Sterling refuses to pay fine, plans to sue NBA

[manifold]

The NBA should promptly seek to resolve this fiasco in a manner that AVOIDS court input. They are holding the losing hand in that regard.

Is that a fact?

 

[Asclepias]

They have the votes, they wouldn't have announced he was losing the team without knowing the votes are there. I believe the other 29 owners all gave their support to the commissioner after he announced Sterling's punishment. Just as Sterling has powerful lawyers working for him, so does the NBA including Adam Silver himself.

Not to mention that collectively they have more money than Sterling as well and Sterling will pay court costs in the end.

Why would Sterling pay court costs?

Sterling actually has the better "case," legally.

The NBA should promptly seek to resolve this fiasco in a manner that AVOIDS court input. They are holding the losing hand in that regard.

He is going to pay court cost because he will lose.

Its not a legal issue. He broke the bylaws of a privately owned company. If he signed a contract stating he would not say the pledge of allegiance and broke that the NBA can take his team. Sterling has no case except the one he will bring and lose.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You cant be this ignorant? The trust that owns the Clippers supercedes community property. You have no clue what you are talking about. dont quit your day job to practice your dime store attorney skills.

What trust are you talking about about? How does the fat that Sterling bout a portion of the trust nullify California state law on community property? Why hasn't any lawyer who isn't as stupid as you unaware of this mystical ability of trusts to nullify state laws?

I'm talking about the one that owns the Clippers. You must be a retard if you dont know how trusts work. The ownership belongs to the trust not Sterling stupid.

Except for the fact that the NBA says that the Sterlings jointly own the clippers, you have a really good point.

 

[Asclepias]

What trust are you talking about about? How does the fat that Sterling bout a portion of the trust nullify California state law on community property? Why hasn't any lawyer who isn't as stupid as you unaware of this mystical ability of trusts to nullify state laws?

I'm talking about the one that owns the Clippers. You must be a retard if you dont know how trusts work. The ownership belongs to the trust not Sterling stupid.

Except for the fact that the NBA says that the Sterlings jointly own the clippers, you have a really good point.

Doesnt matter what they say even if they said that. Its owned by a trust.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Assclapius is talking out of his ass cheeks again.

It is far from surprising that a guy like Sterling would "own" the team via the mechanism of a trust.

That doesn't change a ******* thing in the dispute between Sterling and the NBA over the ban, the fine and the directive to sell the team.

It is actually fairly straightforward.

Until and unless the NBA can point to the appropriate provision(s) in its own NBA Constitution and by-laws and regulations and contracts, for both the AUTHORITY to do what it seeks to do and for the GROUNDS which would justify that action, then they are in trouble. And as I have noted before, the NBA Constitution and by-laws do NOT appear to give the NBA (the owners and the Commissioner) valid authority to do what they have purported to do.

IF they have no valid ground and/or they failed to follow necessary procedures, then their ruling cannot be hidden behind the clause that says a team owner cannot take the issue to court. That would work only if they had followed the proper procedure and relied on a valid ground in the Constitution and by-laws, regulations or contracts.

So, guess what? It looks a LOT like Sterling CAN take this matter to Court. And with no valid basis for the Commissioner's edict, that "ruling" is unlikely to stand up.

This is why the matter SHOULD get resolved OUT of Court. For that to happen, the NBA is most certainly going to have a lot of yielding to do. Forget the "fine." **** the lifetime "ban." And possibly even forget the forced "sale." They are gonna have to give Sterling another way out that is much more satisfactory to him and his property interests.

Sterling may be a racist pig, but he still has rights. Welcome to America, Assclapius.

 

[manifold]

Assclapius is talking out of his ass cheeks again.

It is far from surprising that a guy like Sterling would "own" the team via the mechanism of a trust.

That doesn't change a ******* thing in the dispute between Sterling and the NBA over the ban, the fine and the directive to sell the team.

It is actually fairly straightforward.

Until and unless the NBA can point to the appropriate provision(s) in its own NBA Constitution and by-laws and regulations and contracts, for both the AUTHORITY to do what it seeks to do and for the GROUNDS which would justify that action, then they are in trouble. And as I have noted before, the NBA Constitution and by-laws do NOT appear to give the NBA (the owners and the Commissioner) valid authority to do what they have purported to do.

IF they have no valid ground and/or they failed to follow necessary procedures, then their ruling cannot be hidden behind the clause that says a team owner cannot take the issue to court. That would work only if they had followed the proper procedure and relied on a valid ground in the Constitution and by-laws, regulations or contracts.

