Sterling suing NBA for $1 Billion

[M0RPH]

Hypothetical...

Your neighbor hears you say something that could be considered a bit racist against some group. He goes to your neighborhood organization, and let's say they have the power to force you to sell your home. So they force you to sell your home to get you out of the neighborhood.

How do you all feel about that? (Not much different from what happened to Sterling, now is it?)

 

[Perknose]

:thumbsup:

Some of the comments in here are laughable.

It's unbelievable how clueless so many of the posters here are. Mark has been patiently and thoroughly schooling them and they still don't give it up.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Hypothetical...

Your neighbor hears you say something that could be considered a bit racist against some group. He goes to your neighborhood organization, and let's say they have the power to force you to sell your home. So they force you to sell your home to get you out of the neighborhood.

How do you all feel about that? (Not much different from what happened to Sterling, now is it?)

Not even close to what occurred.

 

[TerryMathews]

He owns the players? Did you say he _owns_ the players?

Lovely how you left out "for the length of their contract."

If you're asserting that their contract depends on the Clippers remaining in the NBA, back it up because I assure you they work for the Clippers not the NBA.

 

[Phoenix86]

More clueless bullshit. Like he would have sold the team voluntarily under other circumstances. He was forced to sell because he's a racist old fuck that nobody wants associated with the NBA anymore.

No, it's not bullshit, it's how it legally played out.

Yes, I realize the sale was forced in the sense that a: public opinion and b: forced sale was coming. BUT, it never happened. He was never voted out, the vote was canceled.

Considering you're throwing around all the legalities of franchise rights, you'd think you would consider the actual legal framework of the sale.

 

[TerryMathews]

The players aren't bound to Donald Sterling, they're bound to the association. Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. They are bound to the Clippers not the NBA.

 

[Markbnj]

Lovely how you left out "for the length of their contract."

If you're asserting that their contract depends on the Clippers remaining in the NBA, back it up because I assure you they work for the Clippers not the NBA.

This stuff is just priceless, man. I've said my piece, and I'm not going to keep re-saying it. You're just about as wrong as its possible for a human to be.

 

[bradley]

I don't need rhetoric to make an argument, often employed by posters like Perknose. Not to say that progressive wishful thinking hasn't completely altered recent outcomes.

Just get ready for a long lengthy battle (unless the mafia starts up their mixers) and put on those ruby red slippers. They look so pretty on some of you.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Hypothetical...

Your neighbor hears you say something that could be considered a bit racist against some group. He goes to your neighborhood organization, and let's say they have the power to force you to sell your home. So they force you to sell your home to get you out of the neighborhood.

How do you all feel about that? (Not much different from what happened to Sterling, now is it?)

If the house is one of the faces of the organization that employs members of said groups and you had those said groups paying to come into your neighborhood everyday then yes.

 

[TerryMathews]

This stuff is just priceless, man. I've said my piece, and I'm not going to keep re-saying it. You're just about as wrong as its possible for a human to be.

I suggest to you that you have no idea how NBA contracts work, or for that matter who the parties in them are evidently.

Might I suggest reading http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm ?

Notice that teams are the ones paying the salary, not the NBA. And that teams are the ones contracting players (sometimes even illegally).

 

[vi edit]

I suggest to you that you have no idea how NBA contracts work, or for that matter who the parties in them are evidently. Might I suggest reading http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm ? Notice that teams are the ones paying the salary, not the NBA. And that teams are the ones contracting players (sometimes even illegally).

So if they have no relation to the NBA, then how is it that when a player has misconduct it's a league issued sanction and not a team based one?

 

[JM Aggie08]

So if they have no relation to the NBA, then how is it that when a player has misconduct it's a league issued sanction and not a team based one?

GTFO here with your logic!

 

[tynopik]

The NBA is owned equally by the individual teams, this is not like a McDonald's franchise.

 

[TerryMathews]

So if they have no relation to the NBA, then how is it that when a player has misconduct it's a league issued sanction and not a team based one?

Same as its enforced against Sterling, through the franchise agreement.

To flip back to the McDonald's analogy, if I work for a franchisee, I work for say Archways Inc not McDonald's. Same concept here.

 

[TerryMathews]

GTFO here with your logic!

If you say so...

 

[Markbnj]

The NBA is owned equally by the individual teams, this is not like a McDonald's franchise.

With respect to the owner's rights and what is their unencumbered property vs. what is not, it is a lot more like a McDonald's franchise than a house you own. The people here who are trying to argue otherwise are simply jumping through semantic hoops driven by some strange motivation to make Sterling the victim in this whole thing, as they have since the moment the story broke. Only they know why.

 

[TerryMathews]

There is a sample NBA contract I found with Google at the NBPA web site. I can't get the link on my phone, all I get is the Google referer link.

A few takeaways:
1- contract is specifically between team and player
2- contract very explicitly states that players services are exclusively retained by the team for the duration of the contract
3- team has the right to assign (and by extension sell) the contract to another team

4- contract doesn't have an auto termination clause based on the franchise agreement lapsing, but does mention the league in many clauses. At best, it's a legally undefined area that would have to be litigated.

