View Full Version : What if Sterling's wife..
fiddy
05-10-2014, 12:10 PM
keep ownership of the Clippers and players demand out in the summer?
keep ownership of the Clippers and players demand out in the summer?
She won't keep ownership..
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 01:33 PM
She won't keep ownership..
Why not? What possible grounds would the NBA have to remove her?
mehyaM24
05-10-2014, 01:38 PM
would that be considered a conflict of interest?
Why not? What possible grounds would the NBA have to remove her?
id like to know as well. if she kept ownership,obviously donald would still have all the pull....just behind the scenes
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 01:43 PM
keep ownership of the Clippers and players demand out in the summer?
"demand out" like how? They're under contract.
Rubio2Gasol
05-10-2014, 01:54 PM
Paul to Houston, Blake to LA.
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 01:56 PM
Paul to Houston, Blake to LA.
DJ to Miami. Crawford to the Grizz.
But its not happening.
imdaman99
05-10-2014, 02:29 PM
What if Sterling's wife divorces and gets 50%?
JimmyMcAdocious
05-10-2014, 02:31 PM
What if she releases a sex tape? How many here would watch it?
If it's with Donald Sterling?
Two black guys?
Lesbo with Sterling's ugly ass gf?
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 02:33 PM
What if Donald Sterling actually IS his own wife??
knickscity
05-10-2014, 03:10 PM
the board of governors, which are the other 29 owners are not gonna appoint Shelly as a controlling owner....no chance they vote her in, which they'd have to.
And she should just pipe down before the NBA exposes everything those two have been doing most notably both being sued in LA for racist comments to which they settled with.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 03:34 PM
the board of governors, which are the other 29 owners are not gonna appoint Shelly as a controlling owner....no chance they vote her in, which they'd have to.
And she should just pipe down before the NBA exposes everything those two have been doing most notably both being sued in LA for racist comments to which they settled with.
They've never been convicted of any wrongdoing bud.
SwishSquared
05-10-2014, 03:43 PM
League claims that there is only one principal owner of the team, and DTS fills that role on this team. Their argument is if DTS is forced out and must sell (by vote), then his wife cannot do anything to keep the team in the family.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 03:54 PM
Why not? What possible grounds would the NBA have to remove her?
The having her tied so closely to Sterling is bad for business(which it is if her own racist actions get exposed).
Why not? What possible grounds would the NBA have to remove her?
they don't have to remove her because she's not recognized by the NBA as an owner.. she's the wife of the owner and while that may be enough to give her 50% ownership in a California divorce court it means nothing to the NBA...
The Owners would have to approve her to be considered an owner of an NBA team and that's certainly not happening..
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:07 PM
they don't have to remove her because she's not recognized by the NBA as an owner.. she's the wife of the owner and while that may be enough to give her 50% ownership in a California divorce court it means nothing to the NBA...
The Owners would have to approve her to be considered an owner of an NBA team and that's certainly not happening..
I think you'd be surprised. Don't count on any owners setting the precedent that they can be forced out as a result of somebody associated with them making unpopular comments.
Yao Ming's Foot
05-10-2014, 04:09 PM
I think you'd be surprised. Don't count on any owners setting the precedent that they can be forced out as a result of somebody associated with them making unpopular comments.
You can't force someone out who was never approved to begin with :facepalm
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:11 PM
You can't force someone out who was never approved to begin with :facepalm
The NBA has no say in whether she owns half the team or not.
Why not? What possible grounds would the NBA have to remove her?
She's never been approved as an owner. She didn't buy in, she just took half of her husband's purchase as hers because they decided to be married but not married. I can't buy into a franchise, violate it's rules, get kicked out but declare that my wife's piece is separate so she can keep it anyway. That's what essentially she is saying. That somehow legally half the team became a separate entity that she owned because she didn't feel like divorcing her cheating husband.
The NBA has no say in whether she owns half the team or not.
The NBA is a franchise that you need to be approved to own. This includes sales. Unless at some point the NBA approved the sale or transfer to her then she is not an owner. Half ownership of property in marriage doesn't supercede the law. It just means in the event of a divorce she gets half.
If I owe someone money I can't tell them my house is off limits for collections because you can't have my wife's half.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:34 PM
She's never been approved as an owner. She didn't buy in, she just took half of her husband's purchase as hers because they decided to be married but not married. I can't buy into a franchise, violate it's rules, get kicked out but declare that my wife's piece is separate so she can keep it anyway. That's what essentially she is saying. That somehow legally half the team became a separate entity that she owned because she didn't feel like divorcing her cheating husband.
Unfortunately, California state law isn't required to respect the NBA's claims of who owns or doesn't own the team. Under California state law, she owns half of it.
The NBA doesn't have to allow her to be on any board of governors or anything, but whether or not she owns 50% of the team is simply not up to them.
dude77
05-10-2014, 04:35 PM
interesting to see if she will really fight to keep it .. the nba is going to try to oust her on grounds that her association is also bad for business and like others have said .. that the owners didn't approve her .. but the question is which supersedes which .. because the law of the land says she is part owner .. so can they really force her out .. another question is .. can the law of the land force a business to keep an owner/associate even if the owner/associate is hurting the business financially ? .. that doesn't sound right either .. of course it would have to be shown that the nba is actually being hurt financially ..
I bet you if the media didn't make a big deal out of this, they would just let her keep her stake and be done with it .. the fans don't give a shit about any of this .. they're not gonna stop going to or watching games
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:37 PM
The NBA is a franchise that you need to be approved to own. This includes sales. Unless at some point the NBA approved the sale or transfer to her then she is not an owner. Half ownership of property in marriage doesn't supercede the law. It just means in the event of a divorce she gets half.
If I owe someone money I can't tell them my house is off limits for collections because you can't have my wife's half.
Now you're talking matters of who is or isn't a title holder. It all depends who's name is on the deed.
Anyways, it's not an appropriate comparison. Sterling doesn't owe the NBA anything. They're not collecting a debt.
