Sterling banned, which leads to this question of mine

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**TheMeanDM**

I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.

It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.

I just can't believe that his lawyers would hav allowed him to sign the purchase agreement that apparently grants-zero- appeal or relief from the decisions of the commissioner.

**nkelsch**

TheMeanDM wrote:
I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.

It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.

I just can't believe that his lawyers would hav allowed him to sign the purchase agreement that apparently grants-zero- appeal or relief from the decisions of the commissioner.

It is a franchise... You give up a lot of rights when you own a franchise VS your own company. It is nothing like a government entity forcing you to sell your private residence.

Most franchise, if you fail to meet the rules of the franchise, you forfeit a lot of stuff, to the point where you lose the rights to operate and have to start over or that they will confiscate your franchise from you if you are not doing things in the best interest of the brand.

Don't Like it? Don't run a franchise, do the leg work of running your own business. He won't have much luck running his own NBA...

**Ouze**

TheMeanDM wrote:
It'd be like the city forcing you to sell your home because you spoke out against the mayor.

Except it's not at all like that, even a little, because the constitution restrains the state from acting against you for lawful speech.

You need to think more "morals clause" that allows a Nickelodeon starlet to be kicked off her show if nudes come out, or so on. Or, more accurately (I wish I thought of this example first) the McDonalds corporation forcing you to sell the McDonalds restaurant you operate because you won't participate in nationally advertised sales.

**Ensis Ferrae**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This is the same gak as the duck dynasty guy.

Not really, since it later came out that there was some serious misquoting going on with the Duck guy.... Don't think that defense will work this time since its been established exactly what was said.

TheMeanDM wrote:I just wonder how he can be -forced- to sell his franchise. He psid for it all. Its his.

It could come down to the other teams in the league refusing to play against his team, the other owners can vote him out and "lose" a team. Or, it may be a contractual thing, like "You are the owner of this team, provided you follow X,Y, and Z rules. If you violate this agreement, this contract becomes null and void, and you may face up to "losing" your team" or something to that effect.

I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.

**Chongara**

Ouze wrote:
I don't think there should be any legal consequences for what he said. People can say what they like.

I'm not privy to whatever contracts he may have signed with the NBA that may, or may not say, that his private conduct could have issues if it makes the league look bad. If he did sign an agreement with a morals clause, it should be enforced.

I doubt he cares. He's old as gak and rich as hell. He could probably just randomly kill someone if he felt like it and essentially get away with it. I doubt I'd care about public perception too much at that age and in that status either.

California is a two-party notification state, so there was probably a violation of state wiretapping laws.

Bingo.
Bingo.
Bingo.
Bingo.

Lets face it here, this is basically nothing to someone in his position. He still has his billions and will likely get another billion when he's forced to sell the team. The only person here in any real danger of losing things is the girlfriend, if he wants to raise a stink about that.

**cincydooley**

My understanding is that they can't make him sell the team, but can essentially disallow them from playing games in the league.

Its Silvers proposal that they could simply nullify the contracts of the players that gives me pause. Can that really be done? If so, that's a bit frightening.

**kronk**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.

Marge Schott was "forced" to sell her team. While she was serving her 2.5 year suspension (2nd suspension) they strong-armed her into selling her team. Since then, I'm betting leagues made stricter rules to get rid of problem owners.

Linky

Once MLB had Schott on the ropes, the league didn’t relent. While her suspension ended upon the completion of the 1998 World Series, the league pushed her to sell her controlling share of the Reds by threatening to extend the ban. In April 1999, she agreed to sell 5 1/2 of her 6 1/2 shares for $67 million to a group headed by Carl Lindner; the deal was completed in September of that year. Save for a suit she filed against Lindner over her seat allocation in Great American Ballpark in 2003, baseball was finally rid of her. She died in 2004 at the age of 75.

Another Article

**cincydooley**

The big difference is that Schott wasn't the sole owner of the Reds. Lindner was already a minority shareholder.

Sterling is the sole owner of the clippers.

**sebster**

A basketball team needs fans. People who, for reasons no-one will ever really understand, think of the team as 'our team', despite the fact that it's owned by some rich guy, and the players are brought in from all over the country and probably have as many LA players as any other team in the league. When it comes out that the owner is racist douchebag, well then fairly obviously lots of people are going to be a lot less inclined to continue liking that team and supporting them, so the NBA needs to step in and do something.

And to clarify, I'm not a fan of these little media storms where some high profile person says something awful, and lots of people complain until the person is fired or whatever else. That kind of scalp taking is on the rise and I see it as an ugly trend.

