|
|
Post by christrpn on Apr 29, 2014 15:47:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 29, 2014 17:24:47 GMT -5
I think Adam Silver has opened Pandora's Box. I in no way agree with what is attributed to Donald Sterling, but if the NBA owners are going down the road to force Sterling to sell his team .... Then Sterling is going to get richer, way richer, cause I think he"ll have recourse against the league based on anti-trust laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 29, 2014 18:04:38 GMT -5
my thoughts exactly, Skilly.
force me to sell? I peg the value at . . . and if no one ponies up I'm keeping the team.
oh, and I expect that if he does sell there will be a $2.5M additional cost to the buyer.
I'll say this, though . . . the NBA acted speedily.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Apr 29, 2014 19:48:51 GMT -5
I don't see how they can't take a private conversation, make it public and then discipline someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 29, 2014 20:29:15 GMT -5
I don't see how they can't take a private conversation, make it public and then discipline someone. From what I understand, his ex-girlfriend (who was being sued for embezzlement ) taped him .... #entrapment. ... Well I'm not sure if it's entrapment if there was no police involvement. I understand if it's in the public sphere, the NBA shouldn't care how it got there, just that it exists .... I'm fine with the monetary fine, I think the lifetime ban is harse but I also see the NBA had to act harshly, since the players were talking of boycotting games. But forcing him to sell? Unless they are willing to way overpay for the team, i don't see how it doesn't violate anti-trust laws. Even then, the guy is worth 1.8 billion dollars, if they offer him 700 million, (the Clippers are worth $575 million) he could say no ... He won't miss the money. Anti-trust laws state that they can't collude to not do business with competition, unless there is a pattern of behaviour that would be detrimental to the league. Only Clippers sponsors left, so the NBA itself didn't lose a cent. Silver said, nothing in his past was looked at, so there wasn't a pattern. I know NBA keeps their by laws secret, but Silve stated they need 75% to kick him out. But those by-laws don't supersede anti trust laws, or I wouldn't think. This could get dicey, if he doesn't go away quietly |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 30, 2014 6:58:47 GMT -5
He may or may not have a case to sue his ex, but the league's rules are clear. Conduct unbecoming the league is grounds for the league, within it's bylaws, to have a vote amongst the other owners to get you out. Of the 29 other teams, 24 are required to vote in favor of his removal.
This is not his first brush with controversy. He's been sued for sexual harassment multiple times. He's been taken to court over attempts to make life miserable for tenants of buildings he owns based on race. Always settled out of court, there is a smoking gun in this case.
My understanding is that his ex-wife and son handle a lot of the day to day stuff. I have no idea what they're worth, but there's an opportunity there for them to buy the team from him. It would certainly be the most seamless transition. I understand the slippery slope, but this isn't a rich moron doing something stupid. This is a racist. Someone who got caught, private or not, uttering hate. Pure hate. It's conduct the league can have no allegiance with.
This isn't just about the sponsors either. Players were on the verge of open revolt, willing to boycott playoff games if the league didn't step in and do exactly what they did. That sort of thing could have created chaos.
