His wife is suing her. The main isssues of the suit is that he used marital assets to buy his girlfriend $500,000 in cars and a $1.8 Mil condo that the wife wants ownership transfered back to the couple.
I am wondering if Sterling will use the profits from the sale to start an Anti-trust lawsuit against the league for interfering with his rights as an owner and drag the NBA and Silver through a legal shit trough for a few years.
We’re not in Great Debates but overall point taken.
It could be true, but we don’t know that. It’s also irrelevant to the NBA issue. If people were calling her a victim in some way, sure, this might matter.
That’s what I said, unless you think it’s incorrect to call her estranged for some reason.
He’d fight his excommunication and the sale process rather than suing after the team gets sold, and that’s not unlikely. It’s not like he needs the money from the sale to start an expensive legal dispute. But the NBA is also a huge business with good lawyers of its own. David Stern was a lawyer, Adam Silver was a lawyer, and doubtless some very good lawyers were involved in the creation of the league constitution and in the process that’s played out over the last few days.
Sure, here are the reasons I think she comes off looking badly here. She was the well-kept mistress of an extremely wealthy man (I’ll skip the more obvious appellation for what she was doing), who was cheating on him in turn, and who spilled this story to hurt him. The whole thing situation feels tacky, tawdry, and sleazy.
Presumably he’d been saying horribly racist things to her for as long as they’d been together, so whence comes the timing for her revelation? It appears to me that it happened when she got tired of him micromanaging her life, not because of any escalation in the racist views he’d held for decades. While she did a public service by exposing him to the consequences of his views, I think it’s hard to argue she did it out of any idealism. Edward Snowden she ain’t.
This, of course, is all my opinion.
What makes you think he will fight the sale? The fine maybe, but he’s lost all control of the team and all the prestige associated with it. Every nano-second he’s associated with it represents a social stigma comparable to standing on a street corner holding a sign of shame.
He’s going to sell the team and take the money and run.
He has little reason not to fight it since he’s extremely rich and his reputation can’t sink any lower. Plus he’s Donald Sterling. He’s known to be a litigious guy in general. When he settled his housing discrimination case a few years ago, he had to pay millions of dollars because of overzealous moves made by his own lawyers.
I see zero reason to think he’s capable of shame.
He’ll fight the sale because he’s shameless and has had no problem in the past duking it out in litigation.
Hopefully the stress of it will kill him.
It bothers me that so many people think that the NBA, being a media, social, and public company in so many ways should have taken it easier on this guy.
This isn’t some mom and pop shop. This isn’t government brownshirts goosestepping into your house to take away your property. This isn’t Toyota not liking you and repossessing your car. The NBA had full rights to do what they did and make it as long as they did. Some of you making the case that the punishment should have been less severe have a serious problem with treating racism like its not a big deal. I suspect the same people would also agree with the statement that America’s not racist anymore and we should all just move on
Oh, I agree! It’s irrelevant to the NBA issue. It’s also pretty irrelevant to the moral issue; ultimately I’m glad this asshole has been outed and I don’t care too much why it was done. I’m also not too concerned about her being called a victim; I just hope people don’t start calling her a hero. She did a nasty thing that happened to have a positive effect.
The Ken Lay effect? 
Mark Cuban has been pretty critical of Sterling’s comments, but he did make the point the other day (not sure if it’s been mentioned) that there could be a slippery slope if you start pushing out owners who have unpopular ideas. Basically, what about the owners that oppose gay marriage? Or the open homophobes? The anti-Semites? Etc.
I’m not actually sure what Cuban’s point is, as I think the NBA would do well to push out anti-Semites and open homophobes, but perhaps being an owner he knows that other members of this mostly white, rich man’s club have precisely those views and maybe Donald Sterling isn’t the singular objectionable guy he’s being held out to be.
Nonetheless, at the end of the day even if that’s the case the other owners have had the good sense to keep such opinions private and this is the entertainment business at the end of the day and requires having a good brand and not one that alienates large segments of the population.
Some have said Sterling’s lifetime ban was a harsh punishment. I guess I can agree that “on paper” it does seem harsh as I believe it is the first league action against him for any racial issue (the other incidents were I believe lawsuits and never resulted in a judgment against Sterling to my knowledge.) If you compare owners in other sports leagues who have made similar statements (Marge Schott of the Reds being a direct analogue), she was banned for 1 year after her first comment and 2 years after her second one and sold the team near the end of the 2 year ban.
You could I guess make the argument that comparatively Sterling’s comments, which were theoretically in private with a person he had an intimate relationship with were milder than Schott’s as hers were in public to the press. Further, Schott actually basically endorsed Nazism which is a more reprehensible outburst of racism than Sterling’s.
So there is the argument that yeah, for a first official offense it does seem harsh and maybe on some level he should have a chance at redemption. But the NBA is in the basketball business. It has to react to the situation on the field.
For whatever reason, Schott’s reprehensible views while widely condemned didn’t have coaches ready to quit working for her, players ready to refuse to work for her and opposing players ready to do a sit out until she was forced out of the league. The players are the product here, and when the players and many of the coaches in the NBA are legitimately talking about a work stoppage then the commissioner has to act in the best interests of the NBA, not some concept of proportionality to Sterling. I’m sure if the MLB players had responded to Schott the way the NBA players did to Sterling Selig probably would have responded more harshly to Schott.