Unfortunately, California state law isn't required to respect the NBA's claims of who owns or doesn't own the team. Under California state law, she owns half of it.
The NBA doesn't have to allow her to be on any board of governors or anything, but whether or not she owns 50% of the team is simply not up to them.
Yes it is. The way you are looking at this is wrong. They are not required to allow her to remain an owner. They are not allowed to take her half, this is true. Any sale she is definitely entitled to her half, and her say in the sale. But she is not entitled to remain owner.
You keep saying the NBA isn't allowed to take her half away, they aren't trying to. they are taking away the right to be a franchisee. That is allowed. She'll get her money.
Again, property rights don't supercede contracts made with third parties. You don't get to claim joint but seperate property in order to circumvent an agreement with a third party.
I like how you keep moving to a new way Sterlings will win after the first few times you said "the owners will never vote to get rid of him, blah blah..."
Now you're talking matters of who is or isn't a title holder. It all depends who's name is on the deed.
Anyways, it's not an appropriate comparison. Sterling doesn't owe the NBA anything. They're not collecting a debt.
It's exactly the same. The terms of ownership were violated by the person who signed the contract. You can't have your wife sign the contract, violate the terms, and then say "well i didn't so my half is ok".
It doesn't work how you want it too, sorry. The way you want it to would essentially make contracts non binding because you'd have two people involved, one who signed it and one who didn't.
BTW, why does she think she can keep it? Let's say she wins 100%. With no sponsors, no one willing to go, players not willing to go, you can't function. I think she thinks somehow she is some victim people will flock too. **** no.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:45 PM
Yes it is. The way you are looking at this is wrong. They are not required to allow her to remain an owner. They are not allowed to take her half, this is true. Any sale she is definitely entitled to her half, and her say in the sale. But she is not entitled to remain owner.
The problem is she already is a partial owner. They have no ground for removal. They're fully within their right to remove her if she has violated the terms, but she didn't. You can't remove 1 owner for being associated with another removed owner. If the NBA would have removed Jay-Z, they wouldn't then be able to remove Prokhorov for simply being associated with Jay-Z.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:50 PM
It's exactly the same. The terms of ownership were violated by the person who signed the contract. You can't have your wife sign the contract, violate the terms, and then say "well i didn't so my half is ok".
It doesn't work how you want it too, sorry. The way you want it to would essentially make contracts non binding because you'd have two people involved, one who signed it and one who didn't.
What you're not understanding is that there are MULTIPLE owners. Forget that the other owner is his wife. It doesn't matter. She just another stake holder.
When a team has MULTIPLE stake holders, when 1 of them violates terms, you don't then remove ALL of the stake holders. If for some reason Pat Riley was forced out of his small percentage of ownership of the Heat, the other owner (Micky Arison) wouldn't then have to go too. This is just common sense.
I understand how the NBA can "ban" Sterling from being involved in anything. But I still don't understand how they can actually force him to sell the team. How does that work? Even if he agrees he will sell the team, can't he just turn down any offer that comes his way basically not deeming any of them worth selling for? And if that's not the case and he's actually forced to sell, although this would never happen, hypothetically lets say the best offer is something ridiculous like $1 million. Would he actually have to sell for that much? Obviously $1 million wouldn't happen, but if he's actually forced to sell within a certain time period, that's going to automatically start the bidding war at probably a significantly lower price then it would've otherwise.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:54 PM
BTW, why does she think she can keep it? Let's say she wins 100%. With no sponsors, no one willing to go, players not willing to go, you can't function. I think she thinks somehow she is some victim people will flock too. **** no.
You need to grow up. Nobody actually cares about Sterling's comments. Nobody is going to stop going to the games and player's aren't going to refuse to make millions and live in LA. You you see NFL players refusing to play with Riley Cooper? No. Business is business.
IncarceratedBob
05-10-2014, 04:55 PM
The Clippers are owned by a trust in which Donald and Rochelle Sterling are co-owners. Silver cannot touch Rochelle, he cannot force her to sell the Clippers. There is no legal precedent for such an action (to force sale without cause). If Silver chooses to pursue this then expect a legal battle lasting several years. He can exile Donald, but Rochelle is here to stay.
Rochelle Sterling is a billionaire, she doesn't care about corporate sponsors or players. If CP3 wants to leave she will show him the way out. If CarMax doesn't want a sign with their logo on it in Staples then she will personally bring it down.
What you're not understanding is that there are MULTIPLE owners. Forget that the other owner is his wife. It doesn't matter. She just another stake holder.
When a team has MULTIPLE stake holders, when 1 of them violates terms, you don't then remove ALL of the stake holders. If for some reason Pat Riley was forced out of his small percentage of ownership of the Heat, the other owner (Micky Arison) wouldn't then have to go too. This is just common sense.
If the NBA actually has clauses that gives them the right to force an owner to sell, I'm sure they have clauses that deal with conflict of interests like this. In this case, Shelley Sterling is not just any other stakeholder, and her relationship with Donald is obviously much closer then Pat Riley's relationship with Mickey Arison.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 04:56 PM
I understand how the NBA can "ban" Sterling from being involved in anything. But I still don't understand how they can actually force him to sell the team. How does that work? Even if he agrees he will sell the team, can't he just turn down any offer that comes his way basically not deeming any of them worth selling for? And if that's not the case and he's actually forced to sell, although this would never happen, hypothetically lets say the best offer is something ridiculous like $1 million. Would he actually have to sell for that much? Obviously $1 million wouldn't happen, but if he's actually forced to sell within a certain time period, that's going to automatically start the bidding war at probably a significantly lower price then it would've otherwise.
Too many people are either really naive or willfully ignorant. The NBA's strong stance was all about averting negative PR.
You need to grow up. Nobody actually cares about Sterling's comments. Nobody is going to stop going to the games and player's aren't going to refuse to make millions and live in LA. You you see NFL players refusing to play with Riley Cooper? No. Business is business.