Silver was right to do what he did. He may not have had a choice, but he came down hard in his first official act as commissioner. Bravo sir. Bravo. The NHL could use a commissioner just like you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Apr 30, 2014 10:27:36 GMT -5
I have no issue with what was done....just that the NBA, if it goes to court, will probably loose. What is said in private is just that, private!! There is no room today for Racism or bigotry, however it's there and it actually seems to be getting worse, especially with foreign workers in Alberta, religion in Quebec, Mexicans and Latinos in the US, its not just a "Black vs White" issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 30, 2014 12:09:54 GMT -5
I have no issue with what was done....just that the NBA, if it goes to court, will probably loose. What is said in private is just that, private!! There is no room today for Racism or bigotry, however it's there and it actually seems to be getting worse, especially with foreign workers in Alberta, religion in Quebec, Mexicans and Latinos in the US, its not just a "Black vs White" issue. it may have been said in private but once it is out it is out. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 30, 2014 13:59:01 GMT -5
I have no issue with what was done....just that the NBA, if it goes to court, will probably loose. What is said in private is just that, private!! There is no room today for Racism or bigotry, however it's there and it actually seems to be getting worse, especially with foreign workers in Alberta, religion in Quebec, Mexicans and Latinos in the US, its not just a "Black vs White" issue. it may have been said in private but once it is out it is out. Obviously I don't think he should have said what he said. It was an illegally taped personal conversation. He broke no laws. The racist remarks by 1/2 of the players in the NBA were worse. Racism as advocated by Obama is far worse. Stupid old man with a young girl has the right to hand out his freebies to whomever he chooses. While his remarks are offensive, remarks by Israel, Hamas, Serbia, Germany, Libya and Syrian leaders have been far worse. There is a big difference between a private conversation and publically broadcasting opinions. There are no winners in this but if a man chooses to not give free basketball tickets to blacks, gays, Jews, Catholics, Asians, underage children, enlisted men, francophones, obese women; it is his tickets to hand out or keep. Just hope my wife doesn't publically repeat some of the things I said to her over the years. Still it's hard to feel sorry for the old guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 30, 2014 14:00:48 GMT -5
He may or may not have a case to sue his ex, but the league's rules are clear. Conduct unbecoming the league is grounds for the league, within it's bylaws, to have a vote amongst the other owners to get you out. Of the 29 other teams, 24 are required to vote in favor of his removal. This is not his first brush with controversy. He's been sued for sexual harassment multiple times. He's been taken to court over attempts to make life miserable for tenants of buildings he owns based on race. Always settled out of court, there is a smoking gun in this case. My understanding is that his ex-wife and son handle a lot of the day to day stuff. I have no idea what they're worth, but there's an opportunity there for them to buy the team from him. It would certainly be the most seamless transition. I understand the slippery slope, but this isn't a rich moron doing something stupid. This is a racist. Someone who got caught, private or not, uttering hate. Pure hate. It's conduct the league can have no allegiance with. This isn't just about the sponsors either. Players were on the verge of open revolt, willing to boycott playoff games if the league didn't step in and do exactly what they did. That sort of thing could have created chaos. Silver was right to do what he did. He may not have had a choice, but he came down hard in his first official act as commissioner. Bravo sir. Bravo. The NHL could use a commissioner just like you. NBA by laws do not super-cede the Rule of Law. Professional sports teams work under an anti-trust exemption. Many times Commisioners have waded in these waters to pull out; they just do not want to go down this route at all. If Silver forces Sterling to sell, he may, he is crusty enough, go to court and challenge the NBA based on the anti-trust laws. Forcing him to transfer the team to his family? Thats sticky. It would be the perverbial $1 sell. In any event, I cant see Sterling getting fair market value now, some of it his own doing (who wants to do business with him?) and some of it the NBAs (sell, and now!) As for the players boycotting? I would have loved to see that. In fact, I would have called their bluff. It would have been pretty hypocritical, 240 players breaching their contracts and NBA bylaws get nothing, but the owner who breached NBA bylaws is forced to sell. Hrmmmm?? Don't get me wrong. Silver did the right thing, I'm just not sure of the legalities of it, and it would be interesting to discuss with lawyers over a beer or twelve. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 30, 2014 14:30:00 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. Silver did the right thing, I'm just not sure of the legalities of it, and it would be interesting to discuss with lawyers over a beer or twelve. hard to know how this one will turn out. it may be nothing more than a big roar (sort of what like what Harper did re: the Senate): "I told him he had to sell the team but in the end he can't be forced to do it -- well, I tried". |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Apr 30, 2014 20:22:55 GMT -5
I don't think boycotting a playoff game goes against a player contract. They're paid for the regular season. I don't see a team using any defamation riders against players protesting. The backlash from the court of public opinion would be harsh.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 30, 2014 21:24:44 GMT -5
I don't think boycotting a playoff game goes against a player contract. They're paid for the regular season. I don't see a team using any defamation riders against players protesting. The backlash from the court of public opinion would be harsh. The renumeration in the contract is based on the regular season. The contract is based on the date of signing until a prescribed date , typically July 1st (using hockey as the example) in the year the contract ends. If playoffs weren't included in the contract, players could do what they pleased with no recourse during the playoffs and not face suspension ... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2014 22:10:46 GMT -5
NBA or whatever....do not supersede the rule of law. Period. But, I'm not sure this is anti-trust.
