- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The NBA probably doesn't want the Clippers to become a national joke.
A CEO is an employee of a company. There is certainly some basis on which to suggest that a CEO should be subject to some action, up to possibly even being fired, if he says or does something that is harmful to his employer.
Mr. Sterling is not an employee. He's an owner. The team in question is his property. Demanding that the owner of a business sell that business—in fact, making any demand at all regarding what the owner of a business may or must do with his business—is completely different than a business demanding anything of an employee.
This is very true, and let's also not forget that the league decided two years ago that Chris Paul could not be traded to the Los Angeles Lakers and forced the player into a trade that saw him go to that bastion of racism, the Clippers. And what did this black man do when he found himself banished to the Clippers, that bastion of racism, well he decided to sign a long term deal to play for Mr. Sterling, that most evil racist of all racists, apparently capable of destroying an entire league with a few comments.
So we have the league, apparently aware that Mr. Sterling has been an evil racist forever, and Chris Paul, a black man who can no doubt spot a racist miles away, both believing that Mr. Sterling's Clippers is a perfectly lovely place for a black basketball star to play.
This is nothing but a trumped up social media pile-on and it's pathetic.
You know CJ, I was thinking about that trade or non-trade how ever you want to call. I have also heard on ESPN, from show like PTI and First Take that quite a lot of people know Sterling was a racist from a long time ago. Yet the commissioner intercedes and sends him Paul when Paul should have gone to the Lakers. Perhaps the NBA also needs a new commissioner.
1. No
2. No
3. To my knowledge, no.
That seems to be the premise here... Unfortunately, we seem to be allowing political correctness to replace our rights and freedoms,
FFS, I said "without fear of government or entrepreneurial reprisal."
Well, it was the old commissioner who blocked the trade to the Lakers and there is attempts now to throw Stern under the bus as the reason why Sterling was allowed to survive so long, but it's the owners as a group that condone what the commissioner does, so there's no escaping the hypocrisy.
The NBA Owners are going to vote on whether to force Donald Sterling to sell the LA Clippers because of the racist comments he made on that tape that was secretly recorded by his wife.
If you had a vote in that situation, would you vote "Yes" to force him to sell the team, or do you think he shouldn't be forced to see his team and vote "no".
After you vote, please explain your position.
... And I'm telling you that freedom from entrepreneurial reprisal is not part of a person's freedom of speech rights. You don't have a natural right to speech free of other people using their property to discourage your speech. And it certainly isn't in the 1st amendment.
I believe he owns the franchise to the team in much the same way the owner of a Mc Donalds or Wendy's owns their restaurants. Their agreement can be severed for any reason.Do we have property rights?
He owns that team, and he has done nothing to legally justify forcing him to sell that team.
Parsing words is fun to some people, but I'm not one of them.
The National Basketball Association (NBA) is the pre-eminent men's professional basketball league in North America, and is widely considered to be the premier men's professional basketball league in the world. It has thirty franchised member clubs (29 in the United States and 1 in Canada), and is an active member of USA Basketball (USAB)
National Basketball Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was gonna post the same thing. The team is not real "property", its more like a franchise license and its governed by a complex NBA team owners' contract. When buying the team Sterling agreed to the contract and any limitations it may have, so if he didn't like them, he shouldn't have bought the NBA franchise.I believe he owns the franchise to the team in much the same way the owner of a Mc Donalds or Wendy's owns their restaurants. Their agreement can be severed for any reason.
That's exactly right, I posted a short Wiki piece that indeed shows the teams are franchises. I find it funny that these conservatives pride themselves on business acumen don't know ****.Was gonna post the same thing. The team is not real "property", its more like a franchise license and its governed by a complex NBA team owners' contract. When buying the team Sterling agreed to the contract and any limitations it may have, so if he didn't like them, he shouldn't have bought the NBA franchise.
Do we have property rights?
He owns that team, and he has done nothing to legally justify forcing him to sell that team.
Parsing words is fun to some people, but I'm not one of them.
I've seen several people make this point. What does this particular point matter one way or another? The people who say it seem to use it almost as a justification.Doesn't matter. Part of his contract with the NBA is that any owner whose team is part of the NBA can be forced to sell...and it's this kind of situation that they needed this caveat in the contract...because if his words and actions would cost them millions of dollars, it only makes good economic sense to everyone involved. And it's not like Sterling's going to hurt.
If you'll think about it, it's not really that much different from owning a house in a development with an HOA - if you do something with that house that is against HOA rules, they can place a lien on it - and potentially take it from you, if you do not or cannot correct the discrepancy. It doesn't matter that you're the homeowner - you've done something that detracts from the value of the other houses in the development...and just as every owner of an NBA team has a legal duty to not do that which would potentially cost the other owners millions, you as that homeowner in that development have a legal duty to not do that which would potentially drive down the values of the other houses in that development.
ARTICLE 13 TERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP
(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf
What contractual obligations did not fulfill?
• a violation of the contractual duty of loyalty to support the league in the attainment of its proper purposes, which include among other things the league’s commitment to diversity and inclusion.
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/051914-Summary-of-Sterling-Termination-Charge.pdf
Yes, because as a fellow team owner his racism is bad for the NBA which is bad for my team.
Given the continual embarrassment and complete lack of need of pro team "owners" (profiteers) in general, i would take all teams from their owners and give them to their respective cities.
So yes
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?