Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[PaintMyHouse]

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Charlie Sheen was an employee of the show. Sterling is an owner of the team. They aren't comparable in any way.
Surely you understand that, right?

They are legally binding, although not necessarily specific or Constitutional, contracts. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

I have no idea. It would depend on the language of the contract between franchisor and franchisee. Presumably if McDonald's came out with a pasta dish you'd be obligated to sell it. But I dont know, never having seen a franchise contract from them.
Of course you know this because somehow you know the text of every contract, even if you've never seen one.
But what does your question have to do with ownership rights?

 

[Luissa]

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale







There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

Yes there is, if it reflects on the NBA poorly.

I really have no idea why this so hard for you guys to understand?





Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Please post the relevant section of the NBA guidelines.



I mean, this is someone who cannot read an article critical of Obama and understand exactly what the critixcism is. Why should anyone think you have some special insight into the arcane world of contract law?

I already did.
As for the Obama comment. What are you even talking about?

I posted where the bylaws covers misconduct in regards to owners. I also pointed out in Article 13a, it states that an owner can be voted out due to violation of the bylaws.
The NBA is a brand, a trademarked brand, he owns a franchise. He is making the NBA look poorly. It's pretty simple to see how they can vote him out. Plus there is the fact he has been banned for life. That might help their case when voting him out.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[DiamondDave]

this.....i have no tears for the lying racist

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public

 

[theDoctorisIn]

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.
FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.

You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.

And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.

You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

Please post the relevance of the contract signed 30 years ago.
Please post the text of the morals clause in his contract from 30 years ago, a clause you dont know exists but somehow you know the text of it because it's all boilerplate. And I guess unchanged since, 30 years ago? WW2? The founding of the nBA? The Magna Carta?

You are completely ignorant. Ludicrously so. You post stuff and then contradict yourself two posts later.

Watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper is very entertaining.

Ask a lawyer about morals clauses. They've been boilerplate contract language since the 20s. The first sports contract to include one was Babe Ruth's.

 

[DiamondDave]

Well that's what the commissioner is claiming. In any case I can't fathom Sterling coming back as owner. The players said they will not player for him under any circumstance next year and the whole league is willing to strike if he's not removed.

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Sheen did not own the company nor the show

 

[The Rabbi]

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Charlie Sheen was an employee of the show. Sterling is an owner of the team. They aren't comparable in any way.
Surely you understand that, right?

They are legally binding, although not necessarily specific or Constitutional, contracts. What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

What is legally binding? That Sterling signed contracts and had obligations is not an issue. The question si what specifcally he agreed to and is bound by. And my money says the league cannot strip him of ownership for private remarks made in his own home.

 

[Rocko]

so owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

if i bought a mcdonald's franchise, would i be able to sell pasta there?

i have no idea. It would depend on the language of the contract between franchisor and franchisee. Presumably if mcdonald's came out with a pasta dish you'd be obligated to sell it. But i dont know, never having seen a franchise contract from them.
Of course you know this because somehow you know the text of every contract, even if you've never seen one.
But what does your question have to do with ownership rights?

lmfao

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

I have no idea. It would depend on the language of the contract between franchisor and franchisee. Presumably if McDonald's came out with a pasta dish you'd be obligated to sell it. But I dont know, never having seen a franchise contract from them.
Of course you know this because somehow you know the text of every contract, even if you've never seen one.
But what does your question have to do with ownership rights?

My point is that "ownership rights", in terms of franchise, mean exactly what the contract says and nothing more.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have no tears for a racist either.. but I support their property rights like I would for anyone else.. I don't have to agree with them to support their freedoms, even if they are pigs

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public

What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.

 

[candycorn]

A "morals clause" isn't about "morals". It is exactly what I posted earlier in the thread - a clause in the contract that will either void the contract or trigger another clause in the case of the signer doing something that reflects badly on another party to the contract.

It is "invoked" when the other parties to the contract want to.

The "morality" of Sterling's remarks is irrelevant, and not part of the "morals clause".

I don't know, but morals clauses are boilerplate.

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.
FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.

You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.

And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.

You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

Obviously if there is nothing in the bylaws about committing murder; the owner is able to commit murder and keep their team. Don't you get it? LOL.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.



Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear

 

[Luissa]

OK, so you admit you dont have a copy of the contract. Then you tell us you have a pretty good idea what the morals clause in it says. Now you tell us morals clauses are pretty much boilerplate, even though you have no idea whether Sterling's contract actually has such a clause or not.