Huh? Clippers actually lost sponsors. Clearly they care. Riley Cooper's situation is completely different.
Too many people are either really naive or willfully ignorant. The NBA's strong stance was all about averting negative PR.
What's your point here? Obviously that was the case. I don't see anything wrong with it either.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:00 PM
If the NBA actually has clauses that gives them the right to force an owner to sell, I'm sure they have clauses that deal with conflict of interests like this. In this case, Shelley Sterling is not just any other stakeholder, and her relationship with Donald is obviously much closer then Pat Riley's relationship with Mickey Arison.
That's where you're wrong. She IS just any stake holder.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:03 PM
I understand how the NBA can "ban" Sterling from being involved in anything. But I still don't understand how they can actually force him to sell the team. How does that work? Even if he agrees he will sell the team, can't he just turn down any offer that comes his way basically not deeming any of them worth selling for? And if that's not the case and he's actually forced to sell, although this would never happen, hypothetically lets say the best offer is something ridiculous like $1 million. Would he actually have to sell for that much? Obviously $1 million wouldn't happen, but if he's actually forced to sell within a certain time period, that's going to automatically start the bidding war at probably a significantly lower price then it would've otherwise.
The NBA will sell the team for market value.
brantonli
05-10-2014, 05:03 PM
Let's see what an actual attorney and professor of law has to say:
California law works against Shelly Sterling keeping the Clippers
California is a community property state, which means that spouses in California jointly own assets acquired during their marriage. Shelly Sterling's ownership of the Clippers is thus inextricably intertwined with Donald Sterling's ownership under California law. In fact, it's believed the NBA could not take Donald Sterling's equity in the Clippers without also taking Shelly Sterling's equity, as the Sterling's joint ownership is legally one entity. There has been much speculation that California law would help Shelly Sterling keep the team, but attorneys familiar with the NBA believe the opposite is true: the unity in spousal assets achieved by California law means that Shelly Sterling must leave the NBA if the same fate befalls her husband.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140509/donald-sterling-legal-analysis-nba-clippers/#ixzz31LgKBcch
So according to McCann, it's not that Sterling's ownership will be saved by Rochelle's presence, but that Rochelle's stake will be in danger because of Sterling.
Also, the article clearly separates what is a non-controlling owner and the actual control of the Clippers. Jay-z may have been a part owner of the Nets, but he wasn't on the Board of Governors.
This distinction reflects the different layers of NBA ownership. Most NBA owners are not in charge of their teams. They have been approved by the NBA to own some percentage of a franchise, but they do not represent their franchise on the NBA's Board of Governors and are not considered the official voice of their franchises. They are regarded as "non-controlling" owners. There are many perks to being a non-controlling owner, including attendance privileges, inside access to team operations and the ability to tell the world that you own an NBA team. But actual control over the team is not one of those benefits. Shelly Sterling is a non-controlling owner of the Clippers.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140509/donald-sterling-legal-analysis-nba-clippers/#ixzz31Lgulhry
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:04 PM
What's your point here? Obviously that was the case. I don't see anything wrong with it either.
The point is that the NBA doesn't actually care if Sterling's wife remains 50% owner of the team.
People act like the NBA desperately wants her gone. They don't actually care. They won't ever really care if Sterling remains an owner as long as to the public it looks like they tried to get rid of him.
brantonli
05-10-2014, 05:06 PM
and perhaps the final blow against Sterling, laid out in the SI article
The league, sources say, believes it is on strong legal grounds. Sterling's own signature will ultimately come back to haunt him. He signed a series of documents that, in so many words, express that he agreed to whatever disciplinary steps are taken by the commissioner and his fellow owners. While a court could review the NBA's interpretation of the constitution, bylaws and other agreements, a court would accord Silver broad deference to interpret the language of these documents. As to an antitrust claim, sources say it would require a quixotic interpretation of the antitrust law for Sterling to prevail. He would have to show that the NBA and its owners have conspired against him in an anticompetitive way, thus harming the Clippers' value and his return on its sale.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140509/donald-sterling-legal-analysis-nba-clippers/#ixzz31LhaHi5z
The point is that the NBA doesn't actually care if Sterling's wife remains 50% owner of the team.
People act like the NBA desperately wants her gone. They don't actually care. They won't ever really care if Sterling remains an owner as long as to the public it looks like they tried to get rid of him.
Really? In the short run, anything related to the Sterlings owning the Clips will be a black mark on that franchise, especially when Shelly Sterling seems to have made some racist remarks of her own. Do you think the players association were kidding around when they said they would boycott the games? In the long run, it may not matter, but as long as the players and media care about a Sterling remaining with the Clips, then hell yes the NBA will care.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:07 PM
Huh? Clippers actually lost sponsors. Clearly they care. Riley Cooper's situation is completely different.
They'll be back. People have short attention spans. This will blow over and nobody will care about this a year from now.
People on ISH drastically overestimate how much people care about racism.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:10 PM
They'll be back. People have short attention spans. This will blow over and nobody will care about this a year from now.
People on ISH drastically overestimate how much people care about racism.
More like you're completely dismissive to much people care about racism. They've lost sponsors, they've got the whole league ready to boycott and I've read even the mayor of LA has gotten involved.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:12 PM
and perhaps the final blow against Sterling, laid out in the SI article
Really? In the short run, anything related to the Sterlings owning the Clips will be a black mark on that franchise, especially when Shelly Sterling seems to have made some racist remarks of her own. Do you think the players association were kidding around when they said they would boycott the games? In the long run, it may not matter, but as long as the players and media care about a Sterling remaining with the Clips, then hell yes the NBA will care.
Nothing more than posturing.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:17 PM
More like you're completely dismissive to much people care about racism. They've lost sponsors, they've got the whole league ready to boycott and I've read even the mayor of LA has gotten involved.
