If this story is going to keep growing legs, I figured we needed a new thread where we could discuss events without the inhibitions on language that the Game Room or MPSIMS require. And it does seem to want to keep growing legs, eh.
I think his history belies this promise. And like many (most?) racists, he doesn’t quite seem to grasp that it’s not the fact that we heard him say those words, it’s the thought process underneath them that is the problem.
His wife seems to be similarly clueless (and entitled):[
But Donald… just give it up, pal. Shut the fuck up and go quietly. Unless you want your legacy to be “racist old man fights everyone over everything; loses spectacularly” in which case, hey, keep on fightin’ the good (old boy) fight.
Both Sterling’s are woefully inept at damage control. If they really understood the gravity of their situation and how much they stand lose over this matter, both personally and financially, they would quietly make efforts to sell the team and live out the remainder of their lives spending the wealth that the sale would bring them.
If they challenge the NBA, they risk alienating the other owners, they risk sowing dissension in their team, they’ll lose valuable advertising dollars and they’ll lose fans at games. Not only will the value of the team plummet, if they have any investors who are minority owners, they risk having them file lawsuits and liens which will I turn decrease the value of the Clipper’s organization even further.
They have lost in this matter. While it may seem to them that they haven’t or that they somehow have leverage to make the NBA pay them to “go away” at best all they can achieve from this is yo allow the intimate details of their personal lives to become tabloid fodder and to continue to have their most valuable asset dwindle in value.
You fucked up, Donald Sterling and wife.
Take your money and leave quietly while you still have a shred of dignity remaining.
I think you’re missing the basic argument being made by Mrs. Sterling. As I perceive it, she is saying: “You are considering terminating my husband’s ownership interest in the team. That’s unjust, because that result will also cause me to lose my ownership in the team, and I have done nothing wrong.”
And as I understand it, her lawyers are making a similar argument: a contractual term which causes a blameless party to suffer such a huge loss is unconscionable. Mrs. Sterling had no power to stop the behavior, nor an ability to insulate herself contractually from the resulting loss, especially as the couple is apparently divorcing.
I’m not a civil law guy, but that’s the gist as I understand it. The law would not permit a husband in the midst of divorce to take a chainsaw and cut the marital home in half. It’s an asset, and should be preserved and divided equally (or in whatever way the divorce court thought approximated equality, in any event).
Oh I get her argument. I just don’t think it holds water.
I mean, she hasn’t even actually filed for divorce yet, according to that article:
FFS, how do you “try” to get a divorce for 20 years? Can I claim that I’ve been “trying” to be an astronaut for 40+ years? I’ve also been trying to get Raquel Welch to marry for about 40 years now. Oh, and I’ve almost got that time machine done; I’ve been “working” on it for 35 years now.
I agree that we don’t know what the NBA Owners’ contract actually contains, but barring evidence to the contrary, I have to take Mr. Bass’s statement at face value.
She certainly had the ability to insulate herself from the loss: buy her own NBA team. She chose to accede to ownership of the Clippers with her husband, who she’s known to be a racist for years. Granted, the provision that requires that all co-owners’ interests to be severed is weird and seems pointless - why not just require the other owners to buy out the banned partner? - but it hardly seems unconscionable.
Incidentally, the NBA Constitution is published on its media site here (pdf). I just skimmed it and the gist appears to be that the NBA only recognizes one member/owner per team.
We didn’t cover anything quite like this - but I don’t think it actually matters. Based on the way the NBA treats its members, she doesn’t appear to be a party to the contract (or an intended beneficiary). I strongly suspect any relief she has available will be against Donald himself.
Even if she is a party (or an intended beneficiary), think of it like this: a gas station is jointly owned by two partners, Jon and Steve. They have a contract with Shell to supply their gasoline requirements for X number or years in exchange for exclusive Shell signage and so on. One day, Jon has a conference call with Shell personnel about supply issues. He freaks out and tells Shell’s employees they’re all fucksticks and they can go to hell. Shell cancels the contract, citing a provision which requires the parties to conduct themselves in a civil manner. I think, under these facts, it’s pretty obvious Jon has no cause of action against Shell. Right?
Eh? That’s not what happens in the NBA. The commissioner takes control of the franchise and sells it, and the partners get the sale price. That’s not quite “full” compensation, since presumably an owner who wasn’t interested in selling would only sell at a premium, but it’s not “no recompense”.
Whatever the legal standing I should imagine that some of the owners are getting very nervous at the prospect of Sterling’s defense team using motions of discovery to go fishing for similar comments in their emails and other private communications. That should be fun!
Yes. It’s not a case of the league just jacking the booted owners’ property.
I doubt it. Even if Sterling wants to fight this he’ll have to go through arbitration first. He’d be dead by the time it ever made it to court and the transfer will be a fait accompli. The only way sports litigation generally gets to courts at all is via antitrust claims, and I can’t see any possible antitrust angle here.
Right now, the Sterling’s probably have a few owners who are at least ***empathetic ***to them and their situation. If they attempt to turn their personal misfortune into a witch hunt to defame others, the collective group could easily hire someone to dig up even more dirt on them and then casually disseminate it to the media.This could leave the Sterling’s wishing that having to sell their team was still the least of their worries.
At this point, the media isn’t digging too deeply into the Sterling’s business or personal finances or even their business or personal lives. This could change quickly if it appears that they are a unwilling to leave the stage quickly and it might result in additional civil or even criminal, difficulties for them.
Sterling’s such a shithead. I didn’t read his full comments, but I’m assuming that nowhere in his most recent “I’m not a racist” apology did he acknowledge that his presence itself was poisonous to the team and the NBA and that he will just sell the franchise without a fight.
And that idiot still thinks its just one incident? There’s apparently hours of tape still untouched, I hope TMZ has them and will release them incrementally over the course of the next few months to sabotage any kind of momentum Sterling has to build up any public goodwill.
One of the shittier aspects of this is that every time I look at Yahoo comments on this story, there are a number of racists defending him and using the pathetic “private conversations” defense. I just want to stab them all in the face. It has no bearing if this was taped in secret (which it wasn’t) or Sterling had it taped himself, the NBA can say they don’t like his suits and kick him out, they’re not obligated to play by the same rules the government is. So in fact I’m happier that this was a private conversation, it shows that public entities like the NBA will make even a racist’s private life hell if they want to and there’s nothing they can do about it