Donald Sterling to sue the NBA for 1.7 billion

[Sixth Man]

It has been suggested that there are huge tax considerations, and he may wish to pass the franchise on to a family member before it is sold.  I don't what the prognosis is for his cancer, but if he's not long for his life, he may have already reached the conclusion that he can run out the clock with respect to a forced sale by simply initiating litigation now.

[mgent]

I think the New York Daily News' sources are off a bit. I think he stands a great chance at getting more help in stopping the team sale via an anti-trust suit than he does fighting the language in the constitution that many feel is ambiguous enough to force the vote to terminate the franchise.

We shall see. One thing they do have right, which is unusual for the NYDN, is that the day of the legal action of Donald Sterling is definitely coming.

See, I've never understood how it could be interpreted that way.  I thought it was basically for if the owner couldn't do his job or couldn't afford the money.  Even though it's incredibly ambiguous, what could Silver's lawyers possibly get it to mean?

An owner isn't allowed to privately exhibit/disclose faults to his significant other?

An owner must like everybody equally?

An owner isn't allowed to tell his girlfriend she can't take a picture with Magic Johnson?

[mgent]

Also, obviously Silver can ban Sterling from games and interactions with the NBA, but how can he stop Sterling from making "business decisions" about the business he owns without the vote?  Isn't being forced to sell the team going to include a lot of business decisions (to who, how much)?

[fairweatherfan]

I think the New York Daily News' sources are off a bit. I think he stands a great chance at getting more help in stopping the team sale via an anti-trust suit than he does fighting the language in the constitution that many feel is ambiguous enough to force the vote to terminate the franchise.

We shall see. One thing they do have right, which is unusual for the NYDN, is that the day of the legal action of Donald Sterling is definitely coming.

See, I've never understood how it could be interpreted that way.  I thought it was basically for if the owner couldn't do his job or couldn't afford the money.  Even though it's incredibly ambiguous, what could Silver's lawyers possibly get it to mean?

An owner isn't allowed to privately exhibit/disclose faults to his significant other?

An owner must like everybody equally?

An owner isn't allowed to tell his girlfriend she can't take a picture with Magic Johnson?

Well, the real reason is that his actions very publicly embarrassed the league, potentially costing it millions in revenue, tainting the league's image, and even risking the participation of its players during the marquee event of the season.  This after a long career as a historically bad owner. 

As a business/financial decision it's a no-brainer to do everything you can to get rid of the guy.  But legally they might not have the avenue to do it.

[Celtics4ever]

Do league rules trump the right to property and free speech?  I think what he did was terrible and would not mind him go.   But will he use  the Constitution to beat up the league....

[mgent]

I think the New York Daily News' sources are off a bit. I think he stands a great chance at getting more help in stopping the team sale via an anti-trust suit than he does fighting the language in the constitution that many feel is ambiguous enough to force the vote to terminate the franchise.

We shall see. One thing they do have right, which is unusual for the NYDN, is that the day of the legal action of Donald Sterling is definitely coming.

See, I've never understood how it could be interpreted that way.  I thought it was basically for if the owner couldn't do his job or couldn't afford the money.  Even though it's incredibly ambiguous, what could Silver's lawyers possibly get it to mean?

An owner isn't allowed to privately exhibit/disclose faults to his significant other?

An owner must like everybody equally?

An owner isn't allowed to tell his girlfriend she can't take a picture with Magic Johnson?

Well, the real reason is that his actions very publicly embarrassed the league, potentially costing it millions in revenue, tainting the league's image, and even risking the participation of its players during the marquee event of the season.  This after a long career as a historically bad owner. 

As a business/financial decision it's a no-brainer to do everything you can to get rid of the guy.  But legally they might not have the avenue to do it.

I'm going to guess that Sterling would be stupid to not give in to the pressure he's going to receive, but it's all going to be under the table.  I am simply doubting that this vote thing is going to have anything to do with it.

There's no way anybody can say "legally you can't be upset with your for girlfriend taking/posting photos with Magic Johnson because it hurts the league."