This is all a moot point as the league would never terminate a franchise agreement.

 

[Markbnj]

I suggest to you that you have no idea how NBA contracts work, or for that matter who the parties in them are evidently.

It just doesn't matter. It's as inconceivable that the players would have to follow Sterling to the Ku Klux Klanaball league as it is that the sun will not come up tomorrow morning. Your diversionary point about who pays their salaries is meaningless. That's only relevant as long as they work for whoever is signing the checks. You're saying their contracts would require them to abide by whatever Sterling wanted to do with the team, up to and including leaving the NBA for some alternative league, and continue working for him. I'm saying that's bullshit.

 

[Markbnj]

I don't need rhetoric to make an argument, often employed by posters like Perknose. Not to say that progressive wishful thinking hasn't completely altered recent outcomes.

Just get ready for a long lengthy battle (unless the mafia starts up their mixers) and put on those ruby red slippers. They look so pretty on some of you.

No you just need an argument to make an argument, which, like the rest of the people in the Donald Sterling fan club, you don't have.

 

[TerryMathews]

It just doesn't matter. It's as inconceivable that the players would have to follow Sterling to the Ku Klux Klanaball league as it is that the sun will not come up tomorrow morning. Your diversionary point about who pays their salaries is meaningless. That's only relevant as long as they work for whoever is signing the checks. You're saying their contracts would require them to abide by whatever Sterling wanted to do with the team, up to and including leaving the NBA for some alternative league, and continue working for him. I'm saying that's bullshit.

I suggest you read the post above yours.

 

[BUTCH1]

I disagree: he also owns the players for the length of their contract. Assuming they are prepaid or funds are held in escrow or he can continue to make payroll there is value in that.

There are a number of alternative professional basketball leagues that I assume would be glad to admit a former NBA team. Might not have the same revenue potential though.

Saying he only owns "maybe the stadium and a few busses" is at best misleading.

The players are under contract to the Clippers, an NBA franchise that like all franchises has to abide by a set of rules, since those rules were broken the franchise now must be sold. I'm not saying he shouldn't get fair market value for his ownership he should, but by violating the rules he signed off on he is forced to sell off the franchise. Last week his ex-girlfeiend was on Dr. Phil, it was laughable as Phil asked her point-blank, "did you have sex with him"? oh no, not in any way. Yea, right, guy buys you a 1.8 million $ house, a Ferrari. a Bentley, plus tons of cash "gifts" and you never had sex with him?, the audience could be heard LOL'ing in the background, then Dr Phil brought to light her two convictions for shoplifting expensive clothing as well, " I was young then and made some stupid mistakes" it ended with her looking and sounding like the mother of all gold-diggers LOL.

 

[Markbnj]

I suggest you read the post above yours.

I did. I've been reading contracts for twenty-five years. Your summary is meaningless. Just another diversion. Again, you claim the players are bound to Sterling by contract and that their services represent a personal asset of his. This is in order to support your contention that his ownership in the team has significant value independent of its licensed relationship with the NBA. That point in turn is necessary to support your assertion that the league was inappropriately attempting to deprive him of owned property. All bullshit, front to back.

 

[TerryMathews]

I did. I've been reading contracts for twenty-five years. Your summary is meaningless. Just another diversion. Again, you claim the players are bound to Sterling by contract and that their services represent a personal asset of his. This is in order to support your contention that his ownership in the team has significant value independent of its licensed relationship with the NBA. That point in turn is necessary to support your assertion that the league was inappropriately attempting to deprive him of owned property. All bullshit, front to back.

I dont see how you read the contract and claim that the players aren't bound to the Clippers and by extension Sterling.

 

[Markbnj]

I dont see how you read the contract and claim that the players aren't bound to the Clippers and by extension Sterling.

You do understand there is no such thing as bondage in this country, right? You know why I don't need to read any further than your meaningless summary? Because regardless of how ironclad those contracts are, something that neither you nor I really knows in detail, any contract can be broken. It's simply a matter of money, which players and the league tend to have a lot of. Now tell me again how all those players would have to follow Sterling to the Slavery League and how that compulsion represents valuable property that he is being deprived of?

Actually, don't. Or go ahead, I don't really care. This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read on this forum and just having it on my monitor makes me dumber.

 

[TerryMathews]

You do understand there is no such thing as bondage in this country, right?

Sure there is. You're conflating slavery by bondage, commonly debt bondage, with contractual bondage. Of course these players are bound to Sterling for the duration of their contract.

1) Can he move the team an by extension them to another state? Yes.

2) Can he sell the remainder of a players contract to another team? Yes.

2a) Can he make a profit selling a players contract? Of course. Financially or in-kind trade.

I've stipulated that its a legal gray area whether he can retain their services in the absence of a franchise agreement, but your allegation that its clearly a voiding factor is unsubstantiated.