So, guess what? It looks a LOT like Sterling CAN take this matter to Court. And with no valid basis for the Commissioner's edict, that "ruling" is unlikely to stand up.

This is why the matter SHOULD get resolved OUT of Court. For that to happen, the NBA is most certainly going to have a lot of yielding to do. Forget the "fine." **** the lifetime "ban." And possibly even forget the forced "sale." They are gonna have to give Sterling another way out that is much more satisfactory to him and his property interests.

Sterling may be a racist pig, but he still has rights. Welcome to America, Assclapius.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the other owners hold the nuclear option.

They can vote to contract the league by one team. Simple as that. And if they do, his billion dollar franchise isn't worth jack shit.

 

[Asclepias]

Assclapius is talking out of his ass cheeks again.

It is far from surprising that a guy like Sterling would "own" the team via the mechanism of a trust.

That doesn't change a ******* thing in the dispute between Sterling and the NBA over the ban, the fine and the directive to sell the team.

It is actually fairly straightforward.

Until and unless the NBA can point to the appropriate provision(s) in its own NBA Constitution and by-laws and regulations and contracts, for both the AUTHORITY to do what it seeks to do and for the GROUNDS which would justify that action, then they are in trouble. And as I have noted before, the NBA Constitution and by-laws do NOT appear to give the NBA (the owners and the Commissioner) valid authority to do what they have purported to do.

IF they have no valid ground and/or they failed to follow necessary procedures, then their ruling cannot be hidden behind the clause that says a team owner cannot take the issue to court. That would work only if they had followed the proper procedure and relied on a valid ground in the Constitution and by-laws, regulations or contracts.

So, guess what? It looks a LOT like Sterling CAN take this matter to Court. And with no valid basis for the Commissioner's edict, that "ruling" is unlikely to stand up.

This is why the matter SHOULD get resolved OUT of Court. For that to happen, the NBA is most certainly going to have a lot of yielding to do. Forget the "fine." **** the lifetime "ban." And possibly even forget the forced "sale." They are gonna have to give Sterling another way out that is much more satisfactory to him and his property interests.

Sterling may be a racist pig, but he still has rights. Welcome to America, Assclapius.

You must have missed the link in the thread that shows exactly what right the NBA has. You are correct. Someone can bring a frivolous lawsuit against anyone. That doesn't mean they will win anything if the the respondent has deeper pockets than the petitioner. Either way until it all goes down its just speculation on what if's. I like the fact that as a racist pig his rights have nothing to do with the contract he signed.

 

[Asclepias]

You really think they don't have the 3/4ths vote needed? The NBA wouldn't have done this if they didn't have the votes. Silver most likely spoke with every other owner regarding this before laying down the decision.

Funny how people don't think this billion dollar league that has firms of attornies at their disposal didnt have this mapped out from day 1.

It doesn't matter how many attorneys they have. Few attorneys will tell a client he's full of crap. Even those that say it will still take their money and file whatever they can use to milk the client. Having a lawyer is not a comment on the merits of the case.

If Silver spoke to these owners at all few if any would go against the outrage tidal wave. They'd be next. A fly on the wall would report the conversation as "go ahead call the old man's bluff."

I hope the NBA has lots of lawyers and hemorrhage money. This case is going to settle. Sooner or later sanity will prevail once they see how much it's costing.

You sound like you are familiar with low budget attorneys. Law firms that represent big clients dont do stupid stuff like that. They value their relationship because they know there is more business coming down the pipe. I wouldnt be surprised if the attorneys were some of Silver's best friends. Thats usually how it works in big business which obviously you have no clue about.

 

[Zander]

Assclapius is talking out of his ass cheeks again.

It is far from surprising that a guy like Sterling would "own" the team via the mechanism of a trust.

That doesn't change a ******* thing in the dispute between Sterling and the NBA over the ban, the fine and the directive to sell the team.

It is actually fairly straightforward.

Until and unless the NBA can point to the appropriate provision(s) in its own NBA Constitution and by-laws and regulations and contracts, for both the AUTHORITY to do what it seeks to do and for the GROUNDS which would justify that action, then they are in trouble. And as I have noted before, the NBA Constitution and by-laws do NOT appear to give the NBA (the owners and the Commissioner) valid authority to do what they have purported to do.

