Sock - I could be wrong (someone please correct me if I am), but the suspensions for Artest and Arenas were not longer due to contract language in the collective bargaining agreement. I'm sure the NBA would've loved to suspend Artest for life but the NBAPA would've prevented that from taking place.

NBA just set the bar for the standards of all involved in the league - owners, coaches, players.

Can't wait for the next stupid racist comment that comes from a player via an interview or a tweet. Look forward to the banning (which will probably never happen).

Shaq, Rodman and Isiah Thomas to name just a few would all be serving lifetime bans if this standard was in effect during their playing days.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The NBA is reaching very broadly in punishing him, taking away his property,

---

The NBA is doing no such thing.

---

They're not? They haven't prevented him from accessing his own property at the Clippers offices or his suite or even his seats? He is the owner of the team and has no access to any of the team's property. More importantly, the NBA is about to vote to force him to sell his team. What are you talking about?


[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 10:37a).]

How many times has Kobe and others dropped the #1 homophobic slur publicly on the court?

Time for them to leave too, I suppose.


[This message has been edited by Bunk Moreland (edited 4/30/2014 10:51a).]

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The NBA is reaching very broadly in punishing him, taking away his property,

---

The NBA is doing no such thing.

---

They're not? They haven't prevented him from accessing his own property at the Clippers offices or his suite or even his seats? He is the owner of the team and has no access to any of the team's property. More importantly, the NBA is about to vote to force him to sell his team. What are you talking about?

---

He can have someone bring him his "property" from his office. Does he own the buildings or actual seats at the arena?

His fellow owners are going to vote on whether or not he will be forced to sell (SELL, not have it taken away) the team. There are by-laws and a constitution in the NBA that allow them to do this in order to protect the league and their own franchises in turn. Sterling agreed to that when he became an NBA owner. The league is not forcing him to sell.

quote:

---

Sock - I could be wrong (someone please correct me if I am), but the suspensions for Artest and Arenas were not longer due to contract language in the collective bargaining agreement. I'm sure the NBA would've loved to suspend Artest for life but the NBAPA would've prevented that from taking place.

---

That would be a good reason.

What about the Magic's owner?

I still believe this sets a very poor standard on when the NBA can "force" an owner out. It also sets a very poor precedent on how it has previously dealt with individauls (for example, Kobe Bryant) that have damaged the leagues brand.

quote:

---

His fellow owners are going to vote on whether or not he will be forced to sell (SELL, not have it taken away) the team. There are by-laws and a constitution in the NBA that allow them to do this in order to protect the league and their own franchises in turn. Sterling agreed to that when he became an NBA owner. The league is not forcing him to sell.

---

Has the NBA ever invoked this by-law before for the reasons they stated?

This is normally reserved for insolvent teams or owners that were embroiled in a criminal case.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The NBA is reaching very broadly in punishing him, taking away his property,

---

The NBA is doing no such thing.

---

They're not? They haven't prevented him from accessing his own property at the Clippers offices or his suite or even his seats? He is the owner of the team and has no access to any of the team's property. More importantly, the NBA is about to vote to force him to sell his team. What are you talking about?

---

He can have someone bring him his "property" from his office. Does he own the buildings or actual seats at the arena?

His fellow owners are going to vote on whether or not he will be forced to sell (SELL, not have it taken away) the team. There are by-laws and a constitution in the NBA that allow them to do this in order to protect the league and their own franchises in turn. Sterling agreed to that when he became an NBA owner. The league is not forcing him to sell.

---

The league IS the owners. Maybe you are ignorant of that fact. The NBA, which is owned by each of the individual owners, is in the process of forcing him to sell his property interest.

Please don't claim A&M in public if you're going to use the "they're not taking it away, just forcing him to sell it" argument. And, yes, he has a property interest in each of the other things as well. If you pay the lease on a building, that lease gives you property rights, and the NBA has now taken many of those property rights away from Sterling.

Your "argument" is ill-conceived and pointless. Too many people in too much of a rush to be outraged are checking their logic at the door.

[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 11:05a).]

Lost all respect for Stuart Scott today

quote:

---

Please don't claim A&M in public if you're going to use the "they're not taking it away, just forcing him to sell it" argument.

---

You can't see the difference between taking it away and forcing him to sell? I'd ask you not to claim A&M in public if you're that ****ing stupid.

quote:

---

And, yes, he has a property interest in each of the other things as well. If you pay the lease on a building, that lease gives you property rights

---

So you don't understand the difference between owning and leasing either? Yikes.

[This message has been edited by Junkhead (edited 4/30/2014 11:07a).]

Agree with Junkhead. Sure Sterling would prefer not to sell, but he will definitely be compensated in terms of a TON of money. Given how many prospective buyers have expressed their interest in buying the team, Sterling will get a good price for it.

quote:

---

Lost all respect for Stuart Scott today

---

Dudes always been a joke.

quote:

---

Lost all respect for Stuart Scott today

---

you had respect for Stuart Scott?

Does he still do the poetry sessions where the producers, cameramen and staff snap their fingers when he's done?

I've just taken your house (or car, since I'm guessing you don't own any real property with such a dim view of property rights) away from you, but don't worry, you will be compensated at some point in the future based on whatever money you can get at the fire sale. I didn't take your property rights away, though, right? Really, that's your logic?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And, yes, he has a property interest in each of the other things as well. If you pay the lease on a building, that lease gives you property rights

---

So you don't understand the difference between owning and leasing either? Yikes.

---

Do you really not know that you have a property interest in a lease?


[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 11:13a).]

So now Donald Sterling lives at the Clippers office building? He doesn't own a home? Great comparison, Einstein.

And a fire sale? Come on, man. He's going to get north of $700MM for a franchise he purchased for $15MM.

You're so liberal it's sad.

Okay, Junkhead, I have to guess base on the content and tone of your resposnes that you're a student? Living on mom and dad's dime, maybe?

In the real world, you will hopefully make money and purchase assets with it, such as a home, car, or business (and, yes, this can include a lease for one or more of these items). Your equity interest in these assets entitles you to basic "property rights." If you own them outright, these rights generally include the right to use and control the property, and the right to transfer the property to others. You have these rights, and no one else does.

The only property right Sterling still has in the Clippers is, presumably, the right to revenue, but that will be gone as well as soon as the forced sale is complete. The NBA has taken away most of Sterling's property rights in the Clippers and is on the way towards taking away the rest.

This is fact. I have no idea what would possess anyone to argue this point. You are clearly way out of your depth here.

[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 11:25a).]

Read this document. This is what Donald Sterling and 29 other owners agreed to.

http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf

I own my home and paid my own way (with a little financial support from my parents) through A&M.

You read it and when you can explain to me how the NBA hasn't, and isn't, taking away any of Sterling's property rights, get back to me. All you've shown so far is a total lack of understanding of the most basic concepts of property rights, in addition to your lack of understanding as to who owns the NBA and even what a lease is.

[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 11:29a).]

He agreed to the rules under which his rights are being taken away. It's his own damn fault that he jeopardized a billion dollar business and the value of 29 other franchises.

quote:

---

I'm guessing you don't own any real property with such a dim view of property rights)

---

Well, that's rich. Are you sure you understand how property rights work in this context with the NBA constitution? Everything that has happened to Sterling, and will continue to happen, is perfectly within the rights of the NBA per the authority the owners put into the league.

quote:

---

He agreed to the rules under which his rights are being taken away.

---

Thank you for agreeing with me that they are taking away his property rights, since that is the only thing I said. You would have saved us a lot of time if you had done that a while back.

quote:

---

Well, that's rich. Are you sure you understand how property rights work in this context with the NBA constitution? Everything that has happened to Sterling, and will continue to happen, is perfectly within the rights of the NBA per the authority the owners put into the league.

---

Maybe you should read what I've actually written instead of what you think I've written. I have a pretty good handle on it.

Here's what I said:

quote:

---

This is a great point. The NBA should have exercised its authority to get rid of him for his racist PRACTICES a long time ago. Getting rid of him now for private STATEMENTS which were seemingly elicited by his girlfriend as part of a set-up doesn't come near that actual practices the DOJ charged him with.

I'm going to guess there are a handful or more of owners who have said things in private which were as racially/ethnically/religiously/sexually charged as Stirling's comments. The NBA is reaching very broadly in punishing him, taking away his property, for private comments. Everything about Sterling seems to indicate he's a petty, vindictive SOB. I would be surprised if he didn't mount a legal challenge and I think he has some good arguments.

If you're an NBA owner voting to force Sterling to sell the team, you better be prepared to have the same standards applied to you. That means potentially giving deposition testimony regarding your own private statements.