We can speculate on why that didn’t happen in baseball, my personal guess would be Jews are probably less than 2% of baseball players and coaches whereas blacks are probably 85% of basketball players (in the MLB/NBA respectively.)
I remember the Marge Schott mess. And I remember even at the time (and I was in my early 20s and much more conservative in my views) marveling that more of a hammer didn’t drop on her. My guess is that the big difference between the two situations is image and PR: baseball guessed (rightly, it turns out) that the situation of batty old Nazi Marge would blow over, and wouldn’t cause large-scale protests or drive fans off in droves.
Meanwhile, the NBA is laying its money on (and we will never know if they’re right, but my guess is they are) the Donald Sterling situation being a HUGE PR disaster if they didn’t act quickly and forcefully. If Doc Rivers (one of the most beloved guys in the league) quit; if players walked out or threatened to strike; if Al Sharpton and friends clogged up every cable news and sports channel for months; if advertisers started dropping…it could have turned into something that cost the league a lot of lost revenue.
That’s my bet, as well.
If this had happened in September, the response may have been different. But the first round of the playoffs is nearly the worst time a PR disaster could happen. This issue is easily overshadowing the post-season, and that means losing money right now.
Schott, by contrast, mostly let her mouth get her into trouble in the off season when the public wouldn’t be as invested in the game.
I suspect older people tend to be shocked at how quickly scandals can blow up now because of social media. This story broke with tabloid media (TMZ, Deadspin), it blew up online, and because everyone was talking about it, the MSM reported on it.
That’s the biggest difference between then and now. The MSM is still influential, but they’ve lost a lot of their monopoly on setting the news agenda. This was not the worst example of Donald Sterling’s racism, but it was the most discussed, so here we are.
I think it’s just a different time. There’s way more coverage of sports on TV and online, and there are more ways for fans and players to speak up and put pressure on leagues today than there were 20 years ago. There’s also more of an emphasis on things like corporate responsibility.
I don’t think so. In the offseason it would have gotten just as much news coverage, the players and the public would have been just as upset - it’s easy to picture training camp walkouts - and sponsors would have run the other way. If the NBA’s response had been limp it would have been a train wreck.
That’s a great point. In 1992 the decision of how big a story Marge’s Million-Dollar N-Words was going to be was still in the hands of a pretty tight circle of people. In 2014, shit gets crowdsourced, and fast.
Mark Cuban and guys like that HAVE to say that, in order so that he can seem like he’s taking the long form approach. People on this board don’t, because they don’t have to be deposed of their billion dollar properties.
In his heart, I fully believe Mark Cuban doesn’t give a damn about the consequences ousting Sterling will cause because he doesn’t think it can happen to him. And that’s kind of my take on it too, that this situation is unique. People coming out of the woodwork to say “well maybe we shouldn’t use mob mentality” or “maybe we should take a step back from the slippery slope” like Jason Whitlock are, I think either hidden racists themselves or contrarians.
Sterling deserves to be punished and have his team taken away. Hell, even if that were specifically against the rules, they should ignore or change the rules just so they can punish Sterling. There is zero percent chance that this could come back to bite anybody. There’s no slippery slope because this situation will never be used to unfair rid the league of anyone else who’s not a giant racist douchebag. So I don’t worry and I don’t think others should worry about things like whether or not this is legal, or wise, or good for the league. Its irrelevant, it is wise, and its great for the league. Sterling must go
I suspect the owners are going to want Sterling to part with the team willingly, because various law-bloggers are saying if Sterling contests the sale he will most likely be able to keep the Clippers in legal limbo for the remainder of his life. Given his general kookiness and the fact that he’s an elderly rich guy it’s not entirely an unfounded concern he may do just that–he told Fox News in a statement today that the Clippers aren’t for sale, which indicates he’s gearing up for a legal battle.
It’s true that the NBA is basically a contractually created association, and ownership of a team is really just ownership of a franchise, but it’ll be a complex and lengthy to litigate legal issue about what precisely that contract (in the form of the NBA Constitution and by laws) says about when the NBA can terminate a franchise and whether or not they’ve done so appropriately for Sterling.
It makes me wonder if they should first change the NBA Constitution, to explicitly say that in addition to the current unethical clause and the financial difficulty clause which allows the NBA to terminate a franchise there’s also a “conduct unbecoming” sort of clause that would cover Sterling’s behavior. But I’m not sure how the courts would treat a post facto enforcement of a contract stipulation.
I’m also not sure what the process is for changing the NBA Constitution/by laws and what portion of the owners have to go along with it for that to happen.
It is unfortunate for any Clippers fans (I’m sure there aren’t many) they’ve long been one of the worst teams in major American sports. Unless Sterling immediately sells the team to the Magic Johnson group or something, I don’t see anything but a return to big time losing seasons if this goes to litigation.
It’s been reported since the beginning that Magic Johnson and the Guggenheim group might be interested in the Clippers. Today the news is that Oprah and Larry Ellison and David Geffen might team up to make an offer. Between those two and the Seattle group, this team could sell for way, way more than the Bucks just did. And the Bucks just sold for $550 million even though they stink and play in a smallish market.
That’s the biggest joke of all time. Pay me millions to play a kid’s game, please. If that’s slavery may I never be free.