Lol. The Knicks owner had to pay millions for wrongfully firing a woman that Isiah Thomas sexually harassed. The NBA doesn't give a shit. The only thing they care about is bad publicity.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:21 PM
Lol. The Knicks owner had to pay millions for wrongfully firing a woman that Isiah Thomas sexually harassed. The NBA doesn't give a shit. The only thing they care about is bad publicity.
Yes let's compare apples and oranges. Makes a lot of sense.
That's where you're wrong. She IS just any stake holder.
She's a stakeholder that's a huge conflict of interest with what the NBA was trying to do in getting rid of Donald Sterling. I.E. not like any other stake holder.
The point is that the NBA doesn't actually care if Sterling's wife remains 50% owner of the team.
People act like the NBA desperately wants her gone. They don't actually care. They won't ever really care if Sterling remains an owner as long as to the public it looks like they tried to get rid of him.
I think its clear from the punishments the NBA gave out to Donald Sterling that they clearly want to get rid of any association with this whole fiasco and the Sterling family is clearly part of that. They might not actually care for any other reason then the negative PR, but that still means they care. They might not actually be able to get rid of her, but I would think they are going to do everything they possibly can to do that, just like what they are doing with Donald Sterling.
They'll be back. People have short attention spans. This will blow over and nobody will care about this a year from now.
People on ISH drastically overestimate how much people care about racism.
Are they back yet? I actually don't know, but I haven't heard that they are so I'm assuming they're not. Cause if its just cause of that, I would think they would be back since the public reacted so positively to the NBA's decision.
They probably do overestimate it. But its not overestimated how much they care about racism when its actually affecting their bottom line.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:25 PM
Yes let's compare apples and oranges. Makes a lot of sense.
Lol. Get the fcuk outta here. You think if CNN and TMZ were plastered with...
"KNICKS OWNER FIRES SEXUAL HARASSMENT VICTIM FOR SPEAKING UP"
You don't think the NBA would have did the same thing?
Get real. That's a case with an actual victim. You don't think feminist groups would boycott the shit out of the Knicks?
Grow up.
The NBA will sell the team for market value.
But technically speaking, they might not get an offer for market value, especially when all the potential buyers know that the NBA is trying to get this out of Sterling's ownership as quickly as possible.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:28 PM
I think its clear from the punishments the NBA gave out to Donald Sterling that they clearly want to get rid of any association with this whole fiasco and the Sterling family is clearly part of that.
Yet Shelly Sterling was sitting in the owner's box during last night's game.
Get fcuking real dude. They didn't even bother to ban her from the games yet you think they're going to force her to sell her stake?
Yet Shelly Sterling was sitting in the owner's box during last night's game.
Get fcuking real dude. They didn't even bother to ban her from the games yet you think they're going to force her to sell her stake?
If players/coaches/media start speaking up about it, which is already gaining momentum, then sure. They might not do it in the aggressive fashion they're doing with Donald Sterling, but I'm sure they'll try.
Get fcuking real dude. Did you think they were going punish Donald Sterling even close to the way they have?
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:34 PM
Lol. Get the fcuk outta here. You think if CNN and TMZ were plastered with...
"KNICKS OWNER FIRES SEXUAL HARASSMENT VICTIM FOR SPEAKING UP"
You don't think the NBA would have did the same thing?
Get real. That's a case with an actual victim. You don't think feminist groups would boycott the shit out of the Knicks?
Grow up.
Except it wasn't the Knicks owner that did anything wrong it was a team executive. This would be more of a team issue not an NBA issue.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:37 PM
But technically speaking, they might not get an offer for market value, especially when all the potential buyers know that the NBA is trying to get this out of Sterling's ownership as quickly as possible.
They'll get offers above market value. There will be many potential buyers stepping up to purchase the Clippers so it makes no sense for any of them to low ball the NBA. The NBA also decides who they'll sell to, so they may not necessarily take the highest bid. In the case of the Sterlings it would actually hurt the value of the team if they go into a long drawn out legal battle so it's kind of anti productive unless they believe they have a good chance to win.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:44 PM
They'll get offers above market value. There will be many potential buyers stepping up to purchase the Clippers so it makes no sense for any of them to low ball the NBA. The NBA also decides who they'll sell to, so they may not necessarily take the highest bid. In the case of the Sterlings it would actually hurt the value of the team if they go into a long drawn out legal battle so it's kind of anti productive unless they believe they have a good chance to win.
Don't confuse market value with appraised value.
KyrieTheFuture
05-10-2014, 05:45 PM
It's pretty clear numbersix is the only one in this thread with any idea of what he's talking about.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 05:46 PM
Except it wasn't the Knicks owner that did anything wrong it was a team executive. This would be more of a team issue not an NBA issue.
So, if instead of Sterling making racial comments, if it was an exec...
If Sterling then fired anyone who complained about the racist exec, you'd say Sterling didn't do anything wrong? Sure.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 05:57 PM
So, if instead of Sterling making racial comments, if it was an exec...
If Sterling then fired anyone who complained about the racist exec, you'd say Sterling didn't do anything wrong? Sure.
Don't come at me with pointless hypotheticals. When James Dolan does what Sterling did and doesn't receive the same type of punishment from the NBA then you might have a point. I see you keep playing the blame the media game or blame TMZ. Cry me a river. Sterling said it, he has no one to blame but himself.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:00 PM
Don't come at me with pointless hypotheticals. When James Dolan does what Sterling did and doesn't receive the same type of punishment from the NBA then you might have a point. I see you keep playing the blame the media game or blame TMZ. Cry me a river. Sterling said it, he has no one to blame but himself.
I don't need hypotheticals. STERLING himself did it without getting punished.
The guy was a racist slumlord and has been sued for racial discrimination multiple times. NO PUNISHMENT.
It wasn't until the 1 time that it was a big media story that anyone cared, including the NBA.
Lol. The Knicks owner had to pay millions for wrongfully firing a woman that Isiah Thomas sexually harassed. The NBA doesn't give a shit. The only thing they care about is bad publicity.
