far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. There is no hero in this story.

So you just wanted to tell the entire forum that you understand what hyperbole is?

I also get happy when I learn something new -- nothing to be ashamed of, obviously....

 

[emperus]

Wanting a black only league isn't racist, then?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/04/28/in-wake-of-sterling-fiasco-ex-knicks-great-larry-johnson-appears-to-call-for-all-black-league/

I don't want to even see the reaction if a white exec called for an all-white league. With all the "white-guilt" some blacks like to hurl on white people, we likely won't hear anything from anyone as regards LJ's statements.

Very interesting arguing style. Instead of answering a point that directly undermines your original point, you parry to something unrelated. Nice.

Let's try it again. You wrote.

This is the sole reason why the Commissioner, the owners, and these black players celebrating this move are all fools.

He didn't get expelled for actions befitting a racist, but for mere words. So as long his racism wasn't public knowledge, they were OK with him, as evidenced by the past 10 years of turning an eye to it.

In other words, refusing housing to minorities isn't enough to get kicked out of the league.

So telling his girlfriend that she shouldn't bring black people to the games and shouldn't bring Magic Johnson to the game is not an action befitting a racist?

 

[Retro Rob]

Very interesting arguing style. Instead of answering a point that directly undermines your original point, you parry to something unrelated. Nice.

How is that unrelated? LJ made the remarks "in wake of Sterling fiasco", according to the article.

This was related so much so, that this whole Sterling thing caused LJ to speak out.

So telling his girlfriend that she shouldn't bring black people to the games and shouldn't bring Magic Johnson to the game is not an action befitting a racist?

No, that's not an action...that reflects his racist beliefs. If he banned blacks from games (as he did with his housing), then they become actions.

 

[emperus]

How is that unrelated? LJ made the remarks "in wake of Sterling fiasco", according to the article.

This was related so much so, that this whole Sterling thing caused LJ to speak out.


No, that's not an action...that reflects his racist beliefs. If he banned blacks from games (as he did with his housing), then they become actions.

It had nothing to do with the point you replied to.

I think your argument is weak and you're trying to supplement it hard with emoticons and insults. I like a good insult, but you have to have a strong argument behind it.

The NBA did a basic cost benefit analysis. The owners are basically salesmen peddling a product. At the end of the day, people decide if they want to buy that product or not. Sterlings actions (stupidly getting caught on tape saying something obscenely racist because he was horny) cast doubt on the product the league was selling and cast doubt on his basic competence as an owner. And each franchise having the ability to drag down the other franchises by dragging down the overall product of the NBA, the owners decided to jettison the dead weight so they wouldn't lose any money.

Let me ask you, which part of that do you disagree with?

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't think I've seen a "person of color" defend a old racist dude so intensity since 1861.

 

[Retro Rob]

It had nothing to do with the point you replied to.

I think your argument is weak and you're trying to supplement it hard with emoticons and insults. I like a good insult, but you have to have a strong argument behind it.

Of course you think my argument is weak. But you tried to erase a comment you made about having private beliefs makes you a phony, and when you realized that you had to explain such an asinine remark, you tried to edit it out because you were unable to qualify it.

That deserved an insult, because it was completely detached from reality.

The NBA did a basic cost benefit analysis. The owners are basically salesmen peddling a product. At the end of the day, people decide if they want to buy that product or not. Sterlings actions (stupidly getting caught on tape saying something obscenely racist because he was horny) cast doubt on the product the league was selling and cast doubt on his basic competence as an owner. And each franchise having the ability to drag down the other franchises by dragging down the overall product of the NBA, the owners decided to jettison the dead weight so they wouldn't lose any money.

Let me ask you, which part of that do you disagree with?

None, because I don't, and never have, disagreed with him being kicked out.

 

[Retro Rob]

So telling his girlfriend that she shouldn't bring black people to the games and shouldn't bring Magic Johnson to the game is not an action befitting a racist?

No, because telling someone who they can bring to a game isn't the same as actually banning them from a game.

Unless you act on your words, they're just words....

Why do you think Mark Cuban doesn't believe he should be kicked out necessarily? Because, he understands the difference between thoughts and actions.

What if someone is an atheist, and doesn't believe Christians should attend games? Should Christian owners use that as reason to vote him out? You really need to understand the difference between having a personal belief, and acting out that belief.

You cannot see beyond race. All you're focusing on is a white man saying something racist about blacks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you just wanted to tell the entire forum that you understand what hyperbole is?

I also get happy when I learn something new -- nothing to be ashamed of, obviously....

No.

 

[emperus]

Of course you think my argument is weak. But you tried to erase a comment you made about having private beliefs makes you a phony, and when you realized that you had to explain such an asinine remark, you tried to edit it out because you were unable to qualify it.

That deserved an insult, because it was completely detached from reality.



None, because I don't, and never have, disagreed with him being kicked out.

Again, there you go with deflection. What does me adjusting my post have to do with your argument being weak. It's a non-sequitur.

TO that post, the comment was "behaving one way in private vs. behaving one way in public makes you a phony". It does. Or are you disagreeing? The only issue is what reason do you have to do be phony, but again that requires more discussion which is a tangent which has nothing to do with this topic. I don't believe in black and white but shades, qualification is not a bad thing. But nice attempt again at deflection.

You don't believe in him being kicked out so what is your argument then?

Your argument is weak and non coherent. It has been and it continues to be. Frame your argument better, so at least people can understand how to discuss it.