I have a problem with people/companies/league acting on private conversation. We all say stupid things in the heat of the moment, which may include a string of racial charged garbage. I'm not an angel and I'm pretty sure that no one here sprouted a halo, so, if we uttered "effen insert-race cut me off", does that make one a racist? Skin colour does not really matter, any identifiable feature will do. Long noses included.
I'm not defending what Sterling said, I'm questioning where we draw the line about what is private and if we have the right to act on it. Or are we entering a new age where anything and everything, even in private must be goosestepping within political correctness? Lest it becomes public and social media and twitter outrage nail us to the cross?
Then there is another issue.....
What if he said "Christians"? You think there would be such an outrage? What about Muslims? White? North Koreans? Russians? Or is there a hierarchy of outrage?
Just wondering....
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 30, 2014 22:38:43 GMT -5
it may have been said in private but once it is out it is out. You and I met several times over breakfast. In the course of our private conversation, we said many things, including a lot of politically incorrect meanderings. If either one of us made it public, I know how I would react, how about you? The problem with this is the outrage has overran the slippery slope of what is private and what is public. On top of that, anyone who dares question the issue of privacy must be a racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Apr 30, 2014 23:36:31 GMT -5
NBA or whatever....do not supersede the rule of law. Period. But, I'm not sure this is anti-trust. I have a problem with people/companies/league acting on private conversation. We all say stupid things in the heat of the moment, which may include a string of racial charged garbage. I'm not an angel and I'm pretty sure that no one here sprouted a halo, so, if we uttered "effen insert-race cut me off", does that make one a racist? Skin colour does not really matter, any identifiable feature will do. Long noses included. I'm not defending what Sterling said, I'm questioning where we draw the line about what is private and if we have the right to act on it. Or are we entering a new age where anything and everything, even in private must be goosestepping within political correctness? Lest it becomes public and social media and twitter outrage nail us to the cross? Then there is another issue..... What if he said "Christians"? You think there would be such an outrage? What about Muslims? White? North Koreans? Russians? Or is there a hierarchy of outrage? Just wondering.... Habsrus has a code of conduct and there is a lifetime ban for posters that violate the code. Cheering for the leafs constitutes the most flagrant violation. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 1, 2014 9:56:54 GMT -5
Then there is another issue..... What if he said "Christians"? You think there would be such an outrage? What about Muslims? White? North Koreans? Russians? Or is there a hierarchy of outrage? Just wondering.... I think the more apt parallel would have been if he said "don't bring gays to my games" ... and I really don't think there would have been as much outrage. When I first heard the recording, I thought he was referring to her flaunting other men (I got from it that black men were a preference of hers) around in public. It's obvious they have a relationship that is unique, 80yr old man, very young woman and he lets her date (he says be with who you wanna be with somewhere .. maybe not a direct quote). I thought he was more embarassed by that. He even called Johnson admirable (sarcastically? I dunno.) It wasnt until I heard the second recording (or the first for a second time) that I thought there was indeed rascist undertones and heard of his history and got the gist of want he meant ... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on May 1, 2014 10:01:38 GMT -5
NBA or whatever....do not supersede the rule of law. Period. But, I'm not sure this is anti-trust. Where I think anti-trust might apply is in forcing him to sell ... they will have to collude together and decide to not do business with him. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2014 10:23:35 GMT -5
Then there is another issue..... What if he said "Christians"? You think there would be such an outrage? What about Muslims? White? North Koreans? Russians? Or is there a hierarchy of outrage? Just wondering.... I think the more apt parallel would have been if he said "don't bring gays to my games" ... and I really don't think there would have been as much outrage. my thought too, Skilly . . . but I disagree. gays or Jews would have brought about outrage. Muslims probably not so much. and Greeks? oy vay!!!  lot of tension wrt race still . . . but yes there is a hierarchy. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 1, 2014 11:46:20 GMT -5
