Article

2014-04-30 Home Front: Culture Wars

NBA Suspends Clippers' Owner Donald Sterling For Life, Imposes $2.5 Million Fine

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-04-30 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Neither the court of public opinion or a basketball club has the legal right to deprive someone of their personal property. If the old bugger decides to energize his legal staff and exercise his First Amendment rights, the NBA has a rather large problem.

I'm no barracks lawyer, but I suspect much will rests upon the 'legal or illegal' taping of Sterling's comments. Criminal act or not, if he were taped without his knowledge [and consent should be proven], then any legal evidence presented from a tape falls under the doctrine of the "fruit of the poison tree.' At that point the entire case falls apart.

Not only does it fall apart, the old man then has legal grounds for a personal damages lawsuit. Notice how he's not said anything one way or the other?

Posted by Besoeker 2014-04-30 00:36|| 2014-04-30 00:36|| Front Page Top

#2 This whole imbroglio is a manufactured baiting exercise - very similar to the exploitation of the Nevada rancher.

You know something stinks when you read (at Wikipedia):

"The Los Angeles chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) cancelled its plans for the following month to award Sterling for a second time with its lifetime achievement award."

Posted by Lone Ranger 2014-04-30 03:09|| 2014-04-30 03:09|| Front Page Top

#3 Expect one of these a month until the elections in November.

Posted by no mo uro 2014-04-30 05:36|| 2014-04-30 05:36|| Front Page Top

#4 Oh, and what is the significance of the media not mentioning Sterling's political affiliation in any of their stories? Reminds me of a little game, Mmmmm, what is the name of that game?

Posted by no mo uro 2014-04-30 06:10|| 2014-04-30 06:10|| Front Page Top

#5 #4 Reminds me of a little game

A favorite game of the donkey,
A party affair, but not wonky:
Please cover your eyes
As he feigns great surprise
While pinning the tale on the honky.

Posted by Zenobia Floger6220 2014-04-30 07:04|| 2014-04-30 07:04|| Front Page Top

#6 Beso, the Clippers are a franchise and as in any franchise agreement the "owner/franchisee" has to meet all the specifications about conduct and such.

Think of a McDonalds' owner screaming about Burger King being better. He wouldn't own a McDonalds' franchise for long.

The First has nothing to do with this at all. This is an exercise in contract law between two private parties, Sterling and the NBA.

The dangerous political developments have to do with the LA City Council trying to pressure the LA Times to not carry any ads for Sterling's other businesses and interfere with his business relations. Not good.

Posted by AlanC 2014-04-30 07:46|| 2014-04-30 07:46|| Front Page Top

#7 What can they do if he refuses to pay the fine, take away his franchise?

Posted by Spot 2014-04-30 07:54|| 2014-04-30 07:54|| Front Page Top

#8 Thanks AlanC. McDonalds I understand. NBA, not so much.

Something else is strange about those Sterling recordings. Almost appears as though he was reading them from a note pad and speaking into a microphone. That old bugger might be up to something.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-04-30 08:24|| 2014-04-30 08:24|| Front Page Top

#9 Thought Criminal!
Ten Minutes of Hate.

[As for the McDonald vs NBA, one operates in a competitive environment, the other operates in a monopoly resulting in differing 'legal' aspects]

Posted by P2kontheroad 2014-04-30 09:33|| 2014-04-30 09:33|| Front Page Top

#10 P2K, how's the road?

The analogy is anything but precise but the key similarity is the nature of a franchise organization and its relationship to the parent org. The contract spells all this crap out and that's what pertains NOT the US Constitution.

The size of the play of this story strikes me as curious given its placement in time vis a vis the Benghazi revelations.

I'm not positing cause and effect, I'm not that cynical......yet...... but this story certainly gives the MSM all they want to kick Benghazi back to page 19 below the fold...in small type.

Posted by AlanC 2014-04-30 10:45|| 2014-04-30 10:45|| Front Page Top

#11 Expect one of these a month until the elections in November.

Ding Ding Ding!

Posted by charger 2014-04-30 10:54|| 2014-04-30 10:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Oh, and what is the significance of the media not mentioning Sterling's political affiliation in any of their stories?

Sterling is registered as a Republican. A RINO, but still registered.

Posted by Pappy 2014-04-30 10:55|| 2014-04-30 10:55|| Front Page Top

#13 The NBA is a private Cartel exempt from US anti-trust laws. Their status is as privileged as it is Faustian. An individual franchise will always be sacrificed in order to preserve their collective monopsony. Individual owners are certainly conscious that Sterlings punishment will set an unfavorable precedent. However, the league is equally aware that his transgressions threaten their entire lucrative prominence.

Posted by DepotGuy 2014-04-30 10:58|| 2014-04-30 10:58|| Front Page Top

#14 Expect one of these a month until the elections in November.

Exactly.