That's absolutely the stupidest example you've given yet. The head of a company which authorizes a payment to settle a lawsuit vs. a person making comments himself that go against his franchise agreement. That's the same how?
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:10 PM
That's absolutely the stupidest example you've given yet. The head of a company which authorizes a payment to settle a lawsuit vs. a person making comments himself that go against his franchise agreement. That's the same how?
He didn't settle the suit. He lost. The court ruled that he fired her out of spite.
dude77
05-10-2014, 06:11 PM
it is quite interesting that shelly sterling is still present at the games .. kinda odd for a league that's trying to distance itself from the evil racist sterling family ain't it ? :oldlol: the nba is full of shit .. or maybe it's because they know they don't have shit on her and thus can't touch her ?
I don't need hypotheticals. STERLING himself did it without getting punished.
The guy was a racist slumlord and has been sued for racial discrimination multiple times. NO PUNISHMENT.
It wasn't until the 1 time that it was a big media story that anyone cared, including the NBA.
Exactly. Which is why the NBA is using existing bylaws to oust him. Because he is no longer a viable partner. Because he's such a ****ing moron. Which is why you're totally wrong about why Sterling's wife. (that and your total lack of knowledge on most things).
This isn't a court case. This is a franchisee removing the ability of a person to own a franchise because that person no longer is a viable business partner due to them violating existing rules. Sterling is not losing the team. his wife is not having an asset taken away from them. They are losing the ability to own an nba franchise and thus have to sell (and accept the proceeds).
Sterling's wife to not be ousted either needs the NBA to relent on pushing her out (no), argue that her half of the team is a legally separate asset and she is an acceptable owner (the nba decides who is acceptable and her half is not a separate asset so no) or that the NBA is being unfair and conspiring against her (all the owners, also no). The fact she doesn't want a divorce for tax purposes doesn't mean every asset she owns with her husband is now two separate assets with two different sets of rules.
She's done. Not accepting it and having the ability to delay it in an obnoxious fashion doesn't mean you are not done.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 06:12 PM
I don't need hypotheticals. STERLING himself did it without getting punished.
The guy was a racist slumlord and has been used for racial discrimination multiple times. NO PUNISHMENT.
It wasn't until the 1 time that it was a big media story that anyone cared, including the NBA.
The NBA has been trying to get rid of Sterling since the 80's. However his latest incident provides a stronger case for the NBA to get rid of him. You have fans, sponsors and players ready to boycott the team. Sterling's presence hurts the Clippers and the NBA. And who gives a shit if his antics weren't big news before, they are now and the NBA has acted accordingly.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:12 PM
it is quite interesting that shelly sterling is still present at the games .. kinda odd for a league that's trying to distance itself from the evil racist sterling family ain't it ? :oldlol: the nba is full of shit
She was sitting in the owners box last night.
It's pretty funny that the sheep believe that the NBA is vehemently against her.
She was sitting in the owners box last night.
It's pretty funny that the sheep believe that the NBA is vehemently against her.
They're not vehemently against her. At least not yet. You're right. Once there becomes more of a public outcry against her, which has been increasing daily, they will be. And I'm sure the NBA knows that that's inevitable.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:20 PM
Exactly. Which is why the NBA is using existing bylaws to oust him. Because he is no longer a viable partner. Because he's such a ****ing moron. Which is why you're totally wrong about why Sterling's wife. (that and your total lack of knowledge on most things).
This isn't a court case. This is a franchisee removing the ability of a person to own a franchise because that person no longer is a viable business partner due to them violating existing rules. Sterling is not losing the team. his wife is not having an asset taken away from them. They are losing the ability to own an nba franchise and thus have to sell (and accept the proceeds).
Sterling's wife to not be ousted either needs the NBA to relent on pushing her out (no), argue that her half of the team is a legally separate asset and she is an acceptable owner (the nba decides who is acceptable and her half is not a separate asset so no) or that the NBA is being unfair and conspiring against her (all the owners, also no). The fact she doesn't want a divorce for tax purposes doesn't mean every asset she owns with her husband is now two separate assets with two different sets of rules.
She's done. Not accepting it and having the ability to delay it in an obnoxious fashion doesn't mean you are not done.
:facepalm
You seriously need to forget about the NBA "bylaws". They don't matter. They've never been put to the test, so don't act like you know they're ironclad.
There are federal laws and California state laws at play. If any NBA bylaw is in contradiction with those laws, they are void.
It doesn't matter if Sterling agreed to them. You can't agree to something that contradicts the law. For example, you can't agree to be a slave. Slavery is illegal. Just because Sterling agreed to the NBA rules doesn't mean they matter.
If the NBA laws are in violation of existing federal or state laws, they simply don't matter.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:22 PM
They're not vehemently against her. At least not yet. You're right. Once there becomes more of a public outcry against her, which has been increasing daily, they will be. And I'm sure the NBA knows that that's inevitable.
I would make the case that the NBA is allowing her to attend games and letting the public get used to her being there because they know that they don't have any grounds to get rid of her.
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 06:22 PM
the board of governors, which are the other 29 owners are not gonna appoint Shelly as a controlling owner....no chance they vote her in, which they'd have to.
And she should just pipe down before the NBA exposes everything those two have been doing most notably both being sued in LA for racist comments to which they settled with.
How do you get sued for that???
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 06:25 PM
I would make the case that the NBA is allowing her to attend games and letting the public get used to her being there because they know that they don't have any grounds to get rid of her.
That's dumbest reasoning that I've heard for why she's around.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:27 PM
That's dumbest reasoning that I've heard for why she's around.
Time will tell. :cheers:
I don't really understand the "Does the NBA really care about racism?" arguments. Obviously, they probably don't really care about it unless its affects their bottom line, which the negative PR, sponsors pulling out, lower employee morale, etc. can result in. But I don't really see the problem with that. Because if it didn't affect those things, then Donald Sterling's racism is irrelevant. He's just another racist nutjob in the world. They wouldn't need to do anything. So I don't really understand why people feel the need to bash the NBA for supposedly having misleading intentions.
