Sterling banned for life

[SUbear]

i imagine players and coaches will refuse to work from him after this year, so he may not be able to fight much. my guess is he will be lucky if he gets fair market value.

Really you do not think he will get players to accept scads of money to play for him? People have worked for those who have done far worse for far less money than he pays his players. I do not buy that at all. Whether the fans come to watch his team is a bigger issue in my opinion.
I really hope he just agrees to sell and moves on, but I do not read this guy as doing that.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Really you do not think he will get players to accept scads of money to play for him? People have worked for those who have done far worse for far less money than he pays his players.

Yeah, I think that's something people are saying, but I'm not sure I buy it.

 

[SUbear]

The NBA isn't stupid. I'm positive that they've vetted this issue prior to taking any action (Wachtell Lipton is their counsel if that tells you anything). So, while anything is possible, my best guess is that the NBA has him by the shorthairs.

You never have someone by the short hairs if they have the resources at their disposal that Sterling has. If he wants it to be this will be a huge legal battle. He may lose but he can fight it a long time, and as I said in a previous post may be dead before it comes to a conclusion.

 

[nolacuse44]

You are right the NBA can do and say what they want, but the problem comes in enforcing any of it without a court issuing an order. Sterling can dispute anything and everything and take them to court for a cease and desist, they then need to show cause for their actions in a courtroom, where you run up against that illegally obtained recording that all their punitive actions would be based on. It would probably not be deemed admissible.

In this and your other posts, you're trumpeting some assumptions about the law that are incorrect.

First, I believe that disputes arising under the NBA's governing document (bylaws or constitution) are subject to arbitration, where, generally speaking, rues of evidence are relaxed. Normally, it's up to the arbitrator (who might not even be a lawyer).

Second, even if this dispute were played out in court (or subject to formal rules of evidence in arbitration), the assumption that an illegally-obtained recording would not be admissible is probably inaccurate. The Exclusionary Rule that you and many others are referring to is a Constitutional rule applicable in the criminal law context. I'm no expert on evidence, but I did some quick double-checking and the common law rule that illegally obtained evidence is admissible in civil cases is, in general, still good law (there are exceptions).

Third, even if the tape were somehow excluded, apparently there are two witnesses (besides Sterling) to the conversation. Under any scenario they could testify to what was said. That is, the recording is not necessary to establish that Sterling said what Silver based the NBA's action on.

 

[Toga]

Another factor that hasn't been discussed is what the heck is on the rest of the tape? Also, even if the NBA thought they would to lose in court, the Commissioner and owners felt they needed to go scorched earth from a League business / PR standpoint.

 

[AZOrange]

Another factor that hasn't been discussed is what the heck is on the rest of the tape? Also, even if the NBA thought they would to lose in court, the Commissioner and owners felt they needed to go scorched earth from a League business / PR standpoint.

The rest of the tape is Lori fine and bobby Davis discussing their affairs.

 

[ConnectiCuse]

In this and your other posts, you're trumpeting some assumptions about the law that are incorrect.

First, I believe that disputes arising under the NBA's governing document (bylaws or constitution) are subject to arbitration, where, generally speaking, rues of evidence are relaxed. Normally, it's up to the arbitrator (who might not even be a lawyer).

Second, even if this dispute were played out in court (or subject to formal rules of evidence in arbitration), the assumption that an illegally-obtained recording would not be admissible is probably inaccurate. The Exclusionary Rule that you and many others are referring to is a Constitutional rule applicable in the criminal law context. I'm no expert on evidence, but I did some quick double-checking and the common law rule that illegally obtained evidence is admissible in civil cases is, in general, still good law (there are exceptions).

Third, even if the tape were somehow excluded, apparently there are two witnesses (besides Sterling) to the conversation. Under any scenario they could testify to what was said. That is, the recording is not necessary to establish that Sterling said what Silver based the NBA's action on.

