Sterling to Sue NBA

[Deadrody]

There was an all white league until the 1940's, it was MLB. I didn't read in any history books of anyone being hung on a cross. Are you trying to change the narrative now from what he said about blacks to focus on people of different s e xual orientation? You're definitely stretch armstronging it there.

Wow, such epic cluelessness. Are you really telling me that and concept of "whites only" in the year 2014 would NOT result in an overwhelming negative response ? You're $hitting me, right ?

 

[Deadrody]

There is no such thing as "traditional marriage,"

Really ? I suppose you're right since for the last couple thousand years or so, the term "traditional marriage" was redundant. And thanks for making his point for him.

 

[noeynox]

I agree on the hypocrisy aspect, but can't go with you beyond that, you might be lumping a lot of divergent and irrelevant things together here.
the best take I've heard on the hypocrisy is this from Bomani Jones.
http://deadspin.com/in-10-minutes-e...ource=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
jump ahead to around 2:30 to pass the small talk.

Aside from that, the best leg the NBA has to stand on is that his ownership hurts the rest of the league, and given the pulling of sponsorships and the threats for more to come, thats a pretty strong case.

Wow. Just wow. Speaks to my ignorance. I have heard the name Bomani Jones, but have never heard him. I really know nothing about Sterling, but what he said there was real talk.

 

[EricLA]

There is so much stupid in this post.

There is no such thing as "traditional marriage," just the narrow definition you have been exposed to your whole life. Survey the globe and provide me with a definition of "traditional."

There is no equivalency between the statements of blacks and whites when it comes to racism. One group has had virtually unfettered control in shaping the familial, social and economic outcomes for the other group (hint, I don't think blacks have had that control over your family lineage).

And the his propery wasn't "taken," he is being forced to sell it.

And the sale was the result of action taken by a private association Sterling entered into voluntarily. He could own all the stock in the world and be a horrible racist and nobody would do anything to him. But, he chose to invest in league which is very sensitive to race - that is his fault. And losing the team will be the result of 3/4 of his peers.

There is so much smart in this post. I find that as bigotry becomes less and less PC, folks try to find more creative ways to justify it. It's so sad, really.

 

[JaYnYcE]

Wow, such epic cluelessness. Are you really telling me that and concept of "whites only" in the year 2014 would NOT result in an overwhelming negative response ? You're $hitting me, right ?

I actually didn't say that but weird that you would go there.

 

[Chin Diesel]

I love it. I hope Sterling goes totally "scorched earth". I would PPV to see Stern on the stand facing a hostle lawyer.

That sounds about right to me. He knows he is toast and wants air out the dirty laundry. He doesn't car who else is damaged along the way.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Really ? I suppose you're right since for the last couple thousand years or so, the term "traditional marriage" was redundant. And thanks for making his point for him.

Redundant?

For many in the Mormon church (much less so now), polygamy represents traditional marriage.
For many whites (by law in Virginia until the 70's) traditional marriage couldn't be inter-racial.
For many northeast Italians traditional marriage couldn't be inter-ethnic.
For many British (which is where our law stems) traditional marriage was about claiming dominion over your wifes property (see also Downtown Abbey).

Branching out around the world further drives home that point that there is no such thing as "traditional marriage" that is "natural".

In the Middle East and Southeast Asia traditional marriage is often arranged for economic reasons.
Some Himalayan cultures still consider polyandry (multiple husbands) traditional.
And on and on and on.

So, which was is traditional?

 

[JaYnYcE]

No, you are supposed to accept that I am right because of objective facts.

For many in the Mormon church (much less so now), polygamy represents traditional marriage.
For many whites (by law in Virginia until the 70's) traditional marriage couldn't be inter-racial.
For many northeast Italians traditional marriage couldn't be inter-ethnic.
For many British (which is where our law stems) traditional marriage was about claiming dominion over your wifes property (see also Downtown Abbey).