Mrs. Sterling would have to be voted in and there's zero chance of that happening. The league may not be against her, but her association with Donald is enough to keep her from becoming majority owner.
I would make the case that the NBA is allowing her to attend games and letting the public get used to her being there because they know that they don't have any grounds to get rid of her.
I don't know. I'm not sure the NBA is really thinking anything of that. If the NBA really wanted the public to get used to her, they'd tell her to sit in the front row. I think maybe they haven't done anything about it yet because Doc Rivers initially supported her still coming to the games.
Plus, I'm not sure they can officially ban her from coming to games like they did to Donald Sterling for something she didn't even do. That's a bit extreme. I think the ownership situation is a different story though because of the conflict of interest.
:facepalm
You seriously need to forget about the NBA "bylaws". They don't matter. They've never been put to the test, so don't act like you know they're ironclad.
There are federal laws and California state laws at play. If any NBA bylaw is in contradiction with those laws, they are void.
It doesn't matter if Sterling agreed to them. You can't agree to something that contradicts the law. For example, you can't agree to be a slave. Slavery is illegal. Just because Sterling agreed to the NBA rules doesn't mean they matter.
If the NBA laws are in violation of existing federal or state laws, they simply don't matter.
Which state laws are in play here?
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:42 PM
Which state laws are in play here?
The California state law that says half the team belongs to Shelley Sterling.
brantonli
05-10-2014, 06:44 PM
:facepalm
You seriously need to forget about the NBA "bylaws". They don't matter. They've never been put to the test, so don't act like you know they're ironclad.
There are federal laws and California state laws at play. If any NBA bylaw is in contradiction with those laws, they are void.
It doesn't matter if Sterling agreed to them. You can't agree to something that contradicts the law. For example, you can't agree to be a slave. Slavery is illegal. Just because Sterling agreed to the NBA rules doesn't mean they matter.
If the NBA laws are in violation of existing federal or state laws, they simply don't matter.
:biggums: did you read my previous post at all? Or is the opinion of a qualified lawyer writing on SI somehow meaningless, and it's your opinion on property law that counts?
The California state law that says half the team belongs to Shelley Sterling.
And that means what exactly? Franchise companies and leagues are forbidden from terminating ownership?
Jameerthefear
05-10-2014, 06:51 PM
NBA believes it has legal grounds to also oust her:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10911472/nba-believes-legal-grounds-oust-shelly-sterling-ownership-according-sources
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 06:52 PM
I don't know. I'm not sure the NBA is really thinking anything of that. If the NBA really wanted the public to get used to her, they'd tell her to sit in the front row. I think maybe they haven't done anything about it yet because Doc Rivers initially supported her still coming to the games.
Plus, I'm not sure they can officially ban her from coming to games like they did to Donald Sterling for something she didn't even do. That's a bit extreme. I think the ownership situation is a different story though because of the conflict of interest.
The NBA wants nothing to do with Shelly Sterling. In fact they've told her not to come to any games. Add to the fact that there's already been opposition to her becoming owner. This is why saying that having her at the games is getting the public used to her becoming owner is beyond idiotic.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:54 PM
And that means what exactly? Franchise companies and leagues are forbidden from terminating ownership?
It's not as clear cut as some of you would like to pretend it is. The NBA needs to tread very lightly. ANYTHING that the NBA does that would negatively affect the value of the team would be in violation of federal antitrust law. For example, if they gave the Sterling's some sort of deadline by which they had to sell.
This is not as easy as "the NBA said he has to go, so it's a done deal".
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:58 PM
:biggums: did you read my previous post at all? Or is the opinion of a qualified lawyer writing on SI somehow meaningless, and it's your opinion on property law that counts?
He's ONE legal opinion. He not the only one. You think there aren't any lawyers with differing opinions? What made you decide that this one mans opinion is the only one that matters?
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 06:59 PM
The NBA wants nothing to do with Shelly Sterling. In fact they've told her not to come to any games. Add to the fact that there's already been opposition to her becoming owner. This is why saying that having her at the games is getting the public used to her becoming owner is beyond idiotic.
Call me crazy if I take the NBA's public declarations with a grain of salt.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 07:01 PM
Call me crazy if I take the NBA's public declarations with a grain of salt.
Yes you're the all knowing one who's legal expert and apparently a mind reader as well :rolleyes:
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 07:02 PM
Yes you're the all knowing one who's legal expert and apparently a mind reader as well :rolleyes:
I'm not claiming it is definitely untrue. I'm just realistic enough to understand that it possibly isn't.
It's not as clear cut as some of you would like to pretend it is. The NBA needs to tread very lightly. ANYTHING that the NBA does that would negatively affect the value of the team would be in violation of federal antitrust law. For example, if they gave the Sterling's some sort of deadline by which they had to sell.
This is not as easy as "the NBA said he has to go, so it's a done deal".
Which trust laws? Post them. The argument could be made that Sterling retaining ownership will negatively affect the entire league. And it will if this causes a lockout.
I never stated it was easy or hard. Im not going to sit here and pretend like I've studied NBA law or Government law. But like I said, if the NBA cant remove them it will have to be done via player lockout or boycott. Which is what the NBA is hoping to avoid.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 07:05 PM
I'm not claiming it is definitely untrue. I'm just realistic enough to understand that it possibly isn't.
What part of wanting nothing to do with her do you not get? The Sterling name is toxic and her closeness to Donald and her past actions don't help. The other 29 owners will never vote her in as an owner. If the NBA was seriously considering it they wouldn't be doing as much as they can to distance themselves from her.
It's not as clear cut as some of you would like to pretend it is. The NBA needs to tread very lightly. ANYTHING that the NBA does that would negatively affect the value of the team would be in violation of federal antitrust law. For example, if they gave the Sterling's some sort of deadline by which they had to sell.
