• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

well said, Kareem (Donald Sterling discussion thread)

Deacfreak07 said:
Ownership can be and often is crowdsourced too. You can't take 3 Cody Zeller's and make one Zbo.

Not necessarily saying 2&2 is doing this, but there are often larger truths at play with criticisms of athlete compensation. Owner profits are never really given the same contempt.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are talking about, I never mentioned compensation, nor do I think compensation has anything to do with it. The NBA took an extremely strong stand against racism, and that's great. My point is that they are going to have to take an equally strong or stronger stand against wife-beating, gun-running, and the host of other actual crimes committed by their affiliates from this point forward, or else have legit image concerns to deal with that bring back the image concerns they've tried to get rid of. If an owner gets a lifetime ban for racism and discriminatory housing, why wouldn't it be expected that a player from ehre on out gets a lifetime ban for assault with a weapon?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I'm not sure what you are talking about, I never mentioned compensation, nor do I think compensation has anything to do with it. The NBA took an extremely strong stand against racism, and that's great. My point is that they are going to have to take an equally strong or stronger stand against wife-beating, gun-running, and the host of other actual crimes committed by their affiliates from this point forward, or else have legit image concerns to deal with that bring back the image concerns they've tried to get rid of. If an owner gets a lifetime ban for racism and discriminatory housing, why wouldn't it be expected that a player from ehre on out gets a lifetime ban for assault with a weapon?
Click to expand...

Then your point is just flat out wrong. That's just not the way it'll happen
 
bigdoublezero said:
He can't. He's banned for life. He has a silent majority ownership and that's it.
Click to expand...

You do realize this is the same guy who moved the Clippers from San Diego to LA AFTER the NBA expressly voted the move down and fined him $25MM right? No, you didnt know that.

We are not dealing with a run of the mill asshole here.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
He'll get his billion whether he goes quietly or not. That said, he can't do those other things. He has no authority or control over Clippers operations as of yesterday. He can't order the team or organization to do anything, and if he did, the league would simply assume control of team operations directly. They unquestionably have that power, should Sterling try to sabotage any NBA objectives.

Sterling will never get back into an NBA arena. It's just a question of how much in legal fees he wants to burn to make the league match expenses. Personally, who cares? It's not like the NBA is hurting for money either. He's going to have an A-Rod level of success in court.
Click to expand...

1. Not true. The NBA could actually contract his franchise. Just disband it and then create an expansion team to take its place, cutting him out of the equation.

2. Again, he has fought the NBA and won before. Being that this is a unprecedented move, there is no telling what could happen. It's not black and white. Dude is a billionaire. That can buy you lots of lawyers and judges and at the very least tie this thing up for years if he wants.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
You do realize this is the same guy who moved the Clippers from San Diego to LA AFTER the NBA expressly voted the move down and fined him $25MM right? No, you didnt know that.

We are not dealing with a run of the mill asshole here.
Click to expand...

Except if he sends down the orders to forfeit games, the order will just be ignored. He can't punish the coaches or players for disobeying his orders
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
You do realize this is the same guy who moved the Clippers from San Diego to LA AFTER the NBA expressly voted the move down and fined him $25MM right? No, you didnt know that.

We are not dealing with a run of the mill asshole here.
Click to expand...

What's he going to do? Who's going to listen to him? He's done. It's not like Sterling was handling any day to day operations anyway. He's an 80 year old team owner.

If Sterling commits more and continuing violations of NBA discipline it just makes the league case stronger to remove his ownership stake. In fact, they'd love it if he were to try to prevent a game or something. Make the issue even simpler.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
You do realize this is the same guy who moved the Clippers from San Diego to LA AFTER the NBA expressly voted the move down and fined him $25MM right? No, you didnt know that.

We are not dealing with a run of the mill asshole here.
Click to expand...

