Celtics very Realistically could have potential top pick with Clippers pick

[colincb]

I think this outcome was brilliant by Silver.  He did the maximum punishment, and is trying to force the sale of the team.  I think this will make the players and coaches more comfortable with staying there, since Sterling has been banned, and the NBA will do everything it can to force him to sell the team. I don't think this will have any material impact, one way or the other, on the value of our pick.  Let me know what I am missing.

You're missing nothing.

[mmmmm]

Sterling is a SHAREHOLDER, not an employee. He is the owner of the Clippers. You cannot take away my stock in General Electric because I make some comments the general public finds despicable. Do you think a condominium housing association should be allowed to take title to the condominium of  an 81 year old grandmother because the post-man overheard her call him a racist name?

That's not the correct analogy.

Sterling is the majority (sole?) owner of the Clippers, not a shareholder in the NBA.  The NBA is an association of franchises.  Each franchise is a separate business that is granted a franchise through contractual relationship.

Certain aspects of the Clippers' organization belong completely to the latter.  Other aspects are enabled by the contractual franchise relationship.

The NBA BOG would be basically voting to threaten to terminate the franchise grant.   If that happened, Sterling would still retain ownership of whatever assets are not enabled by the franchise relationship (example:  training facilities, employee contracts not covered by the CBA, etc., etc.).   But he would have a basketball club without a league so it's value would be comparatively worthless.  He may still own the 'Clippers' name and logo, but he could no longer use the NBA logo's, facilities or business relationships.   His contracts with his players would likely collapse, since they are all spawned off the CBA, but that part is probably a little murky.

His best option is to agree to sell the assets to a a new owner that would receive the franchise grant, since that enables the value of everything. 

If he fought that idea, they could still terminate the franchise grant and then grant an expansion for a new franchise for a new ownership group.   That would keep the number of teams at 30 and the NBPA happy.

That new group would, of course, otherwise be starting from scratch.   But an expansion draft or other means could be used to bootstrap it back up.

Sterling bought the Clippers for 12.5M.  He stands to be 'forced' to sell it for 700M+.  Even after long-term capital gains taxes, that's a huge, huge profit.

Financially, he's probably better off just cutting bait at this point.

[mmmmm]

Its being reported that the paragraph that allows for the vote of the owners to remove an owner states the NBA must prove that Sterling's actions were a breach of a contractual obligation that caused adverse affects to the other owners or members of the NBA. Since its a vote of the members, does Silver have um-appealable right to send it to the vote without first providing proof? In that case does Silver have that right by law being the commissioner in the league?

Also, everyone does know that this is for franchise termination, not for ownership change. If in the 15 day period where this begins if Sterling does not agree to sell, the franchise will be terminated. That in itself could cost the NBA players 15 jobs, the jobs of many working for the Clippers and cause havoc for scheduling for the NBA. Going this route, if Sterling wants to fight, could get messy and should almost assuredly be a long term thing. I definitely do not see a billion dollar business being sold before next season starts. At least that's my opinion. Just about everything would have to go perfectly right for Silver and the NBA with Sterling putting up no fight whatsoever, in order for the league to have a new owner before next season.

There is nothing that stops the NBA from immediately expanding to create 15 more player jobs.    So the NBPA would not lose player jobs.   It just would mean the new group would be starting from scratch.

The 'force to sell' aspect of this is that, without the fanchise, Sterling's ownership in the Clippers would plummet in value.  It would be worth barely the cost of whatever buildings owned by the franchise.   He is far better off selling everything, together with an intact franchise contract.

The only real grey area would be resolving the existing player contracts for the Clipper players.  That could get complex, but there are always ways to resolve that sort of thing.   Silver does have a heck of a lot of power within the NBA domain.

The most probable outcome of all this is that Sterling will sell.  It works out best for him financially.

[CoachBo]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

You are missing - because you want to, apparently - a vital legal point explained here before that renders your entire pro-Sterling argument null and void:

So I'll try again: Courts have upheld for decades the concept of "implied consent," which is the precise concept that dooms Sterling in any legal challenge he might mount.