You beat me to the point on criminal vs. civil cases so I can thankfully stop typing. And I also read on ESPN that the woman in the original recording is working with the NBA and has provided several additional hours of audio and video footage which, as you said, makes the original tape unnecessary.

 

[jgeorge322]

Really you do not think he will get players to accept scads of money to play for him? People have worked for those who have done far worse for far less money than he pays his players. I do not buy that at all. Whether the fans come to watch his team is a bigger issue in my opinion.
I really hope he just agrees to sell and moves on, but I do not read this guy as doing that.

i think this will create a major personnel problem for his team if he continues to own it.

 

[rrlbees]

I don't think this is about rules, is the thing.

He was hit with things allowed by their rules. It will stick. His offense wasn't jay walking.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

He was hit with things allowed by their rules. It will stick. His offense wasn't jay walking.

Actually, things would be a lot clearer if his offense was jay walking.

His racism hasn't been a secret. Why does this particular recording at this particular time matter so much?

 

[HeaterCuse22]

This is a disgusting penalty.

How so? Do you work in an office?

Try this tomorrow, stand up and say out loud how much you can't stand black people, then sit down. See how long it takes HR to get to your desk to remove you from your position. Then when they arrive try to tell them you have first amendment rights.

 

[djcon57]

Actually, things would be a lot clearer if his offense was jay walking.

His racism hasn't been a secret. Why does this particular recording at this particular time matter so much?

To most..my guess...because it's his own voice saying it.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

I believe the NBA by laws do not allow the commissioner to do that. They could vote to change that, but I doubt the other owners would agree to allowing a second franchise in the same city as it would endanger every owners valued franchise.. I can not see that ever being okay end.

Ok put them in Sacremento

 

[CuseTroop]

Clippers can no longer play YMCA

http://www.vintagevinylnews.com/201...utm_term=0_3a4dfe0b50-8d9b875af7-55223777&m=1

 

[longislandcuse]

How so? Do you work in an office?

Try this tomorrow, stand up and say out loud how much you can't stand black people, then sit down. See how long it takes HR to get to your desk to remove you from your position. Then when they arrive try to tell them you have first amendment rights.

While I dont disagree with you... No, not really, more like stand up in your living room and say that while your vengeful co-worker records it and gives it to HR.

 

[rrlbees]

Actually, things would be a lot clearer if his offense was jay walking. His racism hasn't been a secret. Why does this particular recording at this particular time matter so much?

I agree with that part. He bought his way out of the other issues. He can't this time. But the NBA should have gotten rid of him before this. Probably because this has become so public. I didn't even know about his other issues until this one happened. Like my company says, don't do or say anything that will make the papers.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

While I dont disagree with you... No, not really, more like stand up in your living room and say that while your vengeful co-worker records it and gives it to HR.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen, regardless of how it did. I see your point though

 

[PoppyHart]

I think Sterling can make a decent argument that this is different from a franchisor taking your McDonald's away.

The NBA, for as much of a private "country club" that people make it out to be, is in many ways a public trust which is fueled by taxpayer's funds. As long as the owner's are enriched by public financing of arenas and other generous tax breaks, I think this becomes closer to an unconstitutional "taking". At the very least, it's something that is not open and shut and could be a lengthy battle.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

I think Sterling can make a decent argument that this is different from a franchisor taking your McDonald's away.

The NBA, for as much of a private "country club" that people make it out to be, is in many ways a public trust which is fueled by taxpayer's funds. As long as the owner's are enriched by public financing of arenas and other generous tax breaks, I think this becomes closer to an unconstitutional "taking". At the very least, it's something that is not open and shut and could be a lengthy battle.

Nope. He voted on the rules and bylaws. Now he is going to argue he doesn't understand the rules or agree with them. Hes gonna be like the last kid picked at dodgeball if he remains...actually the value of the team will go nowhere but down from this point forward..best thing is to sell.