FWIW, the issue seems to be NBA by-laws, not the contract Sterling signed 30 years ago.



You keep exposing your ignorance here and spouting opinions based on nothing.

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.



And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.



You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

Please post the relevance of the contract signed 30 years ago.

Please post the text of the morals clause in his contract from 30 years ago, a clause you dont know exists but somehow you know the text of it because it's all boilerplate. And I guess unchanged since, 30 years ago? WW2? The founding of the nBA? The Magna Carta?



You are completely ignorant. Ludicrously so. You post stuff and then contradict yourself two posts later.

The fact that every lawyer that isn't being paid by Sterlings agrees with The Doctor proves your ignorance. Silver would have never begun this if he didn't know he could force him out. You know Adam Silver, the commissioner and the one with a law degree.
Do you have a law degree?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If there is no clause stating one can be removed from their ownership as a result of speech, I can certainly see him remaining as owner and blocking the forced sale

There are other things that could be done, such as not attending NBA functions or whatever else.. but I doubt that this agreement/contract has a clause that allows for forced sale of team for unpopular speech

"Unpopular speech" is actually a big deal when you represent an organization that relies on popular support to make money.

Charlie Sheen got fired from 2 and a Half Men for making crazy online videos. That's the way it goes.

Sheen did not own the company nor the show

I used Sheen as an example of a morals clause in action.

 

[Luissa]

So owners do not have property rights?



I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear

It doesn't matter if he had a moral clause it's covered in the NBA constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So owners do not have property rights?

I swear the ignorance gets deeper and deeper on this thread.

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

Depends on the contract, don't it?? And again, funny how the clause is not being put out there publicly, if it is so clear

Why would it be "put out there"?

To edify you?

 

[The Rabbi]

Both the contract he signed 30 years ago, the contracts he's signed since then, and the bylaws of the NBA are relevant.

And it would be absolutely ludicrous for his contract to NOT have a morals clause in it.

You are "exposing your ignorance" of how contracts work.

Please post the relevance of the contract signed 30 years ago.
Please post the text of the morals clause in his contract from 30 years ago, a clause you dont know exists but somehow you know the text of it because it's all boilerplate. And I guess unchanged since, 30 years ago? WW2? The founding of the nBA? The Magna Carta?

You are completely ignorant. Ludicrously so. You post stuff and then contradict yourself two posts later.

Watching you dig yourself deeper and deeper is very entertaining.

Ask a lawyer about morals clauses. They've been boilerplate contract language since the 20s. The first sports contract to include one was Babe Ruth's.

No, watching you twist in the wind is most entertaining.
So Sterling's contract contained a morals clause, the text of which you dont know but swear it is boilerplate, that is the same as Babe Ruth;s? Are you going with that?

Did Ty Cobb's contract have a morals clause in it? Did the league ban him for being a racist?
RealClearSports - Top 10 Tarnished Baseball Reputations - 4. Ty Cobb

 

[DiamondDave]

It's called a franchise.
They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.
Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public

What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.

Well, you seem to think your opinion is valid.. except mine is based on logic and an educated guess of what is in the contract

Care to bet your username and a voluntary action to never post on this board again that there is no clause that is specific to a loss of ownership based on opinionated or unpopular speech??

 

[Luissa]

It's called a franchise.

They are using the NBA trademark and have to go by their rules and constitution. It has nothing to do with properly rights.

Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Actually.. it has everything to do with property rights and contract law.. unless there is a specific clause limiting opinionated speech of owners (which I highly doubt), I doubt seriously they can force a sale of his property.. again, funny how the NBA is not making the clause public

What you doubt is of no concern, to the only thing that matters in this case, the NBA.

Plus there is the whole thing about reflecting poorly in the NBA trademark.
He could probably keep his team, but i doubt the players would stay once they strip anything pertaining to the NBA from the team. I wonder if the Staple Center would allow them to play there after that?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I bought a McDonald's franchise, would I be able to sell pasta there?

I have no idea. It would depend on the language of the contract between franchisor and franchisee. Presumably if McDonald's came out with a pasta dish you'd be obligated to sell it. But I dont know, never having seen a franchise contract from them.
Of course you know this because somehow you know the text of every contract, even if you've never seen one.
But what does your question have to do with ownership rights?

My point is that "ownership rights", in terms of franchise, mean exactly what the contract says and nothing more.

And since you've admitted you dont have the contract you really have no idea what Sterling's rights are here.
Thank you for that admission of your own ignorance. Can you stop wasting everyone's time now?