Branching out around the world further drives home that point that there is no such thing as "traditional marriage" that is "natural".

In the Middle East and Southeast Asia traditional marriage is often arranged for economic reasons.
Some Himalayan cultures still consider polyandry (multiple husbands) traditional.
And on and on and on.

So, which was is traditional?

i'll say it for you, checkmate

 

[WestHartHusk]

Also - this has gotten prett "OT" so I will stop posting on the topic unless it gets moved.

 

[selles]

Aside from that, the best leg the NBA has to stand on is that his ownership hurts the rest of the league, and given the pulling of sponsorships and the threats for more to come, thats a pretty strong case.

That's exactly right. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the nature of the NBA's legal case. It's not going to be he said/she said or some great principled stand, it's going to be 'here is what Sterling's actions have done and threatened to do to the league'. You have players making symbolic gestures of disgust all over the place and credible threats to boycott playoff games, you have advertisers and corporate sponsors dropping out. I don't know what the specific language of the NBA ownership agreement is, but this would seem to be exactly the type of situation where you'd want the ability to force an owner out.

That's why all this slippery slope talk is questionable at best. In a court of law, this isn't going to be about morality; it's about business.

I also think people are underestimating the collective wealth and power of the NBA and its owners. Sterling may dig in and fight to the bitter end, but he's going to take a lot of collateral damage if he does.

 

[noeynox]

A few weeks before the Sterling incident Jay Z, a part owner, went to an NBA game with a chain of a racist organization against whites
Rapper Wears Medallion Of Group That Posits ‘White Men Are The Devil,’ Five Percent Nation
http://www.ibtimes.com/jay-z-racist...ite-men-are-devil-five-percent-nation-1568314

How is the NBA going to explain in a court of law that there are no sanctions against Jay Z for a public act of racism but there are sanctions for illegal taped phone call? I don't listen to Jay Z but I wouldn't be surprised if some group (whites, women, police, etc) could also find his lyrics offensive. What are they going to say to those groups you are not cool so nobody cares if your offended?

First of all, why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court??? He no longer even owns a small minority stake in the Nets. Second of all who cares about his songs. Hank Williams once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, they're songs.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

There is no equivalency between the statements of blacks and whites when it comes to racism. One group has had virtually unfettered control in shaping the familial, social and economic outcomes for the other group (hint, I don't think blacks have had that control over your family lineage).

Obviously this is right, but you're not going to make much headway with this crowd. I'm sure South Tampa Bill is one of those guys that thinks it's racist that there's a Black History Month but no White History Month. You're wasting your breath.

 

[SubbaBub]

We now have people being called bigots because they believe in the traditional ideal of marriage as between a male and a female. One of the NBA owners is on record as being for traditional marriage. Is he a bigot...because many people are now calling people like him (and me) bigots because we believe in something the president believed until a few years ago? Should the owner have his club taken away from him?
The fact is the NBA and all the people throwing rocks at Sterling are hypocrites. They pick and choose. Nothing was done to Spike Lee for his racist utterances nor Jay-Z for wearing a racist medallion to a game. And we'll see if Knick's executive Larry Johnson is punished for urging an all-black league. Imagine someone calling for an all white league? He would be hung on the cross.
So anybody at any time who slips up and says something considered derogatory towards people of another s e x, ethnic persuasion, or nationality should be severely punished? Is that what they're saying? And how many Americans are perfect people? If someone can have their business or property taken away from them without even a chance for an explanation or apology, then we have entered dangerous times. For everybody.

Those people are bigots, it will just be 20 years before it's the overwhelming consensus. But don't worry, you'll be looked at then as a product of the times. Unless you don't come around to how silly your position is, then I would suggest you not own an NBA team at that time.