The NBA constitution is clear: Silver has broad powers as an aribtrator, and the courts have again for decades disdained overruling the findings of an arbitrator. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Further, the constitution contains a clause requiring a three-fourths vote of the ownership to remove an owner. And let's be honest here: Is any owner going to vote no? No. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Here's the key: Sterling, by operating under the current constitution, has given his implied consent to its provisions. So, by running the Clippers he has consented legally to be governed by the very provisions that will be used successfully, eventually, in court to force him to sell.

Sterling is not the sole owner of a business; rather, he is a franchise holder in an association he is a voluntary member in, and in the real business world, franchises get revoked all the time. Fact, not what I want to believe

Sterling can sue, sue sue - and I hope he does, because the longer he remains with title to the Clippers, the greater the talent exodus will be from his club at a perfect time for the Celtics - but those of you who persist in claiming he's been legally wronged are wasting your time.

The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact.

There's an awful lot of "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" flawed logic in this thread. I imagine Sterling feels that way. But the law doesn't work that way.

[nickagneta]

I hope Sterling does the right thing, realizes society has moved on from his pathetic archaic beliefs, and quietly sells the team for as much money as he can get. Every penny.

Thing is, I do not think he will because he is a contentious, litigious and spiteful human being. His lawyers are going to try to shoot holes in every aspect of this franchise termination.

They will explore the very vague and ambiguous language in paragraph 13 of the NBA constitution that allows Silver to send this to a vote.

They will explore the concept that half the team is owned by Sterling's wife and the punitive damages that could be caused to her by the NBA for forcing Donald Sterling to sell.

They will explore anti-trust legislation under the pretext that the NBA is trying to force him to sell the team for less than market value and the 29 other owners colluded in this(he probably would even be able to get an injunction for the legal action of having to sell the team while this happens).

He will explore the legality of the tape.

He will ask for and look for precedent and probably hire an investigator to dig dirt on the other 29 owners and use these finding in front of the Board of Governors before the vote showing that what is happening to him could just as easily happen to them.

He will play dirty and use every single legal trick in the book.

Remember this is a guy who never paid a fired coach his money still due on his contract. He made them sue him. This is the guy that had no problem being awful and underpaying his GM by millions every year just to turn a profit. While the writing on the wall says sell for a billion and get out, fact is he already has over a billion dollars so he is probably going to fight tooth and nail to retain this team.

While I do not believe he will succeed, I am not a lawyer. But if I was, I would be calling him up trying to sell him on every little nuance he might try to use just to make some of the millions and millions he is going to pay lawyers to stop this from happening because maybe some half baked detail will save his hide. It is a complex and unprecedented slippery slope we are dealing with here. I am not so sure I can be 100% positive that the NBA wins this. Lots of variable to consider here.

[hwangjini_1]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

You are missing - because you want to, apparently - a vital legal point explained here before that renders your entire pro-Sterling argument null and void:

So I'll try again: Courts have upheld for decades the concept of "implied consent," which is the precise concept that dooms Sterling in any legal challenge he might mount.

The NBA constitution is clear: Silver has broad powers as an aribtrator, and the courts have again for decades disdained overruling the findings of an arbitrator. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Further, the constitution contains a clause requiring a three-fourths vote of the ownership to remove an owner. And let's be honest here: Is any owner going to vote no? No. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Here's the key: Sterling, by operating under the current constitution, has given his implied consent to its provisions. So, by running the Clippers he has consented legally to be governed by the very provisions that will be used successfully, eventually, in court to force him to sell.

Sterling is not the sole owner of a business; rather, he is a franchise holder in an association he is a voluntary member in, and in the real business world, franchises get revoked all the time. Fact, not what I want to believe

Sterling can sue, sue sue - and I hope he does, because the longer he remains with title to the Clippers, the greater the talent exodus will be from his club at a perfect time for the Celtics - but those of you who persist in claiming he's been legally wronged are wasting your time.

The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact.

There's an awful lot of "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" flawed logic in this thread. I imagine Sterling feels that way. But the law doesn't work that way.

