Breaking News: Sterling's wife tells Barbara Walters she will fight any attempt

[D.o.s.]

Shelly Sterling should make like a tree and...

[mmmmm]

The NBA is its own market. Where else are tall lanky people going to work? The players cannot compete in baseball (check out MJ's attempt at baseball) they cannot play football. So not only is the NBA unique for the consumer, it is unique for labor. Oh, and I would really like the NBA to go into court and argue that the NCAA is its competition in basketball, because that will once and for all destroy the concept of NCAA basketball as amateurism.

You are right Salt the bulk of the anti-trust litigation will be defining the product market. And the decision will lie largely not on the facts but on the ideology of the judge and to some extent the jury.

I believe the product market should be restricted to basketball.

I don't think Jordan's inability to play baseball at above a low minor league level has anything to do with anything.

Danny Ainge was a pretty [dang] good baseball player so there's one anecdotal example that defeats yours.   

Dave Winfield was recruited in three sports and almost certainly could have played professionally in any of them.

There are a ton of former basketball players playing tight end and receiver in the NFL.

Heck, Zdeno Chara is 6' 9" and playing _hockey_ for gosh sakes.

And the fact is, there are other professional basketball leagues around the world (Spain, Turkey, Russia, China, etc.).  Lots of american ball players are already playing in those leagues.

So making a anti-trust argument around restraint of trade seems like it would be pretty weak.

[saltlover]

Thank you. A lengthy and well done response that is appreciated. But it raises yet another question, which may be taking us too far afield.

Given the above, could not the automakers of the US band together in a similar fashion for similar reasons and brand the "league" as part of the larger "transportation" industry, and that they need to compete with public buses, airlines, bikes, etc?

Thanks again.

They could try.  I don't think it would work, however, because of the issue of substitution.  Most Americans don't substitute away from cars to enough extent.  Certainly some people live in areas without transportation alternatives.  They would be indisputably harmed.  If you've got a 50-mile commute, a bike isn't going to get it done, and most public transit options don't get that far.  Sure, you could buy a helicopter if you had a landing pad near where you worked, but that's expensive, and consumers would still be harmed.  Maybe public transit is an option for you, but it would take you 2-3 times as long -- that makes it not a very good substitution, and becomes one you choose only when other factors are considered like price, or maybe a desire to pollute less.  Additionally, some people/businesses use vehicles for transporting goods or providing services.  Police departments would only have one company to buy police cars from.  Delivery services would only have one company to purchase vehicles from.  Same with cab companies (which are going to see more business if fewer people want to own cars).

Sure, the automotive industry could try to argue it, but they'd have a very difficult hurdle to get over.  You can't just argue you're in a larger product market -- you need some evidence.  The NBA has, I would bet, the evidence on its side.  I bet car makers would not.

[nickagneta]

Does it matter whether the Sterlings have a leg to stand on to win any type of legal fight? Isn't it more important to the Sterlings to have enough of a case to get an injunction and stall the process in the courts endlessly. If they do that and in the meantime, Sterling dies, couldn't Shelly and anyone else that inherits Donald Sterling's portion now argue that Sterling is gone and the matter resolved? Wouldn't the league now look at his death as his removal and have a desire to stop spending millions on litigation and just accept the owners that Sterling's death puts in place?

Perhaps the best Sterling strategy is attrition?

Players and NBA have been pretty clear that they want them both gone. I don't think dragging out that process would change anything with regards to that.

Opinions change over time. Attrition would be all about making the process so long that it changes the opinions of people and make them settle for a lesser goal.

I don't see the opinions of the players changing.

NBA might want to stop fighting to avoid legal costs, but the players won't care about that.

Players will change their minds if the process is drawn out enough. The players' chance to do something will be when the 2014-15 season starts and Sterling still owns the team. Their ire and disgust and will to proceed farther with some action to force their point of view through will be strongest then, not years from now. If they do nothing then, they will do nothing later on.

Donald Sterling just needs to get a judge that will find his case credible enough to give him an injunction against dissolving the franchise. The same thing goes for Shelley Sterling. Find those judges, prolong the process, litigate it and get extensions and extensions and if Donald Sterling dies, the league may have spent so much money, they might just be happy with one Sterling gone instead of all. Time has a way of making people forget. Time is Sterling's ally in this case.