But the big difference here, unlike say the Mozilla thing, is that in order for a basketball team to do well, there needs to be people who like it as an organisation. Our relationship to Mozilla products like Firefox is entirely based on whether or not they work well, but with a basketball team their success is dependent largely on whether or not we like them.

I mean, when you have a business that relies on people liking your business to make money and you reveal yourself as a bigot, how else is going to work? How has it ever worked any differently?

**Orlanth**

Who here thinks the punishment is too heavy handed. A life ban, for unwelcome words, it goes too far IMHO.

What would be the likely consequences if the accused was caught stealing, fraud, with prostitutes, etc etc.

Ultimately is there any evidence he discriminated against anyone with terms of employment? If yes so be it, if no then really this is about having offensive views rather than 'racism', unless society wants to go down the route of thought police then things should be only actionable if evil is done rather than merely sympathised with.

A suspension would have been more realistic, and as sebster points out in his post that Sterling's position may be naturally untenable now due to fear that his views would effect his work, so it was unnecessary to be so heavy handed.

**cincydooley**

Orlanth wrote:

Ultimately is there any evidence he discriminated against anyone with terms of employment? If yes so be it, if no then really this is about having offensive views rather than 'racism', unless society wants to go down the route of thought police then things should be only actionable if evil is done rather than merely sympathised with.

Not in his NBA dealings, and that's one of the more interesting points. It's been public knowledge that he was at least "a bit" racist since the 2006 lawsuit. But that hasn't prevented free agents from going to play there. It didn't prevent Doc Rivers from becoming their coach this year. And whenever asked about that, Doc dodges the question.

In fact, he was asked tonight whether he or his players had ever been victims of discrimination or racism by Sterling, and Doc said "no." H even went on to say that "they've given him everything he needed" as the coach.

It's interesting to say the least, with a whole lot of hypocrisy being tossed around.

**RiTides**

I can't believe we're having this conversation. I thought the punishment was 100% appropriate. If I made comments anywhere near that, I would lose my job too, and rightfully so.

If anything, I think it would have been even better if the players had gone through with what would have happened had the Commissioner not acted so swiftly and decisively. Apparently every NBA playoff game tonight may have been boycotted by the players themselves... that would have been the very definition of a non-violent civil rights protest, and would have been a sight.

As it was, this is historic anyway. There was an investigation, and Sterling admitted he made those statements. He is bound by the rules of the league that he joined, and it seems very likely that the other owners will force him to sell the team. I am all in favor of this and fairly shocked at some of the comments here.

This is hate speech, there is no room for it in our society, and in a private institution like the NBA this is absolutely the consequences that I would expect to see as a result of someone making comments like he did. The evidence is irrefutable, he admitted the statements were his and has not expressed any remorse.

If he had, that may have been something to consider- but he did not apologize, these apparently are his views, and he has no place in the NBA whatsoever.

Good to see the players presenting a united front on this, and the league acting swiftly to address it, I am very satisfied with the actions taken here. Proven, verified evidence of racist hate speech would get anyone fired in this day and age, and an NBA team owner is no exception.

**Relapse**

My conclusions from what I've been reading here and what I heard on the news.
First off, he needs to find more loyal prostitutes in the future if he doesn't want to be outed.

Second, and more important, whatever bagage he's carrying to make him the gak he is, he might want to consider dealing with.

Third, he defamed the league by saying idiotic crap that did come out. Because it is a business, he loses because of whatever contract he signed that has a clause promising to ream him royally. He didn't want to get reamed? Shouldn't have signed a contract that holds him to a higher standard than other ignorant types.

Thanks to all who gave with the explanations.

**Breotan**

Thing is, everybody following basketball already knows about his racism. This isn't the first time he's opened his fat mouth like this. Most (non-basketball) people didn't know because his previous antics didn't get any media coverage. The real question is, why now? Why is this time so important to the media? Why is the reaction so hardcore this time? That league guy, Silver, is like a shark with blood in the water. He doesn't want Sterling punished, he wants to assassinate him.

Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay. Either way it goes, this is a backstabbing worthy of Game of Thrones and I want to know who's playing the part of Littlefinger.

**cincydooley**

RiTides wrote:
I can't believe we're having this conversation. I thought the punishment was 100% appropriate. If I made comments anywhere near that, I would lose my job too, and rightfully so.

I don't think anyone is saying the punishment is wrong. I believe Silver was heavy handed in the timing because now, with the way he handled the press conference, Sterling has absolutely no reason to be cooperative.

If you called a co-worker a homophobic slur you'd probably be fired, right? Kobe Bryant wasn't suspended a game.