NBA or whatever....do not supersede the rule of law. Period. But, I'm not sure this is anti-trust. I have a problem with people/companies/league acting on private conversation. We all say stupid things in the heat of the moment, which may include a string of racial charged garbage. I'm not an angel and I'm pretty sure that no one here sprouted a halo, so, if we uttered "effen insert-race cut me off", does that make one a racist? Skin colour does not really matter, any identifiable feature will do. Long noses included. I'm not defending what Sterling said, I'm questioning where we draw the line about what is private and if we have the right to act on it. Or are we entering a new age where anything and everything, even in private must be goosestepping within political correctness? Lest it becomes public and social media and twitter outrage nail us to the cross? Then there is another issue..... What if he said "Christians"? You think there would be such an outrage? What about Muslims? White? North Koreans? Russians? Or is there a hierarchy of outrage? Just wondering.... Too many bandwagon jumpers weighing in now if only to publicly promote themselves on the side of righteousness. I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2014 13:08:17 GMT -5
I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? yes . . . and no. of course his privacy was violated . . . he had an expectation that what he said would be confidential. otoh, there really isn't such a thing as privacy any more, is there? with cell phones, even little brother is watching! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 1, 2014 13:13:14 GMT -5
Too many bandwagon jumpers weighing in now if only to publicly promote themselves on the side of righteousness. I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? Cheers. I wonder where the outrage would be if it was NSA who released that recording? The problem with this is that mob outrage has lost sight of the principle of privacy in the rush to crucify someone who easily qualifies as Mr. Despicable. There is no mistake that Mr Despicable is despicable, but using despicable means has reached a new low. The decay of decency and respect is now a complete circle. A bit discombobulated but interesting comment on society.....Kareem Abdul-Jabbar time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 1, 2014 13:16:44 GMT -5
I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? yes . . . and no. of course his privacy was violated . . . he had an expectation that what he said would be confidential. otoh, there really isn't such a thing as privacy any more, is there? with cell phones, even little brother is watching! 1984 on steroids. Welcome to The New World Order. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 1, 2014 13:32:53 GMT -5
Too many bandwagon jumpers weighing in now if only to publicly promote themselves on the side of righteousness. I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? Cheers. I wonder where the outrage would be if it was NSA who released that recording? The problem with this is that mob outrage has lost sight of the principle of privacy in the rush to crucify someone who easily qualifies as Mr. Despicable. There is no mistake that Mr Despicable is despicable, but using despicable means to out has reached a new low. The decay of decency and respect is now a complete circle. A bit discombobulated but interesting comment on society.....Kareem Abdul-Jabbar time.com/79590/donald-sterling-kareem-abdul-jabbar-racism/Well, there's the pattern, but if previous conduct is a precedent, why wait to ban him from the NBA? Why did the league tolerate a known racist as Sterling owning an NBA team in the first place? Now that it affects the NBA directly, they're making sure that the ... whole world ... knows that they're dealing with it appropriately. I just find a bit of a disconnect here. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on May 1, 2014 13:39:42 GMT -5