This is not as easy as "the NBA said he has to go, so it's a done deal".
The team's valuation was $850 - $900. They'll easily get more than that. One of the reason the valuation was low was the dipshit in charge. So i don't see that. Brooklyn is estimated at $1.5 billion (similar, secondary team in large market). Lakers if they went on sale might fetch 3 or 4 billion. Clippers easily will get over a billion, way above valuation.
The antitrust thing doesn't work either, to prove that he'd have to prove a continuing effort by the NBA owners working in concert to oust him. He's been there 30 years and it took a huge mess to oust him. There is no pattern.
You're reaching.
Which trust laws? Post them. The argument could be made that Sterling retaining ownership will negatively affect the entire league. And it will if this causes a lockout.
I never stated it was easy or hard. Im not going to sit here and pretend like I've studied NBA law or Government law. But like I said, if the NBA cant remove them it will have to be done via player lockout or boycott. Which is what the NBA is hoping to avoid.
The NBA doesn't enjoy an antitrust exemption like baseball does so he's talking out of his ass anyway, but in general for him to claim an antitrust problem he'd have to show a pattern of coercion among the owners against him over time. That doesn't exist so antitrust doesn't work.
He's ONE legal opinion. He not the only one. You think there aren't any lawyers with differing opinions? What made you decide that this one mans opinion is the only one that matters?
Has there been any legal opinions that have said the NBA can't do this? Not saying there hasn't been, but I haven't heard any. And I would assume if there's a significant chance that the NBA really couldn't do this, then there would be someone who would've said that by now.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 07:16 PM
Which trust laws? Post them. The argument could be made that Sterling retaining ownership will negatively affect the entire league. And it will if this causes a lockout.
I never stated it was easy or hard. Im not going to sit here and pretend like I've studied NBA law or Government law. But like I said, if the NBA cant remove them it will have to be done via player lockout or boycott. Which is what the NBA is hoping to avoid.
Well, there are literally thousands. You could start with the Sherman act and you can look into Mitchell vs Reyonlds.
If you don't feel like doing all the reading, the gist is impeding free market value.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 07:17 PM
The team's valuation was $850 - $900. They'll easily get more than that. One of the reason the valuation was low was the dipshit in charge. So i don't see that. Brooklyn is estimated at $1.5 billion (similar, secondary team in large market). Lakers if they went on sale might fetch 3 or 4 billion. Clippers easily will get over a billion, way above valuation.
Market value =/= appraisal value
Has there been any legal opinions that have said the NBA can't do this? Not saying there hasn't been, but I haven't heard any. And I would assume if there's a significant chance that the NBA really couldn't do this, then there would be someone who would've said that by now.
There isn't. Essentially her strategy would be to muddy things up, prevent a sale (by trying to get an injunction in court to prevent it why she argues), make it a pain till the NBA says somehow "you can stay a minority silent owner". I don't see it, and I think she is really misreading the marketplace. The Clippers will become a total non entity, at which point their value will fall possibly hundreds of millions. She'll ruin the brand, which isn't strong to begin with.
Remember to, people on this board want Sterling to win, so they jump to one thing to another. Remember at first? THE OWNERS WILL NEVER VOTE HIM OUT. STERLING WILL NEVER PUNISH HIM SO DEEPLY. BS BS, on and on. They're done, they just haven't accepted it yet.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 07:22 PM
The NBA doesn't enjoy an antitrust exemption like baseball does so he's talking out of his ass anyway, but in general for him to claim an antitrust problem he'd have to show a pattern of coercion among the owners against him over time. That doesn't exist so antitrust doesn't work.
You understand that there isn't "A" antitrust law, right? It's a general term for many laws.
It doesn't need to be a conspiracy. As long as they interfere with Sterling's pursuit of market value as he sees fit, they are violating anti trust law.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 07:25 PM
There isn't. Essentially her strategy would be to muddy things up, prevent a sale (by trying to get an injunction in court to prevent it why she argues), make it a pain till the NBA says somehow "you can stay a minority silent owner". I don't see it, and I think she is really misreading the marketplace. The Clippers will become a total non entity, at which point their value will fall possibly hundreds of millions. She'll ruin the brand, which isn't strong to begin with.
Remember to, people on this board want Sterling to win, so they jump to one thing to another. Remember at first? THE OWNERS WILL NEVER VOTE HIM OUT. STERLING WILL NEVER PUNISH HIM SO DEEPLY. BS BS, on and on. They're done, they just haven't accepted it yet.
Oh, it is. Have they voted yet? What exactly are they waiting for?
She was sitting in the owners box last night.
It's pretty funny that the sheep believe that the NBA is vehemently against her.
"The NBA believes it has the legal grounds to oust both Shelly Sterling and her husband as owners, despite the fact that commissioner Adam Silver's punishments were specifically leveled only against Donald, according to sources with knowledge of the league's legal strategy.
Shelly Sterling, the estranged wife of exiled Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, has made it clear to the NBA that she intends to retain her 50 percent ownership interest in the team.
She has publicly and privately cooperated with the league in its actions to ban her husband for life and move to oust him from ownership. However, the league's contention will be that Shelly Sterling -- while entitled to a 50 percent interest in the franchise -- has never been approved by the board of governors as the controlling owner. She and team president Andy Roeser, who went on an indefinite leave of absence this week, were only alternate governors.
In order to become the team's new controlling owner, Shelly Sterling would have to be approved by the board of governors, which is unlikely given her association with her husband of 58 years.
Former Lakers great Magic Johnson said Friday that none of the current Clippers players would play for Shelly Sterling if she retains her ownership.
"Those guys are not going to play for anybody (named) Sterling," Johnson told USA TODAY Sports and two other reporters at the Omni Dallas Hotel. "It's just how it is. It's hard to separate the two. ... It's going to be hard for them to sell that to the fans and definitely to the players."
Miami Heat guard James Jones, the current secretary-treasurer of the players association, said Saturday that Shelly Sterling would not be a reasonable replacement for her husband.