We need to stop pretending like people in these industries play by the same rules as the rest of us in the "regular" business world. They don't.

If anything, I think it would have been even better if the players had gone through with what would have happened had the Commissioner not acted so swiftly and decisively .

I don't for a minute believe they would have. They all love their money way too much and most want to be as innocuous as possible to "protect their brand."

**Relapse**

I guess Sterling is going to miss out on his second award from the NAACP:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/donald-sterling-naacp-award

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay.

Maybe he just pissed off the girlfriend somehow? That seems the simplest explanation.

**Relapse**

Ouze wrote:
Breotan wrote:
Racism aside, this was a private phone call that was recorded and leaked, so someone has an agenda. Some of the theories I've heard include a forced buyout attempt by Magic Johnson's group or some of the owners don't want Sterling's heirs (whoever they are) getting their hands on the team, or someone with a serious axe to grind that's found a way to make Sterling pay.

Maybe he just pissed off the girlfriend somehow? That seems the simplest explanation.

Maybe he was getting ready to ditch her for a younger woman!

**Ouze**

Hell hath no fury, and all.

**Relapse**

I don't imagine she pulled that trick out of any sense of moral outrage. I figure sugar daddy was cutting the funds and she got pissed.

**cincydooley**

She's getting sued by Sterlings estranged wife for all the money she's been spending. And being a gold digger, she has none of her own money.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-v-stiviano-rochelle-sterling-donald-lawsuit-20140429,0,4019251.story#axzz30LCY3jfz

**Relapse**

cincydooley wrote:
She's getting sued by Sterlings estranged wife for all the money she's been spending. And being a gold digger, she has none of her own money.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-v-stiviano-rochelle-sterling-donald-lawsuit-20140429,0,4019251.story#axzz30LCY3jfz

Coming soon to a Penthouse magazine near you... Sterling's ho.

**sebster**

Orlanth wrote:
A suspension would have been more realistic, and as sebster points out in his post that Sterling's position may be naturally untenable now due to fear that his views would effect his work, so it was unnecessary to be so heavy handed.

Except I doubt the NBA was willing to wait around until that failed relationship became real, as it might have killed a franchise, nor would the NBA be willing to risk their own relationship with the fans by appearing to be accepting of Sterling's bigotry.

So they acted as they did, and yes, while I agree it's a really harsh penalty for saying some words, that's life in the entertainment industry.

Tom Cruise went a bit nuts and jumped on a couch, and the films roles that used to fall all over themselves to pay him tens of millions of dollars dried up. That was pretty excessive, but that's the entertainment business. Whether its sport or movies or whatever, the business relies on us liking them/their organisations (or at least liking the public perception of their organisations we are given), so any time that is threatened, well the 'solution' is likely to be pretty harsh.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breotan wrote:
Thing is, everybody following basketball already knows about his racism. This isn't the first time he's opened his fat mouth like this. Most (non-basketball) people didn't know because his previous antics didn't get any media coverage. The real question is, why now? Why is this time so important to the media? Why is the reaction so hardcore this time?

Because this is recorded, it isn't just a story about what someone said that could just be written off as rumour mongering. Add in the protest by the players and you've got yourself a story with real legs.

**Jihadin**

Occured to me over dinner when I heard it on TV. Last time I heard someone being prosecuted for private speech involve Hitler Youths. Yes I know I went to far with it but it just popped in my mind. Also I watched again recently "Swing Kids"

**Captain Avatar**

Q: Should somebody be able to say whatever they like?
A: Yes, though like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, if their words cause an unwarranted damage to the public there can be criminal and/or civil consequences.

Q: Are racist comments made in private and illegally recorded/used the same as falsely yelling fire?
A: No, Though the league might be able to make a case for damages.
Ironically, from a purely legal perspective, the person who actually released the recordings without consulting the ruling body(the nba) would/could "legally" be "the" primary named party in the suit.

Q: Can the league go after the owner as per the publicly released statement made today?
A: Depends on contract wording. Most likely everything will be settled out of court.

Q: Why would all this be settled out of court?
A: To much attention and the government(not supreme court but congress) gets involved.

Q: How can the government get involved in a case over protected private speech?

A: The 3 major sports leagues have received special waivers/dispensations that allow them to operate as the "sole" controlling entities over their respective professional sports. Basically they are allowed to be monopolies but with the downside of giving congress the right to meddle in league business if there is a perception of un-american/model behavior.

This is why congress can have hearings about steroid use in most professional sports.

Later

**Ahtman**

Just remember when you are older and have a toy girlfriend/boyfriend on the side don't share important information or 'feelings'. This is even more true if you are going through a divorce or are still married.