Too many bandwagon jumpers weighing in now if only to publicly promote themselves on the side of righteousness. I'm not saying what Sterling said was okay, or that he shouldn't be punished, but was his privacy violated in any way? Cheers. I wonder where the outrage would be if it was NSA who released that recording? The problem with this is that mob outrage has lost sight of the principle of privacy in the rush to crucify someone who easily qualifies as Mr. Despicable. There is no mistake that Mr Despicable is despicable, but using despicable means has reached a new low. The decay of decency and respect is now a complete circle. By the same token would there be the same howls for privacy if Sterling had of said he's thinking of flying a plane into a building? It's cute that you guys still think we have privacy in today's world.  The privacy ship has sailed, for better or worse. It is not coming back. You should just assume that EVERYTHING you do, say, or write can be accessed at any time. It's a hell of a way to live, but it's the brave new world. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on May 1, 2014 14:00:00 GMT -5
so what is Oprah going to call he new team?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on May 1, 2014 14:53:30 GMT -5
I wonder where the outrage would be if it was NSA who released that recording? The problem with this is that mob outrage has lost sight of the principle of privacy in the rush to crucify someone who easily qualifies as Mr. Despicable. There is no mistake that Mr Despicable is despicable, but using despicable means has reached a new low. The decay of decency and respect is now a complete circle. By the same token would there be the same howls for privacy if Sterling had of said he's thinking of flying a plane into a building? It's cute that you guys still think we have privacy in today's world. The privacy ship has sailed, for better or worse. It is not coming back. You should just assume that EVERYTHING you do, say, or write can be accessed at any time. It's a hell of a way to live, but it's the brave new world. Don't bring up my cuteness in public!  You can't parse privacy without turning into a twisted moral and ethical knot. If someone said they want to blow up a subway, it doesn't mean he will or he can. If he is recruiting and collecting fuse caps, then it's an issue. Private verbal diarhhea is not an actionable criminal offence nor should it be the cause for the hanging gallows of the hashtag mob. It's a verbalized extension of thought crimes, which, given the ever increasing technology, is just around the corner. Further.... Can we be morally and ethically be outraged selectivly? Are we going to heriarch it to the whims of the mob? Is there any principle that is inviolable? Just wondering..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on May 12, 2014 23:36:39 GMT -5
I believe the Catholic Church has the right to speak out against abortion, even if some liberals consider it politically incorrect. They have the right to speak out against homosexuality, even if it an unpopular stance.
If Muslims don't want their women to go to school or go out in public withour an outrageous degree of covering, they have the right to their beliefs and to voice them.
Magic Johnson is a very hard working businessman, smart and successful, but he is also a man who contracted aids through questionable unsavory circumstances.
I don't agree with what Sterling said, but I do defend his right to say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on May 13, 2014 8:18:44 GMT -5
I believe the Catholic Church has the right to speak out against abortion, even if some liberals consider it politically incorrect. They have the right to speak out against homosexuality, even if it an unpopular stance. If Muslims don't want their women to go to school or go out in public withour an outrageous degree of covering, they have the right to their beliefs and to voice them. Magic Johnson is a very hard working businessman, smart and successful, but he is also a man who contracted aids through questionable unsavory circumstances. I don't agree with what Sterling said, but I do defend his right to say it. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltair It's a sad day when you can't say anything you want on your own property ... was watching Bill Maher yesterday and he suggested the Fourth Amendment is now under attack. Land of the free, eh? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on May 13, 2014 9:00:53 GMT -5
I believe the Catholic Church has the right to speak out against abortion, even if some liberals consider it politically incorrect. They have the right to speak out against homosexuality, even if it an unpopular stance. If Muslims don't want their women to go to school or go out in public withour an outrageous degree of covering, they have the right to their beliefs and to voice them. Magic Johnson is a very hard working businessman, smart and successful, but he is also a man who contracted aids through questionable unsavory circumstances. I don't agree with what Sterling said, but I do defend his right to say it. Just to clarify - Magic Johnson has HIV, not AIDS. |
|
