Celtics very Realistically could have potential top pick with Clippers pick

[Endless Paradise]

The league has the ability to remove an owner based on a 3/4ths vote of the other owners using what is essentially a "for the good of the league" clause.  Their constitution was just publicly uploaded to the NBA site:

http://deadspin.com/that-secret-nba-constitution-is-now-online-1569509012

[Quetzalcoatl]

So extremely unlikely, but if this drags on, could the players union ask for all Clippers to become free agents like they were before Silver's ruling?  Is there any chance of that happening and then a bunch of d - leaguers come on as essentially scabs to fill out the roster? Then lose every game?  Small chance?

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

The league has the ability to remove an owner based on a 3/4ths vote of the other owners using what is essentially a "for the good of the league" clause.  Their constitution was just publicly uploaded to the NBA site:

http://deadspin.com/that-secret-nba-constitution-is-now-online-1569509012

wow

[footey]

The league has the ability to remove an owner based on a 3/4ths vote of the other owners using what is essentially a "for the good of the league" clause.  Their constitution was just publicly uploaded to the NBA site:

http://deadspin.com/that-secret-nba-constitution-is-now-online-1569509012

This is an over-simplification of what the NBA constitution says.  The owners can't remove without finding a "willful" violation of the Constitution by Sterling, which may be difficult to prove.

[footey]

So extremely unlikely, but if this drags on, could the players union ask for all Clippers to become free agents like they were before Silver's ruling?  Is there any chance of that happening and then a bunch of d - leaguers come on as essentially scabs to fill out the roster? Then lose every game?  Small chance?

I doubt the league would even consider this. Think how damaging this would be to their product.

[mmmmm]

The league has the ability to remove an owner based on a 3/4ths vote of the other owners using what is essentially a "for the good of the league" clause.  Their constitution was just publicly uploaded to the NBA site:

http://deadspin.com/that-secret-nba-constitution-is-now-online-1569509012

This is an over-simplification of what the NBA constitution says.  The owners can't remove without finding a "willful" violation of the Constitution by Sterling, which may be difficult to prove.

I don't know why it needs to be complicated.

Did Sterling willfully utter those statements that were recorded?   Apparently yes, by his own admission.

However they may have subsequently been leaked, the statements did objectively observable damage to the league (many corporate sponsorships were put at risk).

I think it would be a pretty tenuously thin stretch for Sterling to argue that that doesn't meet the criteria to be put to the vote.

How serious the damage was may be a matter of opinion, but at that point the measure of the opinion is the 3/4 vote.