"No, that's not something that's acceptable to us," Jones said, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "That's our stance, and it hasn't changed, and it won't.""
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10911472/nba-believes-legal-grounds-oust-shelly-sterling-ownership-according-sources
eliteballer
05-10-2014, 10:05 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/sports&id=9523346
Video a tenant took of her posing as a health inspector...
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 10:15 PM
Remember to, people on this board want Sterling to win, so they jump to one thing to another. Remember at first? THE OWNERS WILL NEVER VOTE HIM OUT. STERLING WILL NEVER PUNISH HIM SO DEEPLY. BS BS, on and on. They're done, they just haven't accepted it yet.
I don't doubt they owners may ultimately vote him out for image purposes, and I'm sure most of them are pissed at Sterling for causing this to even be an issue, but I would bet most owners deep down do not actually WANT to set this precedent by voting out an owner over this. Again I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'll wager they're considering any alternatives possible that still enable them to save face.
NumberSix
05-10-2014, 10:51 PM
I don't doubt they owners may ultimately vote him out for image purposes, and I'm sure most of them are pissed at Sterling for causing this to even be an issue, but I would bet most owners deep down do not actually WANT to set this precedent by voting out an owner over this. Again I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'll wager they're considering any alternatives possible that still enable them to save face.
If it's a secret vote, they'll keep him. They'll boot him if it's public who voted which way.
longtime lurker
05-10-2014, 11:10 PM
If it's a secret vote, they'll keep him. They'll boot him if it's public who voted which way.
Yeah keep deluding yourself into believing that.
Akrazotile
05-10-2014, 11:16 PM
If it's a secret vote, they'll keep him. They'll boot him if it's public who voted which way.
Theyre really kind of screwed because while they dont want to vote him out, they also dont WANT to keep him in. Its not like they want to keep Sterlig and his baggage in place at this point and face the media firestorm. But at the same time I dont think they want to set the actual precedent of voting someone out like this.
Boy Id really love to be a fly on the wall at those board of governers meetings, thats for sure.
HurricaneKid
05-10-2014, 11:27 PM
Sorry. The board of governors absolutely want him gone. I would bet they would have voted him out before any of this happened. He is the worst owner in the history of sports and has weakened the brand of the league over and over again. He was paying his GM 64k in the early 90s. He appointed one of his hooker GFs Asst GM. He has the worst record of any owner in the major 4 sports. And he is going to net 10,000% return on his investment over 30 years.
When he bought the team the Finals weren't even televised live. Now elite businessmen have bought out the majority of the league and this joker stands in their way of making a lot of money.
If the Sterling's continue to fight this into next season the NBA can take DRASTIC measures, including not sanctioning Clippers games for any number of years and allowing a new expansion franchise to take up in LA. They could literally turn the 1.2-1.5B team into pennies if they wanted to.
dreamwarrior
05-10-2014, 11:47 PM
I understand how the NBA can "ban" Sterling from being involved in anything. But I still don't understand how they can actually force him to sell the team. How does that work? Even if he agrees he will sell the team, can't he just turn down any offer that comes his way basically not deeming any of them worth selling for? And if that's not the case and he's actually forced to sell, although this would never happen, hypothetically lets say the best offer is something ridiculous like $1 million. Would he actually have to sell for that much? Obviously $1 million wouldn't happen, but if he's actually forced to sell within a certain time period, that's going to automatically start the bidding war at probably a significantly lower price then it would've otherwise.
Because he doesn't really own the team flat out. All he owns is a franchise. The team still belongs to the NBA and they can do whatever they want with that team
But at the same time I dont think they want to set the actual precedent of voting someone out like this.
I think this is overblown. No owner has been caught doing some dumb shit like this. And I doubt most of the other owners are ridiculous enough to care about something trivial like taking pictures with black people.
NumberSix
05-11-2014, 12:05 AM
Theyre really kind of screwed because while they dont want to vote him out, they also dont WANT to keep him in. Its not like they want to keep Sterlig and his baggage in place at this point and face the media firestorm. But at the same time I dont think they want to set the actual precedent of voting someone out like this.
Boy Id really love to be a fly on the wall at those board of governers meetings, thats for sure.
They wouldn't vote to keep him for him. They'd be doing it out of their own interest. You think right now people aren't trying to dig up any dirt they can find on any owner?
NumberSix
05-11-2014, 12:08 AM
I think this is overblown. No owner has been caught doing some dumb shit like this. And I doubt most of the other owners are ridiculous enough to care about something trivial like taking pictures with black people.
You don't think there are any recordings out there of Michael Jordan calling people "phaggits" or behaving badly? Come on now.
Akrazotile
05-11-2014, 01:22 AM
You don't think there are any recordings out there of Michael Jordan calling people "phaggits" or behaving badly? Come on now.
Well MJ is black so hes insulated from the reprecussions of bigotry. But the point in general stands as far as the other owners.
NumberSix
05-11-2014, 12:19 PM
Well MJ is black so hes insulated from the reprecussions of bigotry. But the point in general stands as far as the other owners.
Dats raciss
Sarcastic
05-11-2014, 02:55 PM
The day Michael Jordan starts causing businesses to pull sponsorships, then the league will remove him as owner.
You don't think there are any recordings out there of Michael Jordan calling people "phaggits" or behaving badly? Come on now.
There's probably like less then 10 people in the history of the world that have had a bigger microscope on them then Michael Jordan. Obviously Jordan has behaved badly like everyone has. But if people were really out to get him or if Jordan was dumb enough to not be able to avoid getting into situations like that, then it would've happened by now.
Deuce Bigalow
05-11-2014, 03:07 PM
What if Sterlings wife....is V. Stiviano?
NumberSix
05-11-2014, 04:15 PM
What if Sterlings wife....is V. Stiviano?
What if Sterling........ Never had a wife?
smoovegittar
05-11-2014, 04:48 PM
What if Donald Sterling actually IS his own wife??
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.