[saltlover]

The NBA is its own market. Where else are tall lanky people going to work? The players cannot compete in baseball (check out MJ's attempt at baseball) they cannot play football. So not only is the NBA unique for the consumer, it is unique for labor. Oh, and I would really like the NBA to go into court and argue that the NCAA is its competition in basketball, because that will once and for all destroy the concept of NCAA basketball as amateurism.

You are right Salt the bulk of the anti-trust litigation will be defining the product market. And the decision will lie largely not on the facts but on the ideology of the judge and to some extent the jury.

I believe the product market should be restricted to basketball.

LOL @ Donald Sterling arguing that the NBA players are hurt by the current arrangement, when the salary floor pretty much existed so that he would pay his players more.

The repercussions outside of basketball are far too large for a judge to take such a narrow view of a product market.  Especially appellate judges.  Ideology aside, you'd have hundreds of parties filing amicus briefs on behalf of the NBA, including some that are normally on very opposite sides.  It would be precedent setting.  Judges don't make far-reaching decisions that go against the evidence all that often, and they're not held up on appeal.

[saltlover]

Does it matter whether the Sterlings have a leg to stand on to win any type of legal fight? Isn't it more important to the Sterlings to have enough of a case to get an injunction and stall the process in the courts endlessly. If they do that and in the meantime, Sterling dies, couldn't Shelly and anyone else that inherits Donald Sterling's portion now argue that Sterling is gone and the matter resolved? Wouldn't the league now look at his death as his removal and have a desire to stop spending millions on litigation and just accept the owners that Sterling's death puts in place?

Perhaps the best Sterling strategy is attrition?

Players and NBA have been pretty clear that they want them both gone. I don't think dragging out that process would change anything with regards to that.

Opinions change over time. Attrition would be all about making the process so long that it changes the opinions of people and make them settle for a lesser goal.

I don't see the opinions of the players changing.

NBA might want to stop fighting to avoid legal costs, but the players won't care about that.

Players will change their minds if the process is drawn out enough. The players' chance to do something will be when the 2014-15 season starts and Sterling still owns the team. Their ire and disgust and will to proceed farther with some action to force their point of view through will be strongest then, not years from now. If they do nothing then, they will do nothing later on.

Donald Sterling just needs to get a judge that will find his case credible enough to give him an injunction against dissolving the franchise. The same thing goes for Shelley Sterling. Find those judges, prolong the process, litigate it and get extensions and extensions and if Donald Sterling dies, the league may have spent so much money, they might just be happy with one Sterling gone instead of all. Time has a way of making people forget. Time is Sterling's ally in this case.

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

[nickagneta]

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

Since when has Donald Sterling been adverse to putting a team on the floor that is uncompetitive so long as he is selling tickets, getting national television money, making a profit, and being in Los Angeles while he owns the teams?

[saltlover]

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

Since when has Donald Sterling been adverse to putting a team on the floor that is uncompetitive so long as he is selling tickets, getting national television money, making a profit, and being in Los Angeles while he owns the teams?

I don't know.  When is his next local media deal due?  The current team will get a lot in a local deal, but if he has to negotiate a new one in two years when he has D-leaugers and cast offs, that's going to cost him.  Before when he was cheap, he didn't have to spend.  Now he does.  Also, while he might be able to stop a sale, it seems less likely he can stop the ban, so he has no control.  It's questionably how much profit he can make, aside from the profit from the sale.

[CoachBo]

I'm not sure it's a foregone conclusion that Silver has the votes: Gilbert ranted about LeBron, Herb Simon is an old guy; Cuban has spoken publicly about the "slippery slope" of forcing someone to sell a team. Prokhorov is a Russian, and should be concerned about this kind of precedent. Joe Lacob is already wildly disliked, Sarver's life revolves around his team, and Benson was pretty burned by NFL league action when the Saints were punished for the head-hunting scandal.

Sterling needs 8 votes to keep the team. If the meeting is open ballot - he is done. But if they do it closed ballot, just for precedent's sake - I think there is a substantial risk he keeps the team.

Anyway, even if he loses - I don't know if his private comments, even after a vote of ownership, will be sufficient to divest his interest. He can appeal that ruling as, essentially, an arbitrator decision. Is it fair to lose a billion dollar asset because of a private comment? I can see some Federal Judges saying "no."

Either way - the longer uncertainty swirls around the Clippers, the better for the Celtics - and every other NBA franchise.

