NBA bans Sterling for life

[Gina B]

Does he have a contract that allows them to do this, or did they really fine him a couple million for a conversation he had with his fling, which any sane person would expect to be a private conversation, and she recorded and made public?
It just doesn't sound like something anyone should be allowed to fine him for - a private conversation. Are there really contracts that forbid you to share private thoughts with someone you're intimate with? Or...just a good friend? Or anyone in private, for that matter, if it's not a reporter or something?

 

[Revmitchell]

There are what is called by laws he signed in order to be able to buy the team. This is not just about a private conversation. He has acted in overt racial ways that has created a long and well known reputation.

 

[preachinjesus]

The owners, as part of their mutual agreement to support the league, do agree to a contract of ownership. In that contract is a provision that if an owner does something that is so heinous and contrary to the values of the league that a vote of the owners will be taken to remove them as owners. If that vote is 3/4ths of the owners agreeing to remove the other owner, their team is taken over by the league and sold with the proceeds going to the dispossessed owner like a regular sale.

And you better believe the vote will be unanimous.


Mr Sterling is a sad, old, corrupt, and utterly craven man who needs Jesus and to be saved. His conduct throughout his life has been one of oppression, disgusting behavior, immorality, incivility, and almost every other moniker one could ascribe him. I pray he finds forgiveness in Jesus Christ, makes amends with his wife, and lives out his remaining days building up people instead of tearing them down.

Just as a side note: what will be interesting is if woman who made this recording and made it public finds herself under civil indictment for violating California wire tapping laws.

 

[Gina B]

Oh, thanks. That makes a whole lot more sense now.

 

[ccrobinson]

What does P.C. have to do with the U.S. government?

Salty said that free speech was, in effect, being trampled on. By saying "free speech", he is declaring that the first amendment is being violated. The first amendment applies to the government censuring speech, which is not what is happening here.

The consequences don't fit the circumstances. He's stupid, yes. But how do you justify taking the team away from him?

How do you justify this guy staying on as owner of a high profile organization? How do you justify not doing something when you have an entire league of players ready to boycott games? How do you justify not doing something when you have a league of owners ready to toss him out? What's the alternative? Sitting back and doing nothing like David Stern (and Adam Silver as well) did? A slap on the wrist and finger wag and an admonishment to not do that again? What would be the point of that?

And what's to stop them from taking the team away from the next owner who, for example, has an affair, gets arrested for cocaine possession, commits a felony, etc.? "What's wrong with that"? Why not ask, "Why didn't they just shoot him while they were at it?"

The NBA stands in stark contrast to what the NFL has done in regards to Jim Irsay, which is absolutely nothing. Your point about a "slippery slope" is not lost on the NBA or other owners, to wit, Mark Cuban. But, Sterling wasn't going away and the league needs him to go away. They've wanted him gone for years and he gave them a perfect opportunity to do just that.

Since you brought up the felony, what happened to Jeff Skilling, former CEO of Enron? How about Bernard Ebbers, former CEO of Worldcom? Were they allowed to keep their CEO jobs? Why would professional sports team owners be any different? I get the difference in positions, but both are high profile, pro sports team owners moreso.

Why not ask, "Why didn't they just shoot him while they were at it?"

You get more ridiculous by the moment. Talk about consequence not fitting the crime.

Right. Players were just going to abandon their teammates during a playoff run, commit break of contract, forfeit pay and, best of all, bring racketeering charges and civil lawsuits upon themselves.

In fact, the players were going to boycott playing tonight's games.

Does he have a contract that allows them to do this, or did they really fine him a couple million for a conversation he had with his fling...

Yes and no. Yes, they're doing this because of this recorded conversation, but if this were the only incident, he could probably survive it. The real problem is that he's had a long, documented history and this was the straw.

 

[Zaac]

You obviously didn't research this before you posted it. You are incorrect.

Like everyone else, Sterling speech is protected from government intrusion by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects the right to freedom of speech. There are already commentators online and on-air pointing to the key words in that last sentence are "government intrusion." They claim an individual or a corporation is exempt from a claim of violation of First Amendment rights, but that is also incorrect. It will depend on what prior restraint is codified in an NBA ownership contract, and that applies to the due process aspects of the ban as well.

Under the U.S. Constitution Sterling also has rights which keep him from being deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process. In this case Sterling is more than arguably being deprived of his property through the forced sale of the team. However, once again these due process generally only apply to the government, and not to private organizations. But there are contractually granted rights to owners of NBA teams, and further, the bylaws of the league must provide for a method by which a team owner may be forced to sell, or there is no methodology by which today's announcement could be anything but bluster.

Sterling will have his say before the league owners. Silver can posture and bloviate all he wants. The decision is in the hands of the owners, if Sterling chooses to avail himself of that process. Then again, he bought the team for $12 million in 1981 and it is now worth nearly $600 million. Nice profit if you can get it. And he can. So he might.

Sterling agreed to abide by the bylaws of the NBA when he bought the team. They deal in arbitration and that wil be the extent of any conversation on his due process.The NBA is a PRIVATE business that can enforce whatever rules it wants, as long as those rules do not break any laws. This BUSINESS has determined that Donald Sterling is bad for the company, and is forcing him out.

 

[Zaac]

The owners, as part of their mutual agreement to support the league, do agree to a contract of ownership. In that contract is a provision that if an owner does something that is so heinous and contrary to the values of the league that a vote of the owners will be taken to remove them as owners. If that vote is 3/4ths of the owners agreeing to remove the other owner, their team is taken over by the league and sold with the proceeds going to the dispossessed owner like a regular sale.

And you better believe the vote will be unanimous.