 

[SubbaBub]

That's exactly right. I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the nature of the NBA's legal case. It's not going to be he said/she said or some great principled stand, it's going to be 'here is what Sterling's actions have done and threatened to do to the league'. You have players making symbolic gestures of disgust all over the place and credible threats to boycott playoff games, you have advertisers and corporate sponsors dropping out. I don't know what the specific language of the NBA ownership agreement is, but this would seem to be exactly the type of situation where you'd want the ability to force an owner out.

That's why all this slippery slope talk is questionable at best. In a court of law, this isn't going to be about morality; it's about business.

I also think people are underestimating the collective wealth and power of the NBA and its owners. Sterling may dig in and fight to the bitter end, but he's going to take a lot of collateral damage if he does.

To get this thread back on track, I think the NBA has a pretty high bar to prove a loss of value high enough to justify ousting an owner. They may find a sympathetic judge, but how do they show they loss is not only tangible to the league (and other league owners), but in excess of say your typical poorly run NBA franchise.

A case could be made that Dolan is hurting the value of the NBA brand in terms of pure dollars , because the Knicks have been so bad for so long.

They might be able to do it, but I don't think it happens quickly or is a slam dunk. Both Al Davis and the USFL v..NFL type decisions are in play here

 

[UCHuskies08]

Really ? I suppose you're right since for the last couple thousand years or so, the term "traditional marriage" was redundant. And thanks for making his point for him.

Which is it?? Are you going to tell your virgin daughter who was raped to marry her rapist? As Genesis commands you to?

 

[DCHuskyFan]

He's a racist idiot, but he is also a successful lawyer/business person. You don't get to be the latter by avoiding a fight, especially a fight used to delay or avoid paying millions more in capital gains than what the litigation will cost to pursue. In short, he should fight until he dies, as the estate tax implications will not affect him nearly as much as the capital gains tax implications.

 

[Go_Huskies]

First of all, why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court??? He no longer even owns a small minority stake in the Nets. Second of all who cares about his songs. Hank Williams once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, they're songs.

I didn't know that he didn't have a stake in the team anymore. That was a good point you brought up. I will give you credit there.

I think you miss the point. It is called hypocrisy

Jay Z wears racist chain to NBA game.
NBA's reaction - Nothing
Your reaction - "why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

Jay Z was an owner and had offensive lyrics -
NBA's reaction - "Nothing"
Your reaction - "who cares about his songs"

Sterling says something bigoted in a illegal taped private phone call
NBA's reaction - "Ban him for life"

It appears to be a double standard. How are they going to explain that? Are they going to say?
"why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

If they say that why can't sterling say "why would the NBA have to explain anything that an owner says in a privately illegally taped phone call"

If the lyrics are brought up in court is the NBA going to say as you have said, "Second of all who cares about his songs. Hank Williams once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, they're song"

Then Sterling can say "who cares what is said in a privately illegally taped phone call. I mean really Hank Williams Jr. once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, it was a private phone call!"

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I love it. I hope Sterling goes totally "scorched earth". I would PPV to see Stern on the stand facing a hostle lawyer.

I am looking forward to the headline: Sterling vs. Silver. I will get a cheap laugh out of it then continue to ignore this farce.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

My initial thought was that Sterling had to sell now because the franchise would lose value the longer he held it, but there is a huge built in capital gain. The bill isn't $330MM like the poster in the other thread said it was, but its either 20% or 40% of the difference between thse sale price and the $12mm he purchased the team for. If he hangs on to death, he doesn't have to pay that. That fact is driving this situation more than anything.

Edit: Could sterling avoid the tax bill by putting the team in a trust and then selling it out of a trust?

 

[JaYnYcE]

Sterling battling Cancer
http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/disgraced-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-is-battling-cancer/

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Sterling battling Cancer
http://nypost.com/2014/05/01/disgraced-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-is-battling-cancer/

That would explain why the family is going to fight this. Sterling could show up at games in Klan garb. The family is going to do everything it can to fight a tax bill that will be $150MM or more if pops looks like he is about to kick the bucket.

 

[zls44]

That would explain why the family is going to fight this. Sterling could show up at games in Klan garb. The family is going to do everything it can to fight a tax bill that will be $150MM or more if pops looks like he is about to kick the bucket.

Don't get me wrong, a $150,000,000 tax bill sucks...but if he makes $1.5 billion on a sale...I mean...enjoy the other $1.35 billion?

 

[UCHuskies08]

I didn't know that he didn't have a stake in the team anymore. That was a good point you brought up. I will give you credit there.

I think you miss the point. It is called hypocrisy

Jay Z wears racist chain to NBA game.
NBA's reaction - Nothing
Your reaction - "why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

Jay Z was an owner and had offensive lyrics -
NBA's reaction - "Nothing"
Your reaction - "who cares about his songs"

Sterling says something bigoted in a illegal taped private phone call
NBA's reaction - "Ban him for life"

It appears to be a double standard. How are they going to explain that? Are they going to say?
"why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

If they say that why can't sterling say "why would the NBA have to explain anything that an owner says in a privately illegally taped phone call"

If the lyrics are brought up in court is the NBA going to say as you have said, "Second of all who cares about his songs. Hank Williams once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, they're song"

Then Sterling can say "who cares what is said in a privately illegally taped phone call. I mean really Hank Williams Jr. once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, it was a private phone call!"

Jay Z was a minority owner..... He owned a tiny fraction of a team. He wasn't calling any shots.

Also, you don't know if the calls were illegally recorded or not.

 

[Fishy]

This doesn't end with Sterling winning - he's one billionaire fighting 15 other billionaires. And the other 14 owners are merely insanely wealthy. Every day that Sterling hangs on, money walks out the door in a dozen different ways.

This ends with either Sterling losing, Sterling selling or Sterling at room temp.

 

[noeynox]

I didn't know that he didn't have a stake in the team anymore. That was a good point you brought up. I will give you credit there.

I think you miss the point. It is called hypocrisy

Jay Z wears racist chain to NBA game.
NBA's reaction - Nothing
Your reaction - "why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

Jay Z was an owner and had offensive lyrics -
NBA's reaction - "Nothing"
Your reaction - "who cares about his songs"

Sterling says something bigoted in a illegal taped private phone call
NBA's reaction - "Ban him for life"

It appears to be a double standard. How are they going to explain that? Are they going to say?
"why would the NBA have to explain anything that Jay Z does in court"

If they say that why can't sterling say "why would the NBA have to explain anything that an owner says in a privately illegally taped phone call"

If the lyrics are brought up in court is the NBA going to say as you have said, "Second of all who cares about his songs. Hank Williams once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, they're song"

Then Sterling can say "who cares what is said in a privately illegally taped phone call. I mean really Hank Williams Jr. once wrote a song about how great it would have been if the south won the civil war. Who gives a flying bleep, it was a private phone call!"

It is not about hyposcrisy. You seem to be looking at this with a double standard type of slant that a minority could get away with doing and saying things that a white can't, and while that is true in some instances, that is not what this situation is about. If you saw how this played out, what the commissioner first said is that Sterling should be afforded "due process". At his press conference he displayed outrage and disgust. What happened in between? Public outrage, and sponsors started parting ways with the clippers left and right. If the NBA did nothing, they risked similar loss of sponsorships/money if public pressure mounted.

As far as the tapes being illegally taped? That has nothing to do with nothing, since the NBA is not a court of law. What they had was PR problem in the court of public opinion. It is always about money when it comes to these types of things.

I brought up the Hank Williams because he had that song about the confederacy winning the civil war out, and still sang the Monday night football jingle. When he called Barrack Obama hitler, ESPN quickly said see you later. Why? Because it was inflamatory to consumers and advertisers probably would have dropped them in protest, to appease their consumers.

If Jay Z;s actions stood to cost the NBA millions, they would kick his to curb too.