Sterling suing NBA for $1 Billion

[Pr0d1gy]

Hell, he should send them $5 million as a commission for all the advertising they did for his franchise. He is going to make almost $2billion selling that team...lmfao

While I would love to rage against the machine and say how dare they take his private property away, the realist in me says you can have every material thing I have today for $2 million. Two BILLION gets you hookers and blow baby.

 

[BUTCH1]

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.

He can move them anywhere as long as he's still writing paychecks, but there's a slight problem, if he's not in the NBA he's going to have a hard time selling any tickets. Also "selling" a players contract is illegal, he can trade a player to another team but the current contract goes with the player, he could trade for a lesser talented player and accept cash to make up the difference in talent but outright selling a contract is forbidden.

 

[Markbnj]

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

Because they wouldn't break their contract for that.

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

Because they wouldn't break their contract for that.

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

Because they wouldn't break their contract for that.

I've stipulated that its a legal gray area whether he can retain their services in the absence of a franchise agreement

Because they would fucking break their contract for that, and the league's lawyers would help them, assuming it even had to be broken, which, again, you and I don't know, and which, again, doesn't really matter.

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.

There is no such thing as contractual bondage in the United States, of any kind, in any form. All employment contracts can be broken. I cannot be forced to remain in any employers service regardless of how strong the contract is if I am willing to accept the penalties of breaking it. So we can add 'bondage' to the list of terms you don't understand.

 

[IAteYourMother]

A contractual obligation to the team, which operates under the auspices of the NBA and its bylaws, is not an ironclad obligation to Sterling as if he could just do w/e he wants.

 

[bradley]

All ham-handed emotional appeals and rhetoric without any facts.

To add to Terry's actual facts, also read article 13 of the NBA’s own Constitution, which is being used as justification for 'termination of ownership.' It only mentions a 1M fine and a suspension, again, no termination of ownership.

Only in the sub-provision of article 13 does it state that ownership can be terminated based on gambling on the team, disbanding them, or overall failing to fulfill contractual obligations, basically breech of contract. Hello? This has not even remotely happened.

In fact, article 13 is so otherwise vague it will be hard for California Law to determine legal intent of each party, or basically interpret something that clearly doesn't exist. I repeat, there is nothing that can be conspicuously supported by California State law.

This is definitely going to the Federal Courts for an arduous legal battle.

 

[Fern]

He'll be dead before he loses in court anyway. It's just to tie up nba resources in litigation and he's doing it out of nothing more than spite.


Terrible person and a perfect example of why you shouldn't idolize the rich.

Re: Bolded. You may be correct and, if so, he'd be doing it for many more reasons than just spite. In fact, probably close to $400 million reasons.

He bought the team for only $12 million. Practically the whole $2 billion amount will be taxed at LTCG rates of 20%. (And certainly even more tax because I haven't included CA state income tax.)

If he dies before the sale that gain will completely escape income taxation. (His heirs will receive the team at its FMV and if they then sold it for $2 B there would be no income tax.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Honestly, you guys are clueless. If I own a McDonalds franchise, they can terminate my franchise rights for any violation of the agreement I signed. It could say "The owner will not wear a pink tutu on wednesday," and if I get caught wearing a pink tutu on a wednesday then they can move to terminate my franchise agreement. I can bluster, sue, whatever, but if the agreement is clear and the tutu was real I lose.
-snip-

I think that's rather simplistic. I also think you haven't much experience with our (civil) judicial system.

The case you present as an analogy is (seemingly) black and white. E.g., does the NBA agreement have a clause that specifically states that owners cannot tell their mistresses to not bring black guys to games. (Similarly specific as your pink tutu clause.)

Wearing a pink tutu is pretty much an objective matter. (Some) Claims of racism not so much.

If another McD franchisee had been seen wearing a pink tutu and McD took no action could they now (rightfully and successfully) pursue your franchisee for wearing one?

Did, as many claim, mark Cuban make racist statements? Have any other owners?

While in general our contract law can not compel a sale I agree with you in the sense that it is possible here. However, Sterling has an unarguable right to due process and I'm betting many aspects of the NBA contract and the NBA's assertions against him can be litigated, probably for quite a while if Sterling so chooses. And if loses he will have the option to drag it out further on appeal.

His wife's move to remove him as trustee might may the NBA process easier, or even mute. OTOH, it might complicate it all and drag things out even more. It remains to be seen.

Finally I would add that I have heard many lawyers claim that the most relevant parts of the owners' agreement are not known publicly. IDK if that correct, but if it is then I don't see how anybody can debate this with any specificity.

Fern

 

[TreVader]

Re: Bolded. You may be correct and, if so, he'd be doing it for many more reasons than just spite. In fact, probably close to $400 million reasons.



He bought the team for only $12 million. Practically the whole $2 billion amount will be taxed at LTCG rates of 20%. (And certainly even more tax because I haven't included CA state income tax.)



If he dies before the sale that gain will completely escape income taxation. (His heirs will receive the team at its FMV and if they then sold it for $2 B there would be no income tax.



Fern

I'm sure there are other benefits but the main motivation is spite.

 

[Markbnj]

I think that's rather simplistic. I also think you haven't much experience with our (civil) judicial system.

The case you present as an analogy is (seemingly) black and white. E.g., does the NBA agreement have a clause that specifically states that owners cannot tell their mistresses to not bring black guys to games. (Similarly specific as your pink tutu clause.)

Wearing a pink tutu is pretty much an objective matter. (Some) Claims of racism not so much.