One old sleazoid makes a politically incorrect remark to his mistress and it's front page news for weeks. It's disgusting to watch the MSM go after this like a pack of hounds. Even Baraq Hussein bayed like an old hound dog. Well, of course he did. That's the story. It's as if they think I give a crap.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2014-04-30 11:53|| 2014-04-30 11:53|| Front Page Top

#15 A little forgotten history about sports monopolies and public relations. Not to be forgotten is that the man obviously has a ton of money to make life 'interesting' for the league for a number of years. Spend 2.5 mil on a fine or on lawyers? Should be easy for him.

Posted by P2kontheroad 2014-04-30 12:47|| 2014-04-30 12:47|| Front Page Top

#16 The highly offensive comments have drawn condemnation from across the National Basketball Association as well as from many other sources; and inevitably, attempts have been made to link him to the Republican Party. These appear to be based on campaign contribution records for a different Sterling, who lives in the state of Texas. Clippers owner Donald Sterling lives in Beverly Hills, has a long history of bigoted behavior in his Los Angeles business dealings, and according to a 2011 RealGM report, was a very occasional Democratic donor in the 1990s:

Posted by Deacon Blues 2014-04-30 16:04|| 2014-04-30 16:04|| Front Page Top

#17 Players have a morals clause in their contract that says if they do something hideous enough the owners can terminate their contract. I would be surprised if the league didn't have similar language in their franchise contracts with the owners.

That being said, the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech. But in Schenck v. United States the US Supreme Court held that free speech is not an absolute right. In Schenck the court held that speech that is false and dangerous is not protected. Sterling is unlikely to find relief in the courts based on first amendment rights.

Posted by Squinty 2014-04-30 19:13|| 2014-04-30 19:13|| Front Page Top

#18 The NBA is desperately attempting to pressure Sterling into selling. The truth is that legally, they cannot force him to do so. Even racists still have contract rights.

Posted by Andy Ulatle7267 2014-04-30 19:34|| 2014-04-30 19:34|| Front Page Top

#19 Andy Ulatle7267,
If there is no morals clause in the franchise agreement (the lack of which IMHO would be dumber than dirt) then I would have to agree that the league cannot force Sterling to sell private property.

TV stations can refuse to broadcast his franchise's games (i.e. no broadcast revenue) and fans can refuse to buy tickets. The public, not the government, can hit him in the pocketbook.

Posted by Squinty 2014-04-30 19:46|| 2014-04-30 19:46|| Front Page Top

#20 ..you too can help a poor ~~multi-millionaire~~ starving basketball player by adopting him during this time of need while the sanctions are taking hold. [YJCMTSU, it writes itself.]

Posted by P2kontheroad 2014-04-30 19:56|| 2014-04-30 19:56|| Front Page Top

#21 According to the article - "Silvers peremptory power is limited to Sterlings suspension from the NBA and a fine of $2.5 million. It does not extend to booting him from ownership of his team. Furthermore, the association by-laws do not grant the power for owners to force Sterling to sell his team. Termination provisions can only be initiated for violation of specific rules, none of which include a prohibition on offensive or racist statements causing detriment to the NBA."

Posted by Andy Ulatle7267 2014-04-30 19:57|| 2014-04-30 19:57|| Front Page Top

#22 Andy Ulatle7267,
The league can't force it then. Fans will have to.

P2kontheroad ,
Players have contracts that require that they get paid. If the bankruptcy courts have to sell off the team to pay those contracts then so much the better. I don't think that any basketball players will be seeing the poorhouse. :-)

Posted by Squinty 2014-04-30 20:11|| 2014-04-30 20:11|| Front Page Top

#23 ..thus they have no problem taking the check from the racist. Which gets back to the old joke, we know what you are, we're just negotiating the price.

Posted by P2kontheroad 2014-04-30 20:37|| 2014-04-30 20:37|| Front Page Top

#24 I saw something somewhere on TV, so it is probably totally unreliable, that is 3/4 of the owners vote to eject an owner. Did not go on to say 3/4 of the controlling interested, 3/4 of all owners regardless of ownership, or whether there is compensation if any.

Like I said, probably total BS reporting so don't go about quoting it.

Posted by swksvolFF 2014-04-30 20:40|| 2014-04-30 20:40|| Front Page Top

#25 thus they have no problem taking the check from the racist.

P2kontheroad,
Point taken. Remember though that pro sports is not a free market. The Sports broadcasting act (1961) gave pro sports teams an exemption to the Sherman Antitrust act. Players can't easily switch teams, at least not until they become free agents. Now any new guys taking the racist's money might need to search their conscience a bit.

Posted by Squinty 2014-04-30 20:55|| 2014-04-30 20:55|| Front Page Top

23:34 badanov
23:31 JosephMendiola
23:24 Hotspur666
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:11 Uncle Phester
23:08 Uncle Phester
23:04 Hotspur666
22:54 Hotspur666
22:31 tu3031
22:24 tu3031
22:21 tu3031
22:20 tu3031
22:19 tu3031
22:17 tu3031
22:14 The MOSSAD
22:09 49 Pan
22:08 P2kontheroad
21:53 Hotspur666
21:23 OldSpook
21:17 Uncle Phester
21:15 Squinty
21:05 Orion
21:04 JosephMendiola
21:00 Uncle Phester