NCE, thank you and others for bringing some thoughtful and informed insights into the discussion. i have learned quite a bit and it is different from what i originally thought. learning is a good thing. 

a few questions that may muddy the points above but i ask other posters to help clarify things for me:

1. sterling jointly owns the clippers with his wife. can she be forced to sell if she did no wrong? or, could donald sterling simply sign over his ownership to his wife? if he does so, does this pull the rug out from under the NBA?

2. i believe, and could be wrong, that the power granted to the owners under the NBA contract is to terminate a franchise, not force a sale. that is, the clippers can be nuked out of existence, but not forcibly sold. if so, then things are much more complicated than we may think and this might play out for a long time.

3. sterling has consented to follow nba rules, but does he still not own the clipper team even if the nba dissolves that NBA franchise? the logo? the rights to the arena? etc.? that is, the NBA franchise may have disappeared, but those elements of ownership that belong to sterling would continue, no? if so, then could this block the NBA effectively from simply waving their magic wand and creating a new franchise in LA?

i guess what i am saying in a rather poor manner is that none of this seems cut and dry and silver's actions, while enormously popular, leaves a LOT of questions and murky details unaddressed. in essence, has the league really done enough homework in such a short period of time? at present, i am not convinced one way or the other.

4. if #2 is correct and the clippers are voted into oblivion, what happens to the players contracts? to whom do they owe service? are they dispersed throughout the other teams via some mechanism? to the highest bidder as free agents? realistically, can all of this be done well and correctly before next season?

5. will the NBA player's union resist the dissolution of 15 jobs and seek an alternative resolution to this crap heap? even if the clippers players are drafted into other teams, those teams will of necessity need to jettison an equal number of current players to make room for the new ex-clippers. after all, the total number of player slots available is reduced by 15 and simply "making a brand new franchise" is not that easy to do.

so, lots of questions but not much in the way of insight by me. typical. 

[byennie]

One nuking the franchise, if that is the case I assume the league simply says:

"Sell it within X days or it will be nuked". I think he'll opt for the $600M option rather than whatever parachute goes with being nuked, if any.

[saltlover]

NCE, thank you and others for bringing some thoughtful and informed insights into the discussion. i have learned quite a bit and it is different from what i originally thought. learning is a good thing. 

a few questions that may muddy the points above but i ask other posters to help clarify things for me:

1. sterling jointly owns the clippers with his wife. can she be forced to sell if she did no wrong? or, could donald sterling simply sign over his ownership to his wife? if he does so, does this pull the rug out from under the NBA?

2. i believe, and could be wrong, that the power granted to the owners under the NBA contract is to terminate a franchise, not force a sale. that is, the clippers can be nuked out of existence, but not forcibly sold. if so, then things are much more complicated than we may think and this might play out for a long time.

3. sterling has consented to follow nba rules, but does he still not own the clipper team even if the nba dissolves that NBA franchise? the logo? the rights to the arena? etc.? that is, the NBA franchise may have disappeared, but those elements of ownership that belong to sterling would continue, no? if so, then could this block the NBA effectively from simply waving their magic wand and creating a new franchise in LA?

i guess what i am saying in a rather poor manner is that none of this seems cut and dry and silver's actions, while enormously popular, leaves a LOT of questions and murky details unaddressed. in essence, has the league really done enough homework in such a short period of time? at present, i am not convinced one way or the other.

4. if #2 is correct and the clippers are voted into oblivion, what happens to the players contracts? to whom do they owe service? are they dispersed throughout the other teams via some mechanism? to the highest bidder as free agents? realistically, can all of this be done well and correctly before next season?

5. will the NBA player's union resist the dissolution of 15 jobs and seek an alternative resolution to this crap heap? even if the clippers players are drafted into other teams, those teams will of necessity need to jettison an equal number of current players to make room for the new ex-clippers. after all, the total number of player slots available is reduced by 15 and simply "making a brand new franchise" is not that easy to do.

so, lots of questions but not much in the way of insight by me. typical. 

Trimming your reply because the thread has gotten long:

1)  The "joint ownership" as it were, is based on it being common property owned by the married couple under California law.  Sterling cannot sign it over to her, as it were, to avoid sanctions.  Assuming the NBA is allowed to get rid of the franchise, that would affect her as well.  Technically they would still own the Clippers jointly -- it would just go bankrupt.  My feeling is that his wife could sue to force him to sell instead of getting the franchise taken away, but that's some California family law, which is notoriously complex.