IF they have no valid ground and/or they failed to follow necessary procedures, then their ruling cannot be hidden behind the clause that says a team owner cannot take the issue to court. That would work only if they had followed the proper procedure and relied on a valid ground in the Constitution and by-laws, regulations or contracts.

So, guess what? It looks a LOT like Sterling CAN take this matter to Court. And with no valid basis for the Commissioner's edict, that "ruling" is unlikely to stand up.

This is why the matter SHOULD get resolved OUT of Court. For that to happen, the NBA is most certainly going to have a lot of yielding to do. Forget the "fine." **** the lifetime "ban." And possibly even forget the forced "sale." They are gonna have to give Sterling another way out that is much more satisfactory to him and his property interests.

Sterling may be a racist pig, but he still has rights. Welcome to America, Assclapius.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the other owners hold the nuclear option.

They can vote to contract the league by one team. Simple as that. And if they do, his billion dollar franchise isn't worth jack shit.

Sure they can.....

 

[Asclepias]

This is an interesting provision.

Per Article 14A(a), Silver takes over the Clippers and can sell the team
The "termination" of the Clippers' membership may sound like a dire and disruptive outcome. It might trigger concerns that the Clippers would exist without a pro basketball league, or that it might lead to a dispersal draft of Clippers players. Those concerns are misplaced because of other constitutional language that prevents the Clippers from losing its relationship with the NBA and makes Silver the team's de facto owner.
According to 14A(a), when the membership of an NBA team is terminated, the commissioner automatically takes over the team. Silver would thus take over the Clippers immediately following a vote to sustain the charge against Donald Sterling and terminate the Clippers' membership. The team would continue to play its games and conduct business. The Board of Governors would be empowered to instruct Silver to sell the team or liquidate its assets. Silver presumably would then be instructed to begin a process to sell the team, and proceeds of the sale would be paid to the Sterlings.


Read More: How the NBA can oust Donald Sterling and sell the Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

 

[manifold]

Assclapius is talking out of his ass cheeks again.

It is far from surprising that a guy like Sterling would "own" the team via the mechanism of a trust.

That doesn't change a ******* thing in the dispute between Sterling and the NBA over the ban, the fine and the directive to sell the team.

It is actually fairly straightforward.

Until and unless the NBA can point to the appropriate provision(s) in its own NBA Constitution and by-laws and regulations and contracts, for both the AUTHORITY to do what it seeks to do and for the GROUNDS which would justify that action, then they are in trouble. And as I have noted before, the NBA Constitution and by-laws do NOT appear to give the NBA (the owners and the Commissioner) valid authority to do what they have purported to do.

IF they have no valid ground and/or they failed to follow necessary procedures, then their ruling cannot be hidden behind the clause that says a team owner cannot take the issue to court. That would work only if they had followed the proper procedure and relied on a valid ground in the Constitution and by-laws, regulations or contracts.

So, guess what? It looks a LOT like Sterling CAN take this matter to Court. And with no valid basis for the Commissioner's edict, that "ruling" is unlikely to stand up.

This is why the matter SHOULD get resolved OUT of Court. For that to happen, the NBA is most certainly going to have a lot of yielding to do. Forget the "fine." **** the lifetime "ban." And possibly even forget the forced "sale." They are gonna have to give Sterling another way out that is much more satisfactory to him and his property interests.

Sterling may be a racist pig, but he still has rights. Welcome to America, Assclapius.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the other owners hold the nuclear option.

They can vote to contract the league by one team. Simple as that. And if they do, his billion dollar franchise isn't worth jack shit.

Sure they can.....

derppppppppppp!

Of course they can.

Leagues have been contracted and expanded many times in the past.

Learn to ****'n google, dipshit.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is an interesting provision.

Per Article 14A(a), Silver takes over the Clippers and can sell the team
The "termination" of the Clippers' membership may sound like a dire and disruptive outcome. It might trigger concerns that the Clippers would exist without a pro basketball league, or that it might lead to a dispersal draft of Clippers players. Those concerns are misplaced because of other constitutional language that prevents the Clippers from losing its relationship with the NBA and makes Silver the team's de facto owner.
According to 14A(a), when the membership of an NBA team is terminated, the commissioner automatically takes over the team. Silver would thus take over the Clippers immediately following a vote to sustain the charge against Donald Sterling and terminate the Clippers' membership. The team would continue to play its games and conduct business. The Board of Governors would be empowered to instruct Silver to sell the team or liquidate its assets. Silver presumably would then be instructed to begin a process to sell the team, and proceeds of the sale would be paid to the Sterlings.