OK, you want to make a bet that the Clippers won't successfully forfeit any games or lock out its players? I'll take that bet.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
Ownership can be and often is crowdsourced too. You can't take 3 Cody Zeller's and make one Zbo.

Not necessarily saying 2&2 is doing this, but there are often larger truths at play with criticisms of athlete compensation. Owner profits are never really given the same contempt.
Click to expand...

You think that the group of elitist douchebags that comprise NBA ownership are going to crowdsource ownership? Give me a break. It is much to precious of a boys club to have a rogue in there, especially considering the books are top secret.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
What's he going to do? Who's going to listen to him? He's done. It's not like Sterling was handling any day to day operations anyway. He's an 80 year old team owner.

If Sterling commits more and continuing violations of NBA discipline it just makes the league case stronger to remove his ownership stake. In fact, they'd love it if he were to try to prevent a game or something. Make the issue even simpler.
Click to expand...

If you think the word simple applies to an unprecedented case of forcing someone to sell a billion dollar asset based on flimsy language. My worry is that the NBA caved to public opinion on this and didnt give its attorneys time to properly vet their options.
 
bigdoublezero said:
OK, you want to make a bet that the Clippers won't successfully forfeit any games or lock out its players? I'll take that bet.
Click to expand...

I didnt say he would be successful. However, for him to go down without a fight would be uncharacteristic. I dont think it can be assumed that (i) Sterling doesnt have options to fight and (ii) the League is standing on firm legal ground.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
1. Not true. The NBA could actually contract his franchise. Just disband it and then create an expansion team to take its place, cutting him out of the equation.

2. Again, he has fought the NBA and won before. Being that this is a unprecedented move, there is no telling what could happen. It's not black and white. Dude is a billionaire. That can buy you lots of lawyers and judges and at the very least tie this thing up for years if he wants.
Click to expand...

1) Who told you this? It's not even close to true. Show me a source that states the league could simply take his billion dollar investment from him without any compensation and do what they'd like with it themselves. You won't find one. Sterling is getting paid out under any possible removal scenario. There is no "we're stiffing you 10 figures, suck on that" option at play.

2) Lawyers and judges will argue about fair compensation in court. But they won't be able to so much as remove a basketball at tomorrow's practice. He's out. He will have no control of team operations whether he likes it or not, sues or not, or shows in person and bangs on the door or not.

Ironically, if you're first statement had been true, it would be the biggest guarantee that Sterling would shut up and take it regarding your second point. But it's not true, and thankfully unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Late to this discussion, but agree with the assessment the article was a worthwhile read. Two things stand out to me...

1) He made an interesting point about prosecuting the whomever leaked the recording and wonder why there is not outrage over this given the outrage over the NSA. I seem to remember Linda Tripp being prosecuted or threatened with prosecution back in the day when she released some tapes damaging to Bill Clinton on the basis that they were recorded without the knowledge of all people on the phone or involved in the conversation. Seems like a very similar circumstance. I will be curious if there is any such action taken. However, Kareem makes a point I've made for years - collectively this country seems to react with outrage in an inconsistent manner - which is a major source of why nothing seems to change and that I attribute to people's political views in many cases.

2) When will people ever learn that ax murdering babies on Youtube is quite possibly less likely to generate national outrage than making a racist remark? While they certainly not the first to do so, Jimmy the Greek and Howard Cosell come to mind as prominent people in sports and both had their reputations ruined and lost their jobs due to stupid statements made in a broadcast. I was reminded this morning about Fuzzy Zoeller at the Masters' dinner...
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
If you think the word simple applies to an unprecedented case of forcing someone to sell a billion dollar asset based on flimsy language. My worry is that the NBA caved to public opinion on this and didnt give its attorneys time to properly vet their options.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry. The only thing Sterling will lose is the right to continue as a member of this association. He'll be paid full market value for his franchise, making his damages, even were he to establish some form of mistreatment -- a long-shot, iMO - a manageable number for the NBA to pay out should they lose. But they won't lose here. Unprecedented or not, I think they have ample legal and PR cover for this decision, and a lot of clout to make sure Sterling doesn't accomplish much. They'll probably make more money in the long run, whatever spoons Sterling decides to bang these next few years.
 
oldmandeac said:
Late to this discussion, but agree with the assessment the article was a worthwhile read. Two things stand out to me...