2)  Yes, that is my understanding as well.

3) This is why the Clippers would file for bankruptcy.  They have a lease at the Staples Center they would be unable to fulfill.  They would owe their players' guaranteed contracts.  This is why threatening to use the nuclear option, as it were, is expected to force Sterling to sell, as the alternative is bankruptcy.

4) The players could technically be owed by Sterling.  However, as he will be unable to pay them based on having no revenue, and they would not be part of a FIBA recognized league, they would be free to become free agents.  Some players who were unable to recoup their full salary from other teams will certainly get in line in a bankruptcy case, although perhaps the league will make them whole.  It depends upon how quickly the league votes, and how quickly the team is dissolved, as to whether or not they will be able to sign by free agency.  That said, if you knew that Chris Paul or Blake Griffin might become free agents in August, would you really sign someone else in July?  I think it would be resolved in time to have limited practical effect.

5) I think it's very clear that if the Clippers franchise is eradicated, the NBA would look to expand almost immediately, and probably in the LA market.  The new owners would have to pay a several hundred million dollar fee to the current owners to join the NBA.  It is unlikely the NBA would be without jobs for very long.  Furthermore, players' salary from expansion teams don't count into the calculation of whether the players earned their share of the approximate 50/50 split of revenues, for I believe the first two years of the expansion team.  The jobs would be recreated quickly, and would probably see more money flow to players overall, and not less.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I really want what's best for the Celtics and worst for Sterling.  What do I have to root for?  I think a protracted legal battle that takes until December to figure out while Paul and Griffin refuse to play in the meantime?  Plus maybe Doc quitting?  The West will still be pretty competitive next year.

[hwangjini_1]

thank you sl. it seems, to me at least, that those years in law school really paid off...at least for cb posters such as myself. 

your points above are all good and i enjoyed reading them.

yet, on #1, i am not sure that the NBA would automatically object to the sterling estate keeping ownership, the sons/wife/someone obviously running the franchise as long as donald-the-bigot is 100% excluded and publicly chastised as proof.

final note, all your points are quite logical and rational. having said that, i am not sure in this particular case, given sterling's notorious pattern of litigation, that it would necessarily play out "rationally." it may be as you write, but it would seem to be out of character for sterling to step aside without a fight.

geez, perhaps someone should set up a soap opera based upon all this.

[jaketwice]

Sterling is a SHAREHOLDER, not an employee. He is the owner of the Clippers. You cannot take away my stock in General Electric because I make some comments the general public finds despicable. Do you think a condominium housing association should be allowed to take title to the condominium of  an 81 year old grandmother because the post-man overheard her call him a racist name?

That's not the correct analogy.

Sterling is the majority (sole?) owner of the Clippers, not a shareholder in the NBA.  The NBA is an association of franchises.  Each franchise is a separate business that is granted a franchise through contractual relationship.

Certain aspects of the Clippers' organization belong completely to the latter.  Other aspects are enabled by the contractual franchise relationship.

The NBA BOG would be basically voting to threaten to terminate the franchise grant.   If that happened, Sterling would still retain ownership of whatever assets are not enabled by the franchise relationship (example:  training facilities, employee contracts not covered by the CBA, etc., etc.).   But he would have a basketball club without a league so it's value would be comparatively worthless.  He may still own the 'Clippers' name and logo, but he could no longer use the NBA logo's, facilities or business relationships.   His contracts with his players would likely collapse, since they are all spawned off the CBA, but that part is probably a little murky.

His best option is to agree to sell the assets to a a new owner that would receive the franchise grant, since that enables the value of everything. 

If he fought that idea, they could still terminate the franchise grant and then grant an expansion for a new franchise for a new ownership group.   That would keep the number of teams at 30 and the NBPA happy.

That new group would, of course, otherwise be starting from scratch.   But an expansion draft or other means could be used to bootstrap it back up.