Read More: How the NBA can oust Donald Sterling and sell the Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

Assclapius is busy pretending that the "league" can invoke that provision without the Constitutional and by-law requirements for such an action having first taken place.



What Assclapius knows about how these things actually work couldn't fill a dimple in a thimble.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the other owners hold the nuclear option.

They can vote to contract the league by one team. Simple as that. And if they do, his billion dollar franchise isn't worth jack shit.

Sure they can.....

derppppppppppp!

Of course they can.

Leagues have been contracted and expanded many times in the past.

Learn to ****'n google, dipshit.

mani should reconsider just how silly he sounds when he takes note of the fact that Assclapius is the moron "thanking" his post.

 

[Asclepias]

This is an interesting provision.

Per Article 14A(a), Silver takes over the Clippers and can sell the team
The "termination" of the Clippers' membership may sound like a dire and disruptive outcome. It might trigger concerns that the Clippers would exist without a pro basketball league, or that it might lead to a dispersal draft of Clippers players. Those concerns are misplaced because of other constitutional language that prevents the Clippers from losing its relationship with the NBA and makes Silver the team's de facto owner.
According to 14A(a), when the membership of an NBA team is terminated, the commissioner automatically takes over the team. Silver would thus take over the Clippers immediately following a vote to sustain the charge against Donald Sterling and terminate the Clippers' membership. The team would continue to play its games and conduct business. The Board of Governors would be empowered to instruct Silver to sell the team or liquidate its assets. Silver presumably would then be instructed to begin a process to sell the team, and proceeds of the sale would be paid to the Sterlings.


Read More: How the NBA can oust Donald Sterling and sell the Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

Assclapius is busy pretending that the "league" can invoke that provision without the Constitutional and by-law requirements for such an action having first taken place.



What Assclapius knows about how these things actually work couldn't fill a dimple in a thimble.

You are right. I don't much about it. However it seems I have more knowledge than you clowns wishing it was not so have on the issue. Dont be angry about that.

 

[manifold]

As far as I know, Asclepias has never welched on a bet.

So that's gotta count for something, no?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

As far as I know, Asclepias had never welched on a bet.

So that's gotta count for something, no?

As far as you know, I haven't either. That wouldn't stop an assclown like you from making that false claim anyway.

Now, Assclapius did thank your silly post. That's gotta count for a negative.

 

[Zander]

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the other owners hold the nuclear option.

They can vote to contract the league by one team. Simple as that. And if they do, his billion dollar franchise isn't worth jack shit.

Sure they can.....

derppppppppppp!

Of course they can.

Leagues have been contracted and expanded many times in the past.

Learn to ****'n google, dipshit.

Legally they can. But they won't.

Sports Leagues contract when the teams or the league are losing money. The Clippers are not losing money, nor is the league.....You're dumb.

Now go eat a bag of dicks......

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is an interesting provision.

Assclapius is busy pretending that the "league" can invoke that provision without the Constitutional and by-law requirements for such an action having first taken place.



What Assclapius knows about how these things actually work couldn't fill a dimple in a thimble.

You are right. I don't much about it. However it seems I have more knowledge than you clowns wishing it was not so have on the issue. Dont be angry about that.

I am indeed right. You don't know much about ANYTHING. And no. It doesn't seem like you have more knowledge than anybody. In fact, it is clear that you don't know shit.

HELL, you're neck and neck with tderpm in that department.

I am not angry in the slightest. So don't fret, Assclap. I enjoy mocking your desperately ignorant posts.

 

[manifold]

Sure they can.....

derppppppppppp!

Of course they can.

Leagues have been contracted and expanded many times in the past.

Learn to ****'n google, dipshit.

Legally they can. But they won't.

Sports Leagues contract when the teams or the league are losing money. The Clippers are not losing money, nor is the league.....You're dumb.

Now go eat a bag of dicks......

If they let Sterling retain ownership they'll start losing money in a hurry.

I'm not foolish enough to think the NBA gives a shit about having a racist owner, but they do give a shit about their brand and making money.

He'll sell. I'll bet you whatever you're willing to lose.

 

[Asclepias]

Sure they can.....

derppppppppppp!

Of course they can.

Leagues have been contracted and expanded many times in the past.

Learn to ****'n google, dipshit.

mani should reconsider just how silly he sounds when he takes note of the fact that Assclapius is the moron "thanking" his post.

Trying to shame someone via association is a weak sauce move. It reeks of desperation. You cant accept the fact you dont know what you are talking about.