Sterling prediction thread. Deadline 2pm Tues 4/29
- Thread starter Sille Skrub
- Start date
- Status
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Sterling bought the Clippers in 1981 for $12.5M.
This lifetime ban basically means he can't go to NBA games. He will, however, continue to reap the profits of the day-to-day operation of the team and when the lawsuits reach their conclusion, will probably realize a near-billion dollar profit on his investment (Lakers valued at $1.3B).
Which is enough to buy approximately 7,142,857 subscriptions to NBA League Pass.
Ed Hillel said:
There's almost nothing that requires court here, right? I think the NBA Commissioner has what is essentially power of arbitration in deciding all league and franchise matters. The owners could decide to remove Silver, but until that happens, his word is essentially law. A judge is just going to look at the contract and go "yup".
Don't worry, the agreement also stipulates that in order to strip the owner of his franchise he must fail to fulfill a contractual obligation. (ie not pay his creditors). Munson said that being a racist is a failure to fulfill a contractual obligation, so he's probably still a moron.Average Reds said:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling
From ESPN
Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?
A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
From ESPN
Q: Sterling is notoriously litigious. Can he go to court to stop Silver from punishing him?
A: Not effectively. When Silver issues his punishment to Sterling, the decision is final. The constitution provides in Paragraph 24(m) that a commissioner's decision shall be "final, binding, and conclusive" and shall be as final as an award of arbitration. It is almost impossible to find a judge in the United States judicial system who would set aside an award of arbitration. Sterling can file a lawsuit, but he would face a humiliating defeat early in the process. There is no antitrust theory or principle that would help him against Silver and the NBA. He could claim an antitrust violation, for example, if he were trying to move his team to a different market. But under the terms of the NBA constitution, he has no chance to succeed in litigation over punishment.
I would suspect that litigation would be much more likely if a sale is forced -- perhaps over the vote itself but more likely over the sale price and terms.
It's one thing to say you can "force" an owner to sell, but it's not very clear what happens then. Presumably, the by-laws have dealt with this (like perhaps an appraisal by a designated neutral appraiser). Or maybe they even have mandatory arbitration provisions.
But given all the massive tax implications and valuation uncertainty, this thing only starts if they get the 3/4 vote; it doesn't end.
It's one thing to say you can "force" an owner to sell, but it's not very clear what happens then. Presumably, the by-laws have dealt with this (like perhaps an appraisal by a designated neutral appraiser). Or maybe they even have mandatory arbitration provisions.
But given all the massive tax implications and valuation uncertainty, this thing only starts if they get the 3/4 vote; it doesn't end.
Which is why Stern and the owners should have kicked this clown to the curb 20 years ago. Chickens came home to roost here.wibi said:
jayhoz said:
It's smart of the NBA to get the Clippers logo in there, since the brand is at risk of getting dragged down with Sterling.
HomeRunBaker said:
While I was joking about the "most important" part, I do think this has the potential to completely ruin the Clippers, but a few more things need to happen. Either Sterling isn't voted out and the players rebel and ask for free agency, or he is forced out, sues, and gets into a huge litigious battle that is distracting to everyone in the organization, in which case they may file petition for free agency again. I have no idea whether that would be granted, but I could see this turning into a real drawn out mess if Sterling decides to fight this. The players may not want to be a part of that.
SRoger Mason: "The players were ready to boycott if this action was not taken." http://t.co/lRo4NlrNNK
- Status