Sterling bought the Clippers for 12.5M.  He stands to be 'forced' to sell it for 700M+.  Even after long-term capital gains taxes, that's a huge, huge profit.

Financially, he's probably better off just cutting bait at this point.

While that particular metaphor may not be a perfect analogy, taken totally out of context from what I was actually saying - I am glad you were able to amuse yourself writing many paragraphs of little value to the conversation.

[jaketwice]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

You are missing - because you want to, apparently - a vital legal point explained here before that renders your entire pro-Sterling argument null and void:


So I'll try again: Courts have upheld for decades the concept of "implied consent," which is the precise concept that dooms Sterling in any legal challenge he might mount.

The NBA constitution is clear: Silver has broad powers as an aribtrator, and the courts have again for decades disdained overruling the findings of an arbitrator. Fact, not what I want to believe.

But this is not to say Courts NEVER overturn the findings of an arbitrator. Arbitrators are reversed by courts. Silver is not a judge with the power to strip Sterling of his team. Whatever Sterling impliedly consented to - for reasons I have already explained and need not re-hash - I do not think a decision by the NBA owners, or Silver, or anyone - will necessarily survive a challenge by Sterling in Federal Court - as you seem to think.

Further, the constitution contains a clause requiring a three-fourths vote of the ownership to remove an owner. And let's be honest here: Is any owner going to vote no? No. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Have you read Mark Cuban's comments? The issue here is that it sets a scary precedent. If you owned a billion dollar asset, would you want to risk losing that asset if you expressed unpopular views to your girlfriend? How do you think NBA owners feel about that. ...what if it came out that Les Alexander has a large collection of Japanese "hentai" ****ography - particularly ****ography where large tentacles perform sex acts on anthropomorphic "female" animals? Should he lose the team for that proclivity? What if Mark Cuban invests in a company that is later found to have used child labor to manufacture its product? Should Mark Cuban lose the Mavs? It's an incredibly slippery slope.

What if an owner was merely unpopular; if Wyc wins the next ten championships due to the unparalleled organization and competence of his organization - would it be okay for Silver, as Arbitrator, to take his team simply because the other 29 owners were tired of losing? Of course not.

You've made a lot of somewhat snide comments about what you think I think - or what you think I feel. Have you been reading what I have been writing?

[/quote]

Here's the key: Sterling, by operating under the current constitution, has given his implied consent to its provisions. So, by running the Clippers he has consented legally to be governed by the very provisions that will be used successfully, eventually, in court to force him to sell.

Sterling is not the sole owner of a business; rather, he is a franchise holder in an association he is a voluntary member in, and in the real business world, franchises get revoked all the time. Fact, not what I want to believe

Sterling can sue, sue sue - and I hope he does, because the longer he remains with title to the Clippers, the greater the talent exodus will be from his club at a perfect time for the Celtics - but those of you who persist in claiming he's been legally wronged are wasting your time.

The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact.

There's an awful lot of "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" flawed logic in this thread. I imagine Sterling feels that way. But the law doesn't work that way.

So are you saying it a foregone conclusion that he should lose the team? I disagree with this statement: "The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact." It is not a fact. There DO EXIST REASONS why Sterling deserves to keep his team - or even have his suspension overturned. It is not as black and white (no pun intended) as you suggest.  We do not wrest property rights from people - franchise rights - any rights - without some kind of due process.

While I agree that courts have generally upheld arbitration agreements - it is also well understood that an arbitrator's award can be overturned if it is - in layman's terms - unfair.

I do not think I said "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" or anything of the kind. You have put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not put there. Mis-characterization is not argument.

[blink]

with all the great comments back and forth taken into account, what happens if the Clippers with the NBA title, and then get sent into the legal purgatory of lawsuits back and forth between the NBA and Sterling? 

Does any of this become more problematic (for the NBA) when the LAC name is on the trophy?  Probably not, just more of a PR nightmare, but just wondering...

[nickagneta]

Let's say this goes to the Board, they give a notice of an impending vote to terminate Sterling's franchise rights to Sterling of a vote. He then has 5 days to respond to the notice and then the Board of Governor's has 10 days to have a vote.