---

To which Junkhead replied that the NBA (which he apparently believed to be Adam Silver at the time) was in no way taking away his property for private comments. He's now admitted that they are doing exactly that. It speaks for itself.



[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 11:42a).]

Just by way of a small example, many small companies allow employees to take on ownership percentages, but they sign an agreement that says in so many words that the company may at its own option repurchase the ownership interest should the employee leave or be terminated. The ex-employee cannot keep the interest if the company wants it back. So, is the company trampling his property rights? No, it is enforcing a legal right the employee agreed to be bound by. Same deal here, on a much larger scale. Put whatever label on it you want, but these are the rules Sterling agreed to be bound by. He can challenge the enforcement of these rules, but not on the basis of some property right; rather, he can challenge whether the rules are being enforced as written.

quote:

---

Thank you for agreeing with me that they are taking away his property rights, since that is the only thing I said. You would have saved us a lot of time if you had done that a while back.

---

I only agreed so you would shut up about a relatively minor detail.

Oprah interested in buying Clippers. I'm sure that would make Donald really happy.

"Everybody in the audience at the Oprah show is getting SEASON TICKETS!!!!!"

DDP

[This message has been edited by Old School Brother (edited 4/30/2014 12:45p).]

It looks like there are a number of big time players out here that want them. Geffen, Larry Ellison, Oprah. Could be huge for that organization. Lakers better get their act together.

Property rights aren't absolute outside of a context, DTP. They have a right to remove his use and that is a part of the deal. He doesn't get to own the team in a vacuum. Now, he doesn't get to own the team at all (and good).

From the by-laws:

quote:

---

(c) Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or
endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect
prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the
Association or of a Member or its Team, shall be liable to a fine not
exceeding $1,000,000 to be imposed by the Commissioner. The
Member whose Owner, Officer, Manager, Coach or other employee has
been so fined shall pay the amount of the fine should such person fail to
do so within ten (10) days of its imposition.

(d) The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend
for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding
$1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person
who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or
detrimental to the Association.

---

So much for a constitution, right?

Also from the constitution & by-laws:

quote:

---

(l) The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices.

No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

---

[This message has been edited by Junkhead (edited 4/30/2014 3:46p).]

quote:

---

Property rights aren't absolute outside of a context, DTP. They have a right to remove his use and that is a part of the deal.

---

And? I'm not sure what your point is. What is the reason the NBA would be taking away Sterling's property? A private statement he made. That's all I said, that they were taking away his property based on a private statement he made. It would be helpful if you read and processed what was written instead of just lashing out because someone says something different than the mob. Even the dude who initially disagreed with what I said has finally admitted his point, which was that the NBA wasn't taking away Sterling's property, was baseless.

Now, to get this topic back to something that is more interesting and worth discussion, whether the NBA can do what it is attempting to, it's not nearly as clear as you seem to think:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2014/04/29/why-adam-silvers-demand-that-donald-sterling-sell-clippers-is-not-so-simple/

Ultimately, unless Sterling decides to bow out gracefully, and there doesn't seem to be a graceful bone in his body, whether the NBA can do what it is doing will be up to the courts to decide.


[This message has been edited by DTP02 (edited 4/30/2014 3:53p).]

Wow

I'm pretty sure there is a "fixed" penalty in 35(A)(d), no?

quote:

---

a fine not exceeding $1,000,000

---

And he's being punished for "conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the NBA", right?

Silver make try to invoke 24(l), but it certainly looks like he's outside his power to, with the whole there's a rule for that in the constitution of the league thing.

Yea, reading through that it seems that the NBA has absolutely no right to fine any more than $1MM let alone force a sell. The only way to enact 24(l) would be if there is not a clear definition of how to punish a member for the given transgression.

34A(c-d) pretty clearly spell out that the punishments for comments detrimental are a fine not to exceed $1M and/or a suspension of "definite or indefinite" durations.

The only question is does the language in 13(a) supersede this?

quote:

---

ARTICLE 13
TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP
The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

---

Is committing an act defined under 34A(c), which already has a clear punishment for owners, considered a "violation of the provisions". Also, with the fact that he was taped (supposedly) without his knowledge, is the term "willfully" up for debate?

It would seem that he has, at the very least a leg to stand on to challenge the $2.5M fine (and reduce it to a measly $1M) but also may be able to block this vote to forcibly terminate his membership. It does appear he is SOL on the lifetime ban though, unless he can challenge the issue of his private comments being a "statement", which I don't see working.