Where is everyone getting that the NBA will run the Clippers? Just curious, because when baseball banned Steinbrenner he was limited similarly to how Sterling is now–he could have no active involvement with the team. However, Steinbrenner was the one who decided which individual would actually run the club operations in his stead, not MLB. I think it was just that Steinbrenner couldn’t communicate with him about certain topics, and wasn’t allowed to order him to do certain things (because then he’s just a proxy for Steinbrenner and Steinbrenner’s ban would have essentially been circumvented.)
Due to the legal mess I’ve seen every legal analyst predict this would be, I wouldn’t be surprised if the NBA comes to some sort of settlement with Sterling. I imagine if Sterling put the Clippers in an irrevocable trust with his heirs as beneficiary that might, for example, satisfy the NBA that Sterling is no longer involved. If Sterling’s interest is to preserve value for his heirs I think that would be the ideal approach and would also remove Sterling from ownership of the team.
Not sure if an NBA Franchise can be owned by a trust though, under NBA rules.
Ah, but if it gets litigated it’d be pretty typical for a judge to stay that action until the court case is resolved. I don’t really know all the rules for when things like that are stayed until the end of a case or when the judge allows them to happen and let the court reverse it if Sterling wins, but it seems like most legal fights over ownership the original owner gets to keep possession until the case is resolved. That’s similar to real estate anyway with tenants, until the legal case is fully resolved forcing a tenant out of a property the default is that the leaseholder gets to keep possession of their tenancy.
I’m not sure what would happen and when either or what will happen as any legal action plays out. But when people say the NBA will run the team, that’s what they mean. Within the next couple of weeks they will vote to terminate Sterling’s ownership and then the NBA will collectively own the team.
Yeah, that part makes sense…at that point it’d be like the other franchise the NBA had to take ownership of recently. But my point is if Sterling was to litigate it, I imagine he could get a court order blocking that from actually happening. At which point I presume the “normal” procedure for how a banned owner can interact with the team would be in effect…while I don’t know what it is for the NBA for baseball you have to appoint someone to basically function as owner in your stead and you can have no involvement in day-to-day decision making.
I’d be shocked if they didn’t have one or more of those firms on retainer. In house legal departments typically deal with more routine matters, and consult/liaison with outside counsel on litigation matters.
I’m not sure which part is supposed to be incorrect. Sterling’s ownership hasn’t been terminated, but he’s banned from the NBA and cannot run the team.
Martin Hyde suggested that the situation here might be similar to when Steinbrenner was banned from baseball, in which case he himself appointed someone to run the team, versus the NBA running the team. You responded that the NBA would only run the team after Sterling’s ownership was terminated. Based on this link, the NBA is moving ahead with appointing a CEO to run the team even before Sterling’s ownership is terminated.
Not so much suggested as speculated, I didn’t claim to know the NBA procedure and only knew what happened in a similar incident with the MLB. Although in the Yankees case, I believe the person who stepped forward to run the team was actually part of the partnership that owned the Yankees, Steinbrenner was always the principal owner but he had a few minority partners (maybe the current Steinbrenner duo that owns the Yankees continues to have minority partners, I’m not sure); it sounds like Sterling is the sole owner of the Clippers.
Thing is that Steinbrenner’s interests and those of a minority partner would be aligned, for the most part. The NBA’s and Sterling’s would not be at all aligned. For one thing, they would be interested in using the team to repair the damage to the league’s brand. And for another, it would be in their interest to damage his profits from the team, so as to make him more amenable to sell (and the lower he sells it for, the easier it is for them to line up a preferred buyer). And that’s besides for personal issues.
Well ,it would be in the interest of the NBA to sever all relations between Sterling and the Clippers as fast as possible. As long as Sterling has any connection as all with the team, sponsors and free agents will avoid the team like a decomposing skunk. And if they damage the Clippers brand too much, it will be harder to find owners who’ll want to do the rebuild.
George Steinbrenner started off with less than 50% of the team but acquired more than 70%. I believe that is still the arrangement. As one partner was quoted, “There is nothing in life quite so limited as being a limited partner of George Steinbrenner.”
Here’s another legal question. Suppose Sterling decides that with the NBA out to force him to sell anyway, he may as well go for broke and ignore the ban, while challenging it in court. Does the NBA have some mechanism for taking over control of the team pending a court order, or does Sterling maintain control until ordered to relinquish it by the courts?
I would assume parts of the ban, like banning his presence at NBA events could be enforced by trespassing laws. Team offices and meeting with other team officials I don’t know that they’d have any legal system remedy, but they could probably apply pressure on persons who associate with Sterling in violation of the ban since they’re most likely persons who have an interest in not being themselves banned by the NBA.