1) He made an interesting point about prosecuting the whomever leaked the recording and wonder why there is not outrage over this given the outrage over the NSA. I seem to remember Linda Tripp being prosecuted or threatened with prosecution back in the day when she released some tapes damaging to Bill Clinton on the basis that they were recorded without the knowledge of all people on the phone or involved in the conversation. Seems like a very similar circumstance. I will be curious if there is any such action taken. However, Kareem makes a point I've made for years - collectively this country seems to react with outrage in an inconsistent manner - which is a major source of why nothing seems to change and that I attribute to people's political views in many cases.

2) When will people ever learn that ax murdering babies on Youtube is quite possibly less likely to generate national outrage than making a racist remark? While they certainly not the first to do so, Jimmy the Greek and Howard Cosell come to mind as prominent people in sports and both had their reputations ruined and lost their jobs due to stupid statements made in a broadcast. I was reminded this morning about Fuzzy Zoeller at the Masters' dinner...
Click to expand...

In the context of Newtown, there may be some merit to #2 although I would say the free market spoke in both. It spoke in favor of getting rid of Paula Deen and Donald Sterling and supported more guns.

As far as #1, there is some speculation that he had his girlfriend record his conversations. We don't know. His NBA partners don't really consider that to be important.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, I am weighing the racism of one individual and the effects it has on our society against an individual committing a specific violent crime. And unless Sterling was the Grand Wizard, the violent crime is going to carry more weight every single time. No offense, but your second sentence may be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board.
Click to expand...

Just because the harmful effects of Sterling's housing discrimination aren't as readily apparent and directly related as a player beating his wife, they exist and the sum of those effects over the span of 30 years is worse than any single violent crime committed by an NBA player.
 
I heard the contraction option discussed on CNN yesterday and today. The reality is we dont know whether any compensation would be awarded in contraction because, again, the constitution and the bylaws are secret.

Also you dont think he could find a court to levy a temporary injunction? This is a contract dispute. Either the NBA and or Sterling are fulfilling their obligations under their mutual contract or not.

Dumbo Ears Silver is not a judge, what he says is not the law. Ryan Braun was able to stay on the field when a judge determined that MLB hadn't followed its own rules. Not sure how this is different. Without reading the bylaws, the constitution and Sterling's franchise agreement with the league, it's impossible to tell, but I dont think it's black and white.
 
RChildress107 said:
Just because the harmful effects of Sterling's housing discrimination aren't as readily apparent and directly related as a player beating his wife, they exist and the sum of those effects over the span of 30 years is worse than any single violent crime committed by an NBA player.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Its not like the dude owns all the shitty apartments in LA. Tell that to the family of the guy Jason Williams shot in the chest.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I'm not sure what you are talking about, I never mentioned compensation, nor do I think compensation has anything to do with it. The NBA took an extremely strong stand against racism, and that's great. My point is that they are going to have to take an equally strong or stronger stand against wife-beating, gun-running, and the host of other actual crimes committed by their affiliates from this point forward, or else have legit image concerns to deal with that bring back the image concerns they've tried to get rid of. If an owner gets a lifetime ban for racism and discriminatory housing, why wouldn't it be expected that a player from ehre on out gets a lifetime ban for assault with a weapon?
Click to expand...

Just to echo Beach Bum. They have gotten rid of any image concerns among demographics that matter. Part of that is a change in demographics, part of that is an active strategy on the NBA's part, and part of that is luck. The majority of the people who believe the bolded part of your statement are in a demographic that doesn't matter and that will continue to decrease in size moving forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top