Clippers Owner Racist Remark Allegations

I'm surprised an organization like the NBA doesn't have a clause in any agreement with owners that if they do something that is this egregious towards the health of the NBA as a hole, that they can't force them to sell the team. Yes, all teams are privately and separately owned, but, they are all part of a larger organization.

 
I'm not familiar with the NBA but I believe there is a mechanism for forcing the sale of a team and that is a 3/4 vote of league owners. This is exactly the avenue being pursued now by Adam Silver and he expects to get that support.

A three-quarters majority vote of the league’s owners is required to force out Sterling. Prior to Tuesday’s press conference, at least 16 NBA owners had issued public statements against Sterling. Other organizations that had remained silent before Tuesday – including the Jazz, Magic, Bulls, Celtics, Knicks, Bucks, Timberwolves, Thunder and Raptors — issued statements of support for Silver following the press conference.
Click to expand...
It sounds like 75% is going to be a no brainer.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I'm surprised an organization like the NBA doesn't have a clause in any agreement with owners that if they do something that is this egregious towards the health of the NBA as a hole, that they can't force them to sell the team. Yes, all teams are privately and separately owned, but, they are all part of a larger organization.
Click to expand...
Apparently owners can force another owner into selling the team by a 3/4 vote:

http://deadspin.com/nba-owners-are-lining-up-to-vote-donald-sterling-out-1569445125

 
Interesting rundowns of some other NBA owners in this article:

http://www.nj.com/ledger-dalessandro/index.ssf/2014/04/dalessandro_donald_sterlings_candid_moment_its_business_as_usual_and_nba_business_is_often_ugly.html#incart_river

The new NBA commissioner has a business partner in Washington who doesn’t know the difference between a tax code and "class warfare," who bribes bloggers, slugs fans, bulldozes the neighboring Chinatown population into Virginia so he can help put up more Hooters, and asserts that we should all be grateful for the privilege of subsidizing his team.

He has a business partner in Orlando who is so righteous he has poured millions into anti-gay marriage initiatives, because gays "keep asking for favors" and "special treatment," and marriage is "not vital to them, in my opinion."
Click to expand...
 
The last thing that I'm going to do is give this guy a character reference, HOWEVER........doesn't it bother anyone else that a recording of a private conversation without an individual's consent (and illegal in CA) is being used as evidence to financially punish and harm the party on the recording? If allowed to stand, it essentially states that privacy ceases to exist. This man wasn't breaking any laws and is allowed his own personal opinions, however socially unacceptable and reprehensible they may be.

In my view, the person who made the illegal recording has put themselves in a position for a lawsuit for being responsible for lost revenue and a host of other damages. I wouldn't want to be her. Had she obtained permission to record, it would be an entirely different matter. If they are successful, I think that this puts the NBA on a slippery slope. Where does one draw the line?

Imagine if your spouse, son or daughter secretly and illegally recorded something that you had the right to say in private and then played it for your employer who summarily dismissed you for having an unpopular view. I'd guess that many might have a different opinion on this matter.

 
Paul in WI said:
The last thing that I'm going to do is give this guy a character reference, HOWEVER........doesn't it bother anyone else that a recording of a private conversation without an individual's consent (and illegal in CA) is being used as evidence to financially punish and harm the party on the recording? If allowed to stand, it essentially states that privacy ceases to exist. This man wasn't breaking any laws and is allowed his own personal opinions, however socially unacceptable and reprehensible they may be.

In my view, the person who made the illegal recording has put themselves in a position for a lawsuit for being responsible for lost revenue and a host of other damages. I wouldn't want to be her. Had she obtained permission to record, it would be an entirely different matter. If they are successful, I think that this puts the NBA on a slippery slope. Where does one draw the line?

Imagine if your spouse, son or daughter secretly and illegally recorded something that you had the right to say in private and then played it for your employer who summarily dismissed you for having an unpopular view. I'd guess that many might have a different opinion on this matter.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


 
He has the right to hold whatever opinions he pleases and say whatever he pleases in private, but the NBA also has the right to decide they don't want him to represent them anymore after his opinions become public knowledge. I don't think anybody ever claimed he broke a law and I'm sure that recording would be inadmissible in court.

huKSer said:
The same way the government makes you buy something you don't want
Click to expand...
Taxes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evidently publicly bringing his mistress to the games wasn't embarrassing enough for the NBA to fine and remove him, but an illegally-made recording of a private conversation was. I think that says something about our societal views. One can publicly flaunt their mistress and taunt the sanctity of marriage, and yet that's okay in the eyes of the NBA.......no grounds for dismissal there.....just don't say anything to anyone in private that may flag you as a racist. It makes perfect sense!

 
Paul in WI said:
Evidently publicly bringing his mistress to the games wasn't embarrassing enough for the NBA to fine and remove him, but an illegally-made recording of a private conversation was. I think that says something about our societal views. One can publicly flaunt their mistress and taunt the sanctity of marriage, and yet that's okay in the eyes of the NBA.......no grounds for dismissal there.....just don't say anything to anyone in private that may flag you as a racist. It makes perfect sense!
Click to expand...

I'll submit gently that you're looking at it from a poor perspective.

Instead of "oh we won't kick you out because of this public debauchery but we will for this private thing", think of it this way.

Both of these actions are wrong. However, only one of these actions is actively hateful, discriminatory and most importantly, is oppressive.

So yes. It does make sense.

 
If this man is truly a racist as he is allegedly is, the. The NBA has every right to remove his right to ownership of a franchise of an NBA team. That's how franchises work, but I hope everyone realizes that the NBA really only cares about money not racism, because there are plenty of people associated with the NBA who make public statements that are just as racist as what this guy is. The NBA only acted because the media frenzy was too much to gloss over like they did every other time he has been accused of being a bigot.

 
I think he was separated from his wife and dating this girl in the meantime. Still, if you listen to the tape, it's a very....weird arrangement.

I, too, wonder why the league didn't come down on him earlier, when other things were brought to light. Better late than never, I suppose.

In semi-defense of the league, I would say it's not their job to watch every single owner or executive or coach in the league like a hawk and make updating moral judgments about their character. The investigation that resulted in his ban probably would not have happened without the overwhelming media frenzy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top