My guess is that the response that Sterling will need to send the Board of Governor's is that, yes, he will be willing to sell the team rather than have the franchise dissolved. The Vote will go through and be voted down contingent upon Sterling selling the team, possibly within a certain time frame.

This is where I think Sterling then goes to court. He then gets an injunction stopping the Board of Governor's from following through with the sale and dissolving of the franchise for anti-trust reasons that the other 29 owners are colluding to coerce him to sell his franchise for less than market value because he is sure he won't max out his return within the time frame given and will lose millions, possibly hundreds of millions.

My guess is Silver figures this strategy would make the most sense. Therefore, my guess is behind the scenes he is working with prospective ownership groups to come forward now, before the vote is even taken and is lining up a group to buy at an above market price(overpay) simply to stop this injunction when Sterling applies for it. Having proof set up ahead of time of a billion dollar purchase would most likely stop the injunction.

Here's the thing though, how many billionaires overpay for something by millions and millions of dollars? Not a lot. If the best offer Silver can put together is $500-750 million, I think Sterling might get that injunction as he could possibly show that holding out for other offers could net him a billion dollars or more.

This could get nasty and litigious and lengthy, things Donald Sterling has shown that he is more than willing to do to save and make money.




So my question is, if by next season Sterling still owns the team because of legal reasons with pending litigation, but can't operate the team or anything else because of his lifetime ban, which will stand up in court, will the players and Doc Rivers seek special dispensation from the league to get out of their contracts because they do not want to work for this guy ever again? If no one wants to play for the team or the league allows the coach and players to leave, does that forfeit the Clippers season?

And in the meantime, since the franchise can't be dissolved because on ongoing legal matters, does Sterling make a bundle because he doesn't have to pay all that salary but as a franchise is still legally due their share of the network television money and other revenue sharing NBA endeavors? I mean, if Silver grants the players and coach the ability to leave and Sterling can't hire anyone to come play for him you enter the grey area of who is actually causing the contractual obligations to not be met now, Silver on the Clippers or the Clippers on the NBA.

Should be a summer and fall of some of the most interesting professional sports "business" in the history of professional sports.

[CoachBo]

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

"Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?

A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment."

This is not accurate. He could claim that Silver abused his discretion, and that the commissioner's decision was unfair. ...to me, it is a little unfair. Because Sterling had a private phone call with his girlfriend that she (as I understand California law) illegally leaked, he should lose the team? So if you have a private conversation with a friend of yours and say something negative about gay people, and your friend, angry because you are suing him, sends it to your boss - you ought to get fired? It's a histrionic reaction in a "gotcha" culture.

How is a quote from the NBA constitution not accurate?

Yes, Sterling can always make any claim such as 'abuse of discretion' - but that almost never wins an overrule of an arbitration decision.    The act of agreeing to arbitration (and implicitly, the contracts binding the owners, teams, staffs and players in the NBA all are granting the commissioner final arbitration power) is basically surrendering your right to second guess the outcome.

The only traction is if it (the decision) is out of the bounds of NBA-related business.   But Silver can very easily show that Sterling's behavior has been detrimental for the business of the NBA because of the many sponsorships that have been put at risk due to his behavior.

I would not be surprised if there is an explicit 'behavior detrimental to the league' clause somewhere in their constitution.

I don't think it is "almost impossible" that a District Court Judge would decline to confirm the award of Silver, as arbitrator, in this circumstance. While I'm sure the usual group of  politically correct internet-know-it-alls will jump down my throat for DARING to suggest that forcing someone to sell a gigantic asset for having a private telephone conversation is HORRIBLE and makes me (by association) a RACIST - I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that all this hysteria is justice.

I personally do not like Donald Sterling. But I do not think that the law necessarily supports stripping anyone of anything because of his personal views. You raise an interesting, and very valid, point about the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause - which I too think exists. However, we have not established that the conduct is, indeed, detrimental to the league. Those sponsorships belong to Sterling - not the other owners. Silver does not really have any evidence yet that Sterling's comments damaged league revenues.

It is an interesting question, what should happen - but it is not a foregone conclusion.