[Celtics4ever]

Sterling's angle will be to question the legitimacy of forcing the sale based on the language in the NBA Constitution.  He's obligated as a franchisee to follow the league Constitution, but the section allowing dissolving/forcing the sale of a franchise doesn't seem to fit these circumstances well at all.

Thanks for the reply!

Does the US Constitution trump the NBA Constitution?

[Finkelskyhook]

Good for Sterling....Literally none of this passes any smell test. 

This whole situation reeks of a setup...Sterling may be a bad guy and a bad owner...But this is a sick way to let a sanctimonious jerk backdoor his way into buying a team.

[fairweatherfan]

Sterling's angle will be to question the legitimacy of forcing the sale based on the language in the NBA Constitution.  He's obligated as a franchisee to follow the league Constitution, but the section allowing dissolving/forcing the sale of a franchise doesn't seem to fit these circumstances well at all.

Thanks for the reply!

Does the US Constitution trump the NBA Constitution?

Of course, but the Bill of Rights refers to what Congress can't restrict (and later, what state governments can't restrict).  Private organizations have always had much broader leeway, and free speech has never meant you can't be penalized by those organizations for what you say (again, with rare exceptions like religious/political beliefs).  There's no real US Constitution argument here.

Put another way, you or I certainly could and probably would be fired if we were taped saying racist stuff and it came out and embarrassed our employers.  I have a cousin who was fired for just saying mildly negative things about work on Facebook.  Free speech means we can't go to jail over it or anything like that, but we could definitely lose our jobs.  Sterling's a little different as a franchise owner, but the basic principle is similar.

[SHAQATTACK]

Ha ha.....
He won't live long enough to see it though .

What a dried up old turd he is.


He can Keep his team ... .  Just kick him out of the league .......so he'll have a team with no league to play in.

Sell....a franchise to another city , start a team somewhere else.

[Roy H.]

Ha ha.....
He won't live long enough to see it though .

What a dried up old turd he is.

Yeah, but he may be able to tie it up in the courts long enough to die with the team still in his possession, which is probably what he wants.

[86MaxwellSmart]

"With the First Pick in the 2015 NBA Draft...The Boston Celtics select........"

[Jon]

I don't buy the argument that Silver had to have known this was an airtight case to have given Sterling the harsh punishment he did. Even if he thinks he might or will lose this case in court, given Sterling anything less than he did would have bed a PR nightmare. Now if Sterling happens to win in court, it's not his fault.

[paidthecost2betheboss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bLKe9-Mto

start at 6:50 for the meat and potatoes and some perspective

He shoulda been forced to sell when he was keeping minorities out of his properties.
Watch the vid....kinda puts this spurned gf thing in perspective.

That this is the reason it's come to this is a shame on the N.B.A
A private conversation being recorded by a woman with issues proding an old guy into exposing his blatant racism. Other owners better watch what they say/tweet/etc. This is not a good thing.

Stopping Sterling 8+ years ago woulda been more genuine and attached to the damage of real humans and their well being and not just their feelings.

Was Jesse Jackson and ESPN all over his butt when his wife was pretending to be somebody else so she could spy on the minority tenants? And they sued? Was that less a crime or affront to the N.B.A than this

[Finkelskyhook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6bLKe9-Mto

start at 6:50 for the meat and potatoes and some perspective

He shoulda been forced to sell when he was keeping minorities out of his properties.
Watch the vid....kinda puts this spurned gf thing in perspective.

That this is the reason it's come to this is a shame on the N.B.A
A private conversation being recorded by a woman with issues proding an old guy into exposing his blatant racism. Other owners better watch what they say/tweet/etc. This is not a good thing.

Stopping Sterling 8+ years ago woulda been more genuine and attached to the damage of real humans and their well being and not just their feelings.

Was Jesse Jackson and ESPN all over his butt when his wife was pretending to be somebody else so she could spy on the minority tenants? And they sued? Was that less a crime or affront to the N.B.A than this

The difference between now and then is that there isn't an NBA icon pining for a franchise in Los Angeles for the NBA to pander to.