If another McD franchisee had been seen wearing a pink tutu and McD took no action could they now (rightfully and successfully) pursue your franchisee for wearing one?

Did, as many claim, mark Cuban make racist statements? Have any other owners?

While in general our contract law can not compel a sale I agree with you in the sense that it is possible here. However, Sterling has an unarguable right to due process and I'm betting many aspects of the NBA contract and the NBA's assertions against him can be litigated, probably for quite a while if Sterling so chooses. And if loses he will have the option to drag it out further on appeal.

His wife's move to remove him as trustee might may the NBA process easier, or even mute. OTOH, it might complicate it all and drag things out even more. It remains to be seen.

Finally I would add that I have heard many lawyers claim that the most relevant parts of the owners' agreement are not known publicly. IDK if that correct, but if it is then I don't see how anybody can debate this with any specificity.

Fern

Nothing that I have said requires any specific interpretation or knowledge of the agreements between the owners and the NBA. The Sterling apologists on this forum have been arguing that the NBA is depriving him of his property rights. I have simply illustrated how franchise rights can be withdrawn if an agreement is violated, thereby removing much or all of the value of what the franchisee "owns". You write like someone with enough knowledge of the law to understand that simple point.

 

[TerryMathews]

but outright selling a contract is forbidden.

Bullshit. Where do you think the $2bn is coming from? The Clippers stellar win record?

 

[BUTCH1]

Bullshit. Where do you think the $2bn is coming from? The Clippers stellar win record?

I was referring to selling a PLAYERS contract, not the franchise, of course he has the right to sell his ownership whenever he chooses to.

 

[waggy]

meh. this argument you guys are in really does not matter. with the sale of the team nothing else matters.

the lawsuit he has is not going to go anywhere.

Though i kinda wish they didn't make the deal selling it. I think the fallout of the NBA forcing him to sell and the lawsuits would have made for some great drama/

 

[Perknose]

His wife's move to remove him as trustee might may the NBA process easier, or even mute.

:whiste:

 

[Fern]

:whiste:

LOL

Fern

 

[TerryMathews]

I was referring to selling a PLAYERS contract, not the franchise, of course he has the right to sell his ownership whenever he chooses to.

A thought exercise for you:

What is the Clippers franchise worth if Sterling traded all the star players for nobodies? Still 2bn? Of course not.

 

[Perknose]

A thought exercise for you:

What is the Clippers franchise worth if Sterling traded all the star players for nobodies? Still 2bn? Of course not.

A REAL LIFE AND FACTUAL exercise for you. What if Sterling tried to trade all his star players for nobodies? Answer: The League office would (and has) step in and NULLIFY said trades, each and every one, because the ultimate power resides with THEM.

Catching on yet?

 

[OBLAMA2009]

lol i saw something yesterday that said, based on the clippers price, teams like the knicks and lakers are worth 5 billion.

 

[tynopik]

A REAL LIFE AND FACTUAL exercise for you. What if Sterling tried to trade all his star players for nobodies? Answer: The League office would (and has) step in and NULLIFY said trades, each and every one, because the ultimate power resides with THEM.

Catching on yet?

If you decide to turn your front lawn into a junkyard, the HOA would step in and force you to remove it.

Does that mean the HOA owns your house?

 

[Perknose]

If you decide to turn your front lawn into a junkyard, the HOA would step in and force you to remove it.

Does that mean the HOA owns your house?

An HOA is a far more limited contract, but demonstrates the same principle. Are you catching on yet?

 

[TerryMathews]

A REAL LIFE AND FACTUAL exercise for you. What if Sterling tried to trade all his star players for nobodies? Answer: The League office would (and has) step in and NULLIFY said trades, each and every one, because the ultimate power resides with THEM.

Catching on yet?

So, I take it you disagree that part of the $2bn value of the Clippers organization is due to the players currently under contract?

Really?

 

[Dari]

Truly shameful at all the people here cheering this racist geriatric on. Fact is, DTS has a bigger problem in his wife than the NBA or the public or courts. She has gone on record to say how much she hates him and she has now declared him mentally incompetent. Will he sue her too?

 

[Perknose]

So, I take it you disagree that part of the $2bn value of the Clippers organization is due to the players currently under contract?

Really?

Whoosh!

You continue to (imho) completely misunderstand the basics here. To more directly answer your question, these particular players' "value" in a sale is moot. It is the FRANCHISE RIGHTS, as guaranteed and completely overseen by the LEAGUE OFFICE, that holds all the damn value.

Ballmer has said that his 2bn is buying the potential for that FRANCHISE in this geographical MARKET. That means, by the time his projected 2bn value is realized, way down the line, there will be a completely different roster of players!!

Cliffs: It is the franchise rights, and those alone, that has any of this monetary value.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

lol i saw something yesterday that said, based on the clippers price, teams like the knicks and lakers are worth 5 billion.

Balmer could buy both the Knicks and the Lakers and still have 7 billion left D:

To put this into perspective, Mikhail Prokhorov, who is basically willing to spend whatever on his team is worth 11 billion.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/every-nba-team-owner-got-rich/

Balmer would become the richest owner in NBA with another Microsoft buddy, Paul Allen, coming in second and Prokhorov a close third.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am sure he will give some of that to all of his supporters!!

Keep licking his craggy wrinkled old nuts guys!! Your hero will take care of you!!

 

[cabri]

Cliffs: It is the franchise rights, and those alone, that has any of this monetary value.

The franchise as is, is close to worthless without the existing players that are under contract.

Chicken/Egg syndrome.