It's a fair question whether he'd get the votes if it was a truly anonymous vote.    It's a pretty risky move for an owner to vote for Sterling even if 'closed', though, since that would invariably get out.

As for arbitration - my understanding of the way the NBA constitution works is that don't the owner's basically agree to Silver (the Commissioner) acting as binding arbitrator when they signed on?

Indeed. It's one of those pesky things owners agree to by operating within the league that make it a legal impossibility to wriggle out of.

As for the vote, any owner care to risk his identity as a Sterling supporter getting out? Absolutely not.

The idea they'd vote secret is wishful thinking by people looking for a way out for the old fella.

[CoachBo]

Does it matter whether the Sterlings have a leg to stand on to win any type of legal fight? Isn't it more important to the Sterlings to have enough of a case to get an injunction and stall the process in the courts endlessly. If they do that and in the meantime, Sterling dies, couldn't Shelly and anyone else that inherits Donald Sterling's portion now argue that Sterling is gone and the matter resolved? Wouldn't the league now look at his death as his removal and have a desire to stop spending millions on litigation and just accept the owners that Sterling's death puts in place?

Perhaps the best Sterling strategy is attrition?

Players and NBA have been pretty clear that they want them both gone. I don't think dragging out that process would change anything with regards to that.

Opinions change over time. Attrition would be all about making the process so long that it changes the opinions of people and make them settle for a lesser goal.

I don't see the opinions of the players changing.

NBA might want to stop fighting to avoid legal costs, but the players won't care about that.

Players will change their minds if the process is drawn out enough. The players' chance to do something will be when the 2014-15 season starts and Sterling still owns the team. Their ire and disgust and will to proceed farther with some action to force their point of view through will be strongest then, not years from now. If they do nothing then, they will do nothing later on.

Donald Sterling just needs to get a judge that will find his case credible enough to give him an injunction against dissolving the franchise. The same thing goes for Shelley Sterling. Find those judges, prolong the process, litigate it and get extensions and extensions and if Donald Sterling dies, the league may have spent so much money, they might just be happy with one Sterling gone instead of all. Time has a way of making people forget. Time is Sterling's ally in this case.

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

Don't think there's any question that the attrition efforts begin at the first sign the Sterlings want to draw this deal out.

In fact, it's what I'm hoping for.

[nickagneta]

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

Since when has Donald Sterling been adverse to putting a team on the floor that is uncompetitive so long as he is selling tickets, getting national television money, making a profit, and being in Los Angeles while he owns the teams?

I don't know.  When is his next local media deal due?  The current team will get a lot in a local deal, but if he has to negotiate a new one in two years when he has D-leaugers and cast offs, that's going to cost him.  Before when he was cheap, he didn't have to spend.  Now he does.  Also, while he might be able to stop a sale, it seems less likely he can stop the ban, so he has no control.  It's questionably how much profit he can make, aside from the profit from the sale.

Do not forget something. A CEO has been appointed that will make decisions based on the overall good of the franchise. Trading the current players for next to nothing and signing only D-Leaguers might seem like the emotional thing for Doc to do to help out his players but a CEO could not allow such things to happen. Such things are not in the best interest of the franchise.

So if the CEO allows such things, then it probably wouldn't bother Sterling as he is still the owner. If the CEO doesn't allow such things, then the players have no recourse and have to play or forfeit their contracts and sit out the length of those contracts.

Also, I have never understood how player contracts effect the overall value of a franchise. By buying a franchise you are buying those contracts but more importantly, you are buying the right to do with those contracts whatever you want. The Celtics are not any more or less valuable because KG and Pierce aren't here. They wouldn't be less valuable if Rondo was gone. Why? Because they have the ability to get new players. I do not see that Paul and Blake make the Clippers any more valuable simply because they are winning. Sactown and New Orleans and Milwaukee sold in tiny markets with horrible players and contracts and still sold for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

So in essence,  as long as Sterling owns the team, he wins, regardless ofw ho is on the team and how well the team is doing. His team has sucked for decades. What does he care if they suck again. Sterling makes more money every year from the continued rise in the value of the franchise than he ever would from the year in and out profit he makes yearly in his P&L statement.

[saltlover]

I bet players force their way off the team via trade if he fights into July.  Paul and Blake Griffin make that team a lot of money -- if they demand to be traded, and Rivers obliges (because Sterling can't stop him), that team loses value.  Time may be on his side, but if Sterling ends up with a team of 13 D-leaguers, whom he has to pay a lot of money because of the salary floor, he won't really have won.