**Jihadin**

Been a couple times someone wanted to press UCMJ actions (spouse) on someone for saying something in private about someone else in the unit. Twice I threw my rank on my Commander desk because I wouldn't write up a negative counseling form to be used as a gateway for a Art 15 Non-Judicial

**Ahtman**

It seems that it is getting worse for Mr. Sterling. Now people won't even take his money.

While many corporations are no longer choosing to sponsor the Los Angeles Clippers, there's also a growing list of Los Angeles-area organizations that refuse to be sponsored by team owner Donald Sterling.

UCLA announced on Tuesday that it is returning an initial donation of $425,000 from Sterling and rejecting the remainder of a $3 million pledge the Clippers owner had made to help kidney research at the school's division of nephrology. The announcement came hours after NBA commissioner Adam Silver announced that Sterling had been banned from the league for life after his racial remarks had been made public.

In a strange twist to UCLA's rejection, the school said that a "thank you" ad in weekend editions of the Los Angeles Times (above) had been placed by Sterling, not UCLA.

The school also told the paper that the ad's claims that a research lab would be named in Donald and Shelly Sterling's honor were false and were never a condition of the original donation.

Here's the UCLA release:

Mr. Sterling’s divisive and hurtful comments demonstrate that he does not share UCLA’s core values as a public university that fosters diversity, inclusion and respect. For those reasons, UCLA has decided to return Mr. Sterling’s initial payment of $425,000 and reject the remainder of a $3 million pledge he recently made to support basic kidney research by the UCLA Division of Nephrology.

UCLA has received numerous inquiries about an advertisement in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times falsely suggesting that it was UCLA publicly thanking him for the gift. The ad was placed by Mr. Sterling, not the university.

UCLA isn't the only place saying thanks but not thanks to Sterling. The Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP announced on Monday that it would no longer honor Sterling with a pre-planned "lifetime achievement" award. The organization's president said it would also be returning an "insignificant" donation that Sterling had made to the group.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles also told the Jewish Journal that it would no longer accept donations from Sterling, who donated $10,000 to the group in 2012.

**Ouze**

It's a damn shame, really. I enjoyed him in The Twilight Zone.

**Ensis Ferrae**

kronk wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I seem to recall the forced sale of a sports team has happened before, if I can remember who it is, I'll post a link to some articles on it.

Marge Schott was "forced" to sell her team. While she was serving her 2.5 year suspension (2nd suspension) they strong-armed her into selling her team. Since then, I'm betting leagues made stricter rules to get rid of problem owners.

Linky

Once MLB had Schott on the ropes, the league didn’t relent. While her suspension ended upon the completion of the 1998 World Series, the league pushed her to sell her controlling share of the Reds by threatening to extend the ban. In April 1999, she agreed to sell 5 1/2 of her 6 1/2 shares for $67 million to a group headed by Carl Lindner; the deal was completed in September of that year. Save for a suit she filed against Lindner over her seat allocation in Great American Ballpark in 2003, baseball was finally rid of her. She died in 2004 at the age of 75.

Another Article

For some reason, I recall this sort of "coerced commerce" happening to Paul Brown, when he was ousted from the Browns (and went on to form the Bengals)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:

I don't think anyone is saying the punishment is wrong. I believe Silver was heavy handed in the timing because now, with the way he handled the press conference, Sterling has absolutely no reason to be cooperative.

If you called a co-worker a homophobic slur you'd probably be fired, right? Kobe Bryant wasn't suspended a game.

We need to stop pretending like people in these industries play by the same rules as the rest of us in the "regular" business world. They don't.

I don't for a minute believe they would have. They all love their money way too much and most want to be as innocuous as possible to "protect their brand."

And yet, I'd be willing to bet money that most of those same players who were talking about a strike or whatever they were going to do, routinely use offensive and racist language, not only on a daily, but on an hourly or minutely basis. The difference? Well, they grew up in the "hood" or "they dont know any better" or "it's a part of their culture"

This is one of many, many reasons i fething hate basketball, and i wish the sport would just die in a fire already.

Should the guy be suspended and/or fined by the league? sure, why not; It's their rules afterall. Should they even attempt to figure out a way to force him to sell his franchise, not a chance of a cold day in hell. To this point, there is no evidence that his actions have had a direct result on the field of play. George Steinbrenner actively meddled in team affairs, and affected the outcomes of games which earned him a temporary ban from MLB, but the League didn't "force" him to sell (of course, that could also have something to do with him being the owner of the richest and most powerful sports franchise in almost the history of sports)