Mr Sterling is a sad, old, corrupt, and utterly craven man who needs Jesus and to be saved. His conduct throughout his life has been one of oppression, disgusting behavior, immorality, incivility, and almost every other moniker one could ascribe him. I pray he finds forgiveness in Jesus Christ, makes amends with his wife, and lives out his remaining days building up people instead of tearing them down.

Just as a side note: what will be interesting is if woman who made this recording and made it public finds herself under civil indictment for violating California wire tapping laws.

That would probably be fitting for her. Parading a round with a married man and taping their conversations. She's a winner. Next will come the leaked sex tape.

 

[righteousdude2]

Sterling: Was it Outrage or Embarrassment??

I have to ask if you think the reaction from coach to players to fans and the NBA was more out of Outrage, or Embarrassment, or a mixture of the two? :type:

 

[Zaac]

I have to ask if you think the reaction from coach to players to fans and the NBA was more out of Outrage, or Embarrassment, or a mixture of the two? :type:

I'd say both. He's been teetering on a ledge with his behavior for a while apparently. And this, no matter how it came out, was right over the edge.

I know that the league, made up of so many Blacks, was embarassed not just here, but all around the world.

And outraged because, all things considered with his past behavior, he should have learned how to keep his prejudices to himself. But when you'll cheat on your wife and publicly attend events with your mistress, you obviously don't care.

 

[InTheLight]

Sterling agreed to abide by the bylaws of the NBA when he bought the team. They deal in arbitration and that wil be the extent of any conversation on his due process.The NBA is a PRIVATE business that can enforce whatever rules it wants, as long as those rules do not break any laws. This BUSINESS has determined that Donald Sterling is bad for the company, and is forcing him out.

Precisely. I am shocked at the level of misinformation being doled out in this thread. Every time a business fires a person over something the person said, people start yelling about freedom of speech being violated and censorship. Not so.

Google Al Campanis. Google Paula Deen. Don Imus. Jimmy the Greek. etc. etc.

There is a "Best interest of the game clause" which is an open ended clause giving the commissioner broad disciplinary powers. Google NBA constitution article 24 (l).

 

[annsni]

I just listened to the tape and honestly, it sounded like a woman who was fishing for something from him (remember, she illegally recorded this and I hope that issue will be addressed) and there were deeper issues that were not addressed in the tape. I think there was a pre-conversation and other issues that did not come out in the tape. I felt like we were missing part of the story. Was he talking about her galavanting around and posting on instagram a bunch of pictures of herself with other guys - thus making him jealous? I don't know but I DO know that this was a private conversation that should have never been made public. If the man is prejudiced then it will come out in other ways but honestly, this is an amazing to-do over a private matter.

 

[InTheLight]

If the man is prejudiced then it will come out in other ways but honestly, this is an amazing to-do over a private matter.

He has a long history. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[kyredneck]

...What does P.C. have to do with the U.S. government?....

Prelude. Sitting the stage to make hate speech legislation acceptable to the sheep. Heck, several of the girls here already are all for laws to shield The Chosen from any criticism.

 

[Salty]

Too bad he wasnt involved in something minor - for example - say dog fighting......

 

[righteousdude2]

Thanks Zaac....

I'd say both. He's been teetering on a ledge with his behavior for a while apparently. And this, no matter how it came out, was right over the edge.

I know that the league, made up of so many Blacks, was embarassed not just here, but all around the world.

And outraged because, all things considered with his past behavior, he should have learned how to keep his prejudices to himself. But when you'll cheat on your wife and publicly attend events with your mistress, you obviously don't care.

My feeling exactly.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

He has a long history. This incident was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Yup. Too bad being an alleged racist is worse than being a known slumlord.

Anyways, best wishes for the ex-Boston Celtic, Doc Rivers. I hope his team makes some big noise in the playoffs.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Too bad he wasnt involved in something minor - for example - say dog fighting......

LOL…or seen driving away from a double murder.


Did you know they never recovered Ray Lewis' white suit from that night ?


Heh, different thread ?

 

[preachinjesus]

We had an interesting discussion in our director level staff meeting this afternoon. It happened to occur just after the announcement of the verdict. Our staff is diverse in both ethnic and age categories. We ended up talking about it for a bit.

Just as an observation, the folks who understood completely were our staffers with minority ethnicity but almost all of our staff under 40, regardless of ethnicity, communicated they accepted this as a reasonable step. The age group who had the hardest time with the decision were the older, caucasian staff members. Our director level staff is pretty good size and I think a fine sample of our community too. Just intriguing how this was received at different levels.

 

[righteousdude2]

Sterling: Outrage or Embarrassment?

I find it very interesting that after years and years, and tons of public documentation about the subtle racist views of this man, that suddenly, every player, the NBA, the POTUS, the fans, and the country along with the media fanning the flames, jumped on the band wagon to take action against this man!

Could it be as much out of embarrassment as it is an outrage that most folks are reacting to this story? Could it be that after years of smoozing and partying and socializing with Sterling, those who rubbed shoulders with the man are now embarrassed and in need of jumping from a sinking ship?

I think a lot of what people are reacting to is from utter shame and embarrassment for hanging with the guy, and the need to now make their outrage known!

So what do you think ... outrage, embarrassment or maybe a little of both with some over reaction thrown in order to balance the scales? :type:

 

[righteousdude2]

Would Anything but Lifetime Ban ... been fair?

Do you think that the NBA had no options when it came to Sterling?

I mean, if they would have merely fined him, sent him to a course on tolerance, and made him sit out a season for his actions ... do you think that the minorities would have been anything other than riled to the point of civil unrest?

If it were a minority owner who got caught tossing his racist views into the public arena, would the findings and the actions have been similar? Or, in other words, has America FINALLY come to the place where they are actually fair enough not to let civil unrest determine their decisions and actions? :1_grouphug:

Just wondering and would appreciate your views on the decision .... :type: