He bought the team for $12 mil, and now it's worth $600 mil. If it ain't for the money, Sterling certainly has had a funny way of showing it. For years, he's been dirt cheap and put practically no effort into making the team a competitor, so if it's not the money, I don't know what it is.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Donald Sterling (LA Clippers owner) banned for life from the NBA
- Thread starter MagicWithEarvin
- Start date
- Status
I still don't understand how this has anything to do with anything in this thread. The statements, the reaction, the punishments, any of that.
He was rich before he got the team. Virtually all the owners made the money they used to buy the team in other business ventures. The team's value skyrocketing with the increased fan interest and giant TV contracts and all that is just a nice bonus for the owners.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Considering he's a billionaire and a suit would require a court to make new law since this is all novel, and could include discovery disputes on secret NBA docs, I would bet on a long time.
Jag
Member
Yeah that $1billion dollar payday (from a $12M investment) is going to hurt.
They hadn't given it to him yet, and they did what you said yesterday.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/naacp-wont-sterling-life-achievement-172927543--nba.html
Not trolling at all. Just looking at it objectively. Unlike the rest of people who quickly jump on the "racists should be hung" bandwagon. It was the same thing with Trayvon Martin last year. Then more facts came out and a lot of people looked really silly. Now I don't think more facts will come out in the Sterling case, however it's similar in the way people are quick to overreact.
Yes. There are racist people all over the world. Accept it. Get over it. People are free to think whatever they want. Sterling didn't harm anyone here. He's done more for minorities than most of you ever will. He wasn't given a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for nothing.
Sterlings rights are being violated here more than anyone else's. He has a right to say and feel whatever he wants in private. Now he's banned for life and forced to sell a team he owns.... all because of a few comments he made in private. You can't force someone to think a certain way but I guess that's what the media and NBA wants to do.
Get out the pitchforks fellas. You angry mob of anti-racists have the same mentality as a lynch mob.
No way he was going to roll over, expect a long term fight over this
He won in 2009.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
Not sure but this was Mark Cubin's fear as another person hated by many for just bind a [non-racist] dick. It seems like Silver knows how significant this is and at the same time, this sends a very strong message to everyone in the organization,
There may be an fan-base surge in another sport soon... EVERYBODY WINS!
MorisUkunRasik
Member
wut
He has a right to think whatever he wants, and private entities like the NBA have the right to ban him and remove his ability to own one of their franchises.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Oh boy, another person who thinks freedom of speech protects you from social consequence.
EDIT: Nice try with that stealth edit of the last line.
Black Mamba
Member
None of his rights were violated by the NBA or media. Rights are only a relationship one has with government, not other people. The government has nothing to do with this.
He is a member of the NBA and if they feel his positions hurt their brand or find them morally repugnant, they can kick him out. Their bylaws allow for it.
He can go cry in his pit of gold coins about it.
He won in 2009. No research done on their part?
I didn't know how you could top your last post but congrats you did it!
You threw in a Trayvon Martin mention, threw out a "get over it" "NAACP gave him an award so it's all good guys" and finally a "maybe you're all the racist."
Bravo... shit upon shit.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Dude.
speculawyer
Member
Well, all it takes is a super-majority of owners to throw him out.
Now we'll get to see if the rest of the owners have the stones to back Silver up.
gutter_trash
Banned
team owners must abide by the league's rules.
we are not in the 1960s anymore. Not the first time this has happened
we are not in the 1960s anymore. Not the first time this has happened
lol
A strawman and a First Amendment argument do not make a for a case, my dear.
The NBA is a private organization with its own rules, guidelines, and interests to protect. That's all there is to it.
Hmm, must not have been.
Whether you agree with their decision or not it up to you, but this high horse box that you're trying to step on? It's going to explode under your feet.
Saint Gregory
Member
My thoughts exactly, I just couldn't even be bothered to quote him.
Maybe, but there's more of us.
So, I noticed in the press conference Silver was very careful to emphasize this ban applied only to Sterling and not his family. Now even if current owners had to approve any new owners, I could easily see Sterling's family maintaining ownership in some form. Especially when Mark Cuban is already voicing concern about a slippery slope.
teruterubozu
Member
I could see it happening if Sterling wants to broker a deal of some kind, but if he just comes out and sues the NBA then no way.
jediyoshi
Member
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Neorock, I'm really interested in what you meant with that Trayvon Martin bit.
theignoramus
Member
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Which is why the other stuff seems fine to me. Even being pressured to sell, but it seems strange that he can be banned from doing things or just being present with a team he owns/franchises. Can restaurants ban people that franchise from entering their own establishments? I am not siding with him, just legally it sounds sketchy.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Oddly enough I just saw two similar posts on my fb feed.
How the hell is this turning into a freedom of speech/privacy debate. Its not like someone hacked his girlfriends phone or something. She strategically exposed him and social media ran with it. His racist behavior over the many years hasn't even been private lol
Thank you Rush Limbaugh for your insight and opinions on this controversial matter.
not psycho
Member
As usual, there is someone confusing the morality and the legality.
It is wrong for someone of Sterling's views to be in a position of owning and operating an NBA team. It is likely even worse for him to own and operate housing developments. He has harmed many people over the years. But there isn't always a legal way to stop him. Ideally, and morally, he would not have owned either for a long time.
There does appear to be a legal way to stop him from owning and operating an NBA team. The owners put provisions in place for this exact situation: another owner who was harming the league financially (loss of advertisers) and had to be stopped. If they are able to completely oust him, it will be because they intentionally left a legal way to protect their investments.
Delta Assault
Member
And the prestige of showing off those "beautiful black bodies."
I have a feeling you're working toward a final lesson in the potential consequences from private entities for voicing opinions.
freenudemacusers
Member
too late
Is it in the contract they signed with the corporation when they franchised it?
Silver is a lawyer and the league has an army of lawyers examining everything they do. They wouldn't do it if 1) Sterling hadn't agreed to subject himself to these terms as part of being a team owner, and 2) they didn't think it would fly in court.
Big Baybee
Member
lol my god
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's too bad your sister ratted out Uncle Donald and now you won't be able to eat as well, but there are more postive outlets for your disappointment
Fenderputty
Banned
What's rights of his are being violated? Lol
MorisUkunRasik
Member
Now I agree the guy is a piece of garbage, but does nobody care that she illegally recorded the private conversation?
Since California has a two party consent for recording private conversations the recordings cannot be used for grounds of punishment.
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
Yes, his girlfriend said he wanted her to record it but if it's not once said in the over 100 hours of recordings. There wasn't a an order by the police to wear a wire. So it comes down to her word against his and honestly how many attorneys does anyone know that asks to have personal conversations be recorded?
The NBA is a private entity but it cannot use illegally obtained information to base a decision on.
So it will probably go to court and we shall see.
Since California has a two party consent for recording private conversations the recordings cannot be used for grounds of punishment.
California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).
Yes, his girlfriend said he wanted her to record it but if it's not once said in the over 100 hours of recordings. There wasn't a an order by the police to wear a wire. So it comes down to her word against his and honestly how many attorneys does anyone know that asks to have personal conversations be recorded?
The NBA is a private entity but it cannot use illegally obtained information to base a decision on.
So it will probably go to court and we shall see.
And it's a good thing that provision is in place. If anyone's physical presence would harm the operations of the team or the league in some incontrovertible way, they shouldn't be allowed near the team. It shouldn't matter if they're an owner or not.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
He was recorded and that information came out. The Fox News reporter and Jason Whitlock are compassionate towards him in that case.
- Status