 

[moqui]

Nope. He voted on the rules and bylaws. Now he is going to argue he doesn't understand the rules or agree with them. Hes gonna be like the last kid picked at dodgeball if he remains...actually the value of the team will go nowhere but down from this point forward..best thing is to sell.

the revenue of the team might go down, but not its value. The minute the franchise gets listed for sale, its value will skyrocket. Major sports franchises in very large cities are not available very often, and the bidding will go through the roof: When MLB seized the Dodgers from Frank McCourt in 2011, the team was valued at $800M and people thought it was a stretch that it would get $1 billion. But when the sale was finalized a year later, it went for $2.15 billion, more than 2 1/2 times its original valuation - and the final tally didn't even include the valuable parking concession, which McCourt was allowed to keep.

Forbes values the Clips at $575M . . . I'll bet they go for at least $200M above that number, maybe up to a billion. People in LA are throwing around names like Dr. Dre as the next owner, but even as wealthy as he is, the final cost will not allow him to be anything more than a managing partner

 

[rrlbees]

Nope. He voted on the rules and bylaws. Now he is going to argue he doesn't understand the rules or agree with them. Hes gonna be like the last kid picked at dodgeball if he remains...actually the value of the team will go nowhere but down from this point forward..best thing is to sell.

I don't know which is worse, this thread or the Maryland one. All these people (Sterling and Md) want to be part of these private entities (NBA and ACC) and reap the benefits of having rules, an organization and making $$$$, but when it comes to a rule they don't like they want no rules.

 

[AZOrange]

the revenue of the team might go down, but not its value. The minute the franchise gets listed for sale, its value will skyrocket. Major sports franchises in very large cities are not available very often, and the bidding will go through the roof: When MLB seized the Dodgers from Frank McCourt in 2011, the team was valued at $800M and people thought it was a stretch that it would get $1 billion. But when the sale was finalized a year later, it went for $2.15 billion, more than 2 1/2 times its original valuation - and the final tally didn't even include the valuable parking concession, which McCourt was allowed to keep. Forbes values the Clips at $575M . . . I'll bet they go for at least $200M above that number, maybe up to a billion. People in LA are throwing around names like Dr. Dre as the next owner, but even as wealthy as he is, the final cost will not allow him to be anything more than a managing partner

Agreed on the billion for the clips, although the dodgers thing was just absurd.

I don't think Dre would get approved, just IMO. I wonder if someone like zuckerburg would so it. He could pay with his spare change.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

the revenue of the team might go down, but not its value. The minute the franchise gets listed for sale, its value will skyrocket. Major sports franchises in very large cities are not available very often, and the bidding will go through the roof: When MLB seized the Dodgers from Frank McCourt in 2011, the team was valued at $800M and people thought it was a stretch that it would get $1 billion. But when the sale was finalized a year later, it went for $2.15 billion, more than 2 1/2 times its original valuation - and the final tally didn't even include the valuable parking concession, which McCourt was allowed to keep.

Forbes values the Clips at $575M . . . I'll bet they go for at least $200M above that number, maybe up to a billion. People in LA are throwing around names like Dr. Dre as the next owner, but even as wealthy as he is, the final cost will not allow him to be anything more than a managing partner

Whatever it goes for, it will likely set a new record for the value of an NBA franchise. And I don't think #2 will even be close.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Nope. He voted on the rules and bylaws. Now he is going to argue he doesn't understand the rules or agree with them. Hes gonna be like the last kid picked at dodgeball if he remains...actually the value of the team will go nowhere but down from this point forward..best thing is to sell.

What rule or bylaw, as it's written, did Sterling violate exactly? I'm not defending him, I'm not being snarky, I just want to understand how this is being defined.

 

[retro44]

What rule or bylaw, as it's written, did Sterling violate exactly? I'm not defending him, I'm not being snarky, I just want to understand how this is being defined.

some legal mind on the radio who said he has read the owners by-laws claims there was nothing in there about racists comments to ban owners.

don't know...