Since when has Donald Sterling been adverse to putting a team on the floor that is uncompetitive so long as he is selling tickets, getting national television money, making a profit, and being in Los Angeles while he owns the teams?

I don't know.  When is his next local media deal due?  The current team will get a lot in a local deal, but if he has to negotiate a new one in two years when he has D-leaugers and cast offs, that's going to cost him.  Before when he was cheap, he didn't have to spend.  Now he does.  Also, while he might be able to stop a sale, it seems less likely he can stop the ban, so he has no control.  It's questionably how much profit he can make, aside from the profit from the sale.

Do not forget something. A CEO has been appointed that will make decisions based on the overall good of the franchise. Trading the current players for next to nothing and signing only D-Leaguers might seem like the emotional thing for Doc to do to help out his players but a CEO could not allow such things to happen. Such things are not in the best interest of the franchise.

So if the CEO allows such things, then it probably wouldn't bother Sterling as he is still the owner. If the CEO doesn't allow such things, then the players have no recourse and have to play or forfeit their contracts and sit out the length of those contracts.

Also, I have never understood how player contracts effect the overall value of a franchise. By buying a franchise you are buying those contracts but more importantly, you are buying the right to do with those contracts whatever you want. The Celtics are not any more or less valuable because KG and Pierce aren't here. They wouldn't be less valuable if Rondo was gone. Why? Because they have the ability to get new players. I do not see that Paul and Blake make the Clippers any more valuable simply because they are winning. Sactown and New Orleans and Milwaukee sold in tiny markets with horrible players and contracts and still sold for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

So in essence,  as long as Sterling owns the team, he wins, regardless ofw ho is on the team and how well the team is doing. His team has sucked for decades. What does he care if they suck again. Sterling makes more money every year from the continued rise in the value of the franchise than he ever would from the year in and out profit he makes yearly in his P&L statement.

Who says they will be traded for next to nothing?  I think they'll just be traded with no guaranteed salary coming back, so non-guaranteed players who can ask for their release if they don't want to stay in the situation.  Then you can let the Keith Bogans of the world decide if they want the money or not.  But there will be draft picks a-plenty.

If the players are boycotting the team, the CEO is going to need players who won't boycott.  That's for the best of the franchise.  Chris Paul for a few 1st rounders isn't good for the Clippers, but Chris Paul not playing is worse.  But it won't be Chris Paul for free.

With regards to player contracts adding to the value of the franchise -- I think that's true for not a lot of players.  But Blake Griffin and Chris Paul are two of the most marketable players in the NBA right now, so I think applies to them.  No one's coming to see DeAndre Jordan or Jamal Crawford.  Those guys just help you win, which people also come to see.

[Clench123]

http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2014/05/12/donald-sterling-clippers-law-firms-rejected-nba-sue-racist

Sterling is having a hard time finding a lawyer.

[LooseCannon]

Also, I have never understood how player contracts effect the overall value of a franchise. By buying a franchise you are buying those contracts but more importantly, you are buying the right to do with those contracts whatever you want. The Celtics are not any more or less valuable because KG and Pierce aren't here. They wouldn't be less valuable if Rondo was gone. Why? Because they have the ability to get new players. I do not see that Paul and Blake make the Clippers any more valuable simply because they are winning. Sactown and New Orleans and Milwaukee sold in tiny markets with horrible players and contracts and still sold for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Given that star players are a scarce asset in the NBA, having a star under contract adds to the value of your franchise just as having a better arena would add to the value of your franchise even though you have the ability to build a new arena.  This is why a smart Celtics GM would refuse to trade Rondo unless he gets a star player in return.

Winning teams generally have better revenue than losing teams.  A team that is ready to contend rakes in more money annually than a rebuilding team in the same location.  You prefer to take over a team that is showing a profit rather than team that is in the red because of poor attendance due to a bad roster, with poorly-chosen long-term salary commitments.

[nickagneta]

Meh.

To me which players you have on a team effect the value of a franchise like what color a house is painted does the selling price of the house. They make the entire franchise prettier if the color is good but really add little to no value to the franchise.

I mean if Milwaukee had a winning team with star players would the old owners really have gotten that much more than the $550 million they did? Are we supposed to believe that because the Bucks have sucked since the 80's and have no stars that $550 million was the bargain price?

I'm not buying that.