Donald Sterling sues NBA,wife,Adam Silver and LAC basketball club for damages

[trojanfan12]

He's free to challenge the rules.....but I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning.

His actions UNDOUBTEDLY damaged the league. Of this there is no question or debate. The other owners and league has every right to remove him.

In terms of the private convo, that is irrelevant. The NBA didn't obtain the convo illegally, they didn't do anything but react AFTER it was made public. For that to be relevant here it would have to be proven they actually had something to do with making that private information public, which they did not.

You may very well be right re: him having very little chance of winning. But to say so with any certainty is foolhardy at best.

You are banking this strictly on the NBA by-laws which are not the law of the land. It doesn't matter if his comments damaged the league and it doesn't matter how the NBA got their information. What matters is whether or not the NBA's by-law can stand up to legal scrutiny or not. That's it. Nothing else.

Assuming this goes to court, the NBA will argue their case and Sterling's lawyers will argue his. A judge will then interpret the law and determine whether or not the NBA can legally remove him from ownership. My guess/hope is that the judge will rule in favor of the NBA. However, I wouldn't even bet my vcash on it. Especially since it will be tried in California.

 

[Retroram52]

You don't have a lot of vash to bet TJF12.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Some think it's as simple as "he signed on for the league being able to do this when he bought the team". Problem is, it really isn't that simple.

Just because something is in a contract or is a by-law, doesn't mean it is legal or will hold up in court if challenged. It is not uncommon to have provisions/clauses in contracts for years until someone actually challenges it in court and a change is forced.

Exactly, rules and policies mean nothing if they aren't legal.

I have no idea how legal or binding anything is in his agreement with the NBA, but wording and definition are often wide open to interpretation.

A lot of people don't fight lawsuits because of the expense involved.
Mr. Sterling wont fall into that category.

 

[trojanfan12]

The league knew of his previous racial problems that the courts punished him for and the owners STILL DID NOT REMOVE HIM. Those were ACTUAL legal problems with keeping blacks out of his real estate holdings. That tells me the league knows it can't really kick him out. If they didn't boot him over REAL legal issues regarding race, they can't kick him out over being stupid and saying a racially charged statement.

This may actually be the thing that the NBA will have the most problem overcoming. Why now? Seems to be a fair question. On more than 1 occasion, the NBA has had reason to use that particular by-law against him and did nothing.

Now, they suddenly want to use it over a private conversation, no matter how repugnant his statements may have been, that was never intended for public consumption?

 

[trojanfan12]

You don't have a lot of vash to bet TJF12.

True. Shows my faith in California courts.

 

[Kinzu]

This may actually be the thing that the NBA will have the most problem overcoming. Why now? Seems to be a fair question. On more than 1 occasion, the NBA has had reason to use that particular by-law against him and did nothing.

Now, they suddenly want to use it over a private conversation, no matter how repugnant his statements may have been, that was never intended for public consumption?

There is no bylaw for racism. The bylaws basically state owners can't do anything to harm the league, gamble on the league, do anything to affect games, or fail to uphold or honor contracts.

The league is trying pin the first one on Sterling. They are saying his statements harmed the league which is true, but the bylaw states "Willfully" in it. This means Sterling would have to have made the comments with intent or knowledge they would hurt the NBA. I don't see how it's possible the NBA wins that off the recording that was clearly not willfully done and released by him. They might however could pin the CNN interview on him for his statements against Magic Johnson.

They also want to claim he failed to uphold contracts to sponsors due to the comments, but again can they do that? Sterling is a victim of that recording. Can you really say it's his fault sponsor's backed out when the recording is not of his doing?

This is why I say if the offer of dropping Sterling's ban and fine for his agreement to sign off on the Balmer sale was on the table the league should have jumped all over it. If that offer was there and the league turned it down they are idiots and deserve everything that is coming with these lawsuits.

$2.5m and insuring Donald Sterling can't attend an NBA game over the course of his remaining years is not worth this.

 

[trojanfan12]

There is no bylaw for racism. The bylaws basically state owners can't do anything to harm the league, gamble on the league, do anything to affect games, or fail to uphold or honor contracts.

The league is trying pin the first one on Sterling. They are saying his statements harmed the league which is true, but the bylaw states "Willfully" in it. This means Sterling would have to have made the comments with intent or knowledge they would hurt the NBA. I don't see how it's possible the NBA wins that off the recording that was clearly not willfully done and released by him. They might however could pin the CNN interview on him for his statements against Magic Johnson.

They also want to claim he failed to uphold contracts to sponsors due to the comments, but again can they do that? Sterling is a victim of that recording. Can you really say it's his fault sponsor's backed out when the recording is not of his doing?

This is why I say if the offer of dropping Sterling's ban and fine for his agreement to sign off on the Balmer sale was on the table the league should have jumped all over it. If that offer was there and the league turned it down they are idiots and deserve everything that is coming with these lawsuits.