I want to make clear: I do not agree with Sterling's views. I do not condone those opinions. I am speaking solely on the issue of the league's response to the phone calls.

You are missing - because you want to, apparently - a vital legal point explained here before that renders your entire pro-Sterling argument null and void:


So I'll try again: Courts have upheld for decades the concept of "implied consent," which is the precise concept that dooms Sterling in any legal challenge he might mount.

The NBA constitution is clear: Silver has broad powers as an aribtrator, and the courts have again for decades disdained overruling the findings of an arbitrator. Fact, not what I want to believe.

But this is not to say Courts NEVER overturn the findings of an arbitrator. Arbitrators are reversed by courts. Silver is not a judge with the power to strip Sterling of his team. Whatever Sterling impliedly consented to - for reasons I have already explained and need not re-hash - I do not think a decision by the NBA owners, or Silver, or anyone - will necessarily survive a challenge by Sterling in Federal Court - as you seem to think.

Further, the constitution contains a clause requiring a three-fourths vote of the ownership to remove an owner. And let's be honest here: Is any owner going to vote no? No. Fact, not what I want to believe.

Have you read Mark Cuban's comments? The issue here is that it sets a scary precedent. If you owned a billion dollar asset, would you want to risk losing that asset if you expressed unpopular views to your girlfriend? How do you think NBA owners feel about that. ...what if it came out that Les Alexander has a large collection of Japanese "hentai" ****ography - particularly ****ography where large tentacles perform sex acts on anthropomorphic "female" animals? Should he lose the team for that proclivity? What if Mark Cuban invests in a company that is later found to have used child labor to manufacture its product? Should Mark Cuban lose the Mavs? It's an incredibly slippery slope.

What if an owner was merely unpopular; if Wyc wins the next ten championships due to the unparalleled organization and competence of his organization - would it be okay for Silver, as Arbitrator, to take his team simply because the other 29 owners were tired of losing? Of course not.

You've made a lot of somewhat snide comments about what you think I think - or what you think I feel. Have you been reading what I have been writing?

Here's the key: Sterling, by operating under the current constitution, has given his implied consent to its provisions. So, by running the Clippers he has consented legally to be governed by the very provisions that will be used successfully, eventually, in court to force him to sell.

Sterling is not the sole owner of a business; rather, he is a franchise holder in an association he is a voluntary member in, and in the real business world, franchises get revoked all the time. Fact, not what I want to believe

Sterling can sue, sue sue - and I hope he does, because the longer he remains with title to the Clippers, the greater the talent exodus will be from his club at a perfect time for the Celtics - but those of you who persist in claiming he's been legally wronged are wasting your time.

The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact.

There's an awful lot of "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" flawed logic in this thread. I imagine Sterling feels that way. But the law doesn't work that way.

So are you saying it a foregone conclusion that he should lose the team? I disagree with this statement: "The league has done its homework. The more he sues, the more he will lose in court. Fact." It is not a fact. There DO EXIST REASONS why Sterling deserves to keep his team - or even have his suspension overturned. It is not as black and white (no pun intended) as you suggest.  We do not wrest property rights from people - franchise rights - any rights - without some kind of due process.

While I agree that courts have generally upheld arbitration agreements - it is also well understood that an arbitrator's award can be overturned if it is - in layman's terms - unfair.

I do not think I said "Because I don't like it, it cannot be so" or anything of the kind. You have put a lot of words in my mouth that I did not put there. Mis-characterization is not argument.
[/quote]

You continue to throw one strawman after another in Sterling's behalf into an abundantly clear legal argument. I'm rather curious at this point why you are so frantic to construct a defense - particularly an illogical one - on behalf of this man.

He has NO legal recourse against the league that he can successfully defend in court. It is indeed a foregone conclusion that he will lose the team. I have no doubt he can tie the case up for awhile with legal proceedings, but he cannot win. Period.

If you choose not to accept the obvious, that is your issue. Since this thread is full of half-truths and misstatements, several made by you, my posts are to set the record straight and come directly from an attorney for a professional sports franchise.

And yes, I do see you as a frantic practitioner of "I do not like what is happening, so it cannot be so." You will eventually see the truth when it plays out.