$2.5m and insuring Donald Sterling can't attend an NBA game over the course of his remaining years is not worth this.

I agree. I think the NBA made a mistake when they got caught up in the public and media outrage over this.

The lifetime ban and $2.5 million fine should have been sufficient. If the point is to get him the hell away from the NBA, the lifetime ban does that. Heck, it's almost a worse punishment than forcing him to sell. He owns the team, but would literally not be able to have anything to do with it. He wouldn't even be allowed to sit in Staples Center and watch them play.

The other option, as you point out, would be drop the ban and lawsuit in exchange for him selling the team. Either way, the league gets what it ultimately wants.

The NBA may very well find that they overplayed their hand.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

The NBA never forced Donald to sell anything. Thats where a lot of people is getting it mixed up.

 

[Kinzu]

The NBA never forced Donald to sell anything. Thats where a lot of people is getting it mixed up.

They have not yet. He wins this ongoing case though and they will. Though you could argue their threat of a forced sale is the entire reason this is all happening.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

They have not yet. He wins this ongoing case though and they will. Though you could argue their threat of a forced sale is the entire reason this is all happening.

No, they will vote him out. He can keep the Clippers all he want. But if he make that decision, then the NBA will stop doinf business with the Clippers. NBA is in the right of doing that.

 

[trojanfan12]

No, they will vote him out. He can keep the Clippers all he want. But if he make that decision, then the NBA will stop doinf business with the Clippers. NBA is in the right of doing that.

I don't think that's accurate. I could be wrong, but I believe that if he is voted out by the owners, he is stripped of the franchise and the NBA then takes control of and sells the franchise.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Just disband the team already and send them to Seattle.

The clippers are a joke anyway

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

I don't think that's accurate. I could be wrong, but I believe that if he is voted out by the owners, he is stripped of the franchise and the NBA then takes control of and sells the franchise.

I don't know, I thought I heard that they can strip the franchise, but if he don't agree to it, he keeps the team, but the nba can stop doing business with the Clippers. Maybe somebody can clear it up for us.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

Just disband the team already and send them to Seattle.

The clippers are a joke anyway

Fucking selfie team!!!

 

[Kinzu]

I don't know, I thought I heard that they can strip the franchise, but if he don't agree to it, he keeps the team, but the nba can stop doing business with the Clippers. Maybe somebody can clear it up for us.

They can vote to drop the Clippers as a NBA franchise, but that is highly unlikely to happen and won't happen for the upcoming season. They have TV contracts and schedules based on a 30 team league. If they voted out the Clippers they would have to immediately replace them, and that is something that would take time to setup. It's a potential card in the leagues deck for next year though, and in the event they lose their lawsuits to abolish him as owner.

 

[Jims_Doors]

Haven't read the thread but LOL @ Doc Rivers saying he might not be able coach if Sterling still owns the team.

He's been involved the NBA so long that he knows the past history of Sterling, had no problem taking his money and better team that LA provided.

He's a hypocrite dumbass

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The NBA has nothing to worry about since Shelly Stirling absolved the NBA of all lawsuits that were to be filed by her husband so in effect, Donald is suing Shelly. The NBA gets to sit back and watch them destroy each other

 

[Kinzu]

The NBA has nothing to worry about since Shelly Stirling absolved the NBA of all lawsuits that were to be filed by her husband so in effect, Donald is suing Shelly. The NBA gets to sit back and watch them destroy each other

I don't think they ever said how long and under what circumstances she absolved the NBA of lawsuits under though. It could be for life or it could be contingent on Balmer sale. That would mean if he pulls out of the deal she no longer absolves the league. Money is not the issue anyway in this fight. It's more about the principal of it.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think they ever said how long and under what circumstances she absolved the NBA of lawsuits under though. It could be for life or it could be contingent on Balmer sale. That would mean if he pulls out of the deal she no longer absolves the league. Money is not the issue anyway in this fight. It's more about the principal of it.

Part of the issue is that Donald apparently revoked the trust. If the trust is revoked, then the sale is off because Shelly would no longer have that authority. In that case, the deal re: suing the NBA no longer applies because she wouldn't have the authority to make such a deal.

 

[Kinzu]

Part of the issue is that Donald apparently revoked the trust. If the trust is revoked, then the sale is off because Shelly would no longer have that authority. In that case, the deal re: suing the NBA no longer applies because she wouldn't have the authority to make such a deal.

Nah she would still have the right to make that deal with the league independent of the trust, and I want to say she made it prior to him revoking it anyway. Revoking the trust simply means she would not have the authority to sale the team.

I'm not sure what it would do to her agreement to absolve the league of legal fee's though with the trust. She made the deal prior to him revoking it, but she now lacks any control over it.