re: Woj: Silver Exploring "Nuclear" Option on Sterling

quote:

---

I can see the sponsors and TV deals going away from the Clippers, but Sterling's got enough money and is a stubborn enough bastard that he could stick around even if it isn't nearly as profitable as it used to be.

---

Take away the corporate sponsors and the TV deal and you're worse than a small market team. I didn't realize the TV deal was up for renewal. Boycotts never work in the long term, but if in the short term the league can convince Sterling not even wrestling a bear at half time will make him profitable, he might sell. At the very least there should be enough pressure to sell the team within the family and put Donald Sterling out of view.

quote:

---

there is no way that was the intent, though. it would be absolutely absurd to have a rule that any comment that could theoretically be interpreted by another private party to be offensive (and therefore, could affect the NBA), could force you to lose your team. think about it

---

But that's not how the rule is being applied. It's conduct detrimental to basketball. It's designed to be a catch-all for "any bad behavior we can't think of right now." The key test wouldn't be whether one random yahoo is offended, it would be whether there is an actual detrimental effect. Which there's been. There's no way the NBA is going to say "racists can't own a team". They are going to say "guys who cost us millions in revenue can't own a team."

That's a huge distinction. Silver is a bright guy, he'll stick to the contract.

quote:

---

any comment interpreted by another person could be deemed "detrimental"

---

No. You'd need to show actual harm. If Sterling said this and then nothing happened, he could reasonably argue that his comments had no negative effect. You can't sanction a guy for his opinions, no matter how abhorrent, to use Cuban's language. So you don't sanction him for the comments. You sanction him for costing you sponsorships.

quote:

---

that isn't the precedent, though. that's a very narrowly written subset of the precedent

---

You're trying to make the precedent as broad as possible, and then saying its a bad precedent. I disagree with your characterization that its sanction for any statement ever made that offends one person. Clearly, that is NOT the precedent, as they've never sanctioned an owner before for saying something racist. THAT is the precedent.

quote:

---

yeah there is one allegation by one man (munson) that this supposedly exists, and he's using his own interpretation

---

I'd be stunned if the language is "don't make public comments" and is instead "conduct detrimental to the league" or something. And if you're gonna go to the mattresses, you wanna do it against a guy like Sterling.

quote:

---

The precedent here would be "get accused of something and, without benefit of trial, get stripped of your team."

---

The only way he can get stripped of his team is by a 3/4 vote of the owners. That would constitute due process, particularly if they gave him a hearing in which he could present evidence. They don't need a court to strip him of ownership any more than McDonald's needs to go to court to take a franchise away from a franchisee. You just need to honor the terms of the contract.

quote:

---

But that's not how the rule is being applied.

---

that's exactly how the rule is being applied. he said private comments to a private party. some people found them offensive.

quote:

---

It's designed to be a catch-all for "any bad behavior we can't think of right now." The key test wouldn't be whether one random yahoo is offended, it would be whether there is an actual detrimental effect.

---

actual, detrimental effect is easy in this day and age. hell just go read the shite about Dartmoth and the "fiesta" scandal...or colbert's issues with that crazy azn on twitter. people are total pussies these days and social justice warriors seek out new, random causes. with the ease of dissemination of information these days, an with a bored population living in amazing times, you get this.

emotional thinkers protesting online and giving you a black eye is insanely simple these days

getting sheeple to act is also simple

quote:

---

You'd need to show actual harm.

---

again, this is insanely simple these days. it happens all the time

quote:

---

ETA: not calling out anyone in particular, just seen a lot of opinions on this website that don't understand this.

---

i understand it. i don't think y'all understand how easy it is to offend people and have a sponsor pull out these days

and has the NBA lost any sponsors? i know the clippers have

quote:

---

that's exactly how the rule is being applied. he said private comments to a private party. some people found them offensive.

---

You're missing some pretty key steps here. It's not "some people", it's a lot of people, and enough to be the lead story on every sports channel for a few days. Even more importantly, it's the sponsors. You want to make the "it's just some people" argument, and that is a massive loser of an argument in court. Sterling would get his arse kicked from here to Timbuktu with an argument that lame.

quote:

---

actual, detrimental effect is easy in this day and age

---

So what? It's easy to prove so the league won't use it? That's a bizarre tact. But again, this isn't just people on twitter bitching about things, otherwise we could all sue How I Met Your Mother for their finale. The detrimental effect would have to be harm. Harm isn't bad press, it's going to be money. The NBA will put a dollar figure on what Sterling has cost them. It can't just be "people on twitter are mad so they invented a hashtag."

Compare it to Colbert, since you brought it up. Did Comedy Central lose any viewers? Any rating points? Did any sponsors bail? Did it cost them anything? Did it hurt Colbert? Heck, he got a better job a week later. It would be nigh on impossible to show his comments had a detrimental effect. If anything, the network benefited.

Harm, as you know as a lawyer, has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean "my feelings were hurt."

quote:

---

It's not "some people", it's a lot of people

---

that's not a big step these days. that's the point that you're missing. the victimhood industry is strong these days

quote:

---

Even more importantly, it's the sponsors.

---

which sponsors has the NBA lost? all i see is the Clippers lost sponsors LINK

quote:

---

CarMax pulled its nine-year sponsorship of the Clippers, saying in a statement it “finds the statements attributed to the Clippers’ owner completely unacceptable.” Mercedes-Benz, Virgin America airlines and the Chumash Casino Resort in California followed suit in cutting ties. State Farm announced it is “taking a pause in its relationship” with the team, while Kia Motors, Sprint, Red Bull, Yokohama Tire and Lumber Liquidators were among companies that also said they were suspending advertising with the Clippers.

---

quote:

---

So what? It's easy to prove so the league won't use it?

---

slippery slope. hell we don't know even know what groups will claim victimhood in the future (to where our comments today will be offensive in retrospect). smart owners understand this

quote:

---

Harm, as you know as a lawyer, has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean "my feelings were hurt."

---

and it is a QUICK jump these days from "my pussy hurts" to protests to a sponsor or 2 pulling out

quote:

---

But that's not how the rule is being applied. It's conduct detrimental to basketball. It's designed to be a catch-all for "any bad behavior we can't think of right now."

---

The actual rule mentioned by Munson (Section 13[d]) is part of clearly defined reasons for removal. Further, it doesn't appear to be a catch-all provision given that it clearly talks about a failure or refusal to fulfill contractual obligations. That fits neatly with the idea that teams with financial difficulties can be taken over by the NBA.

quote:

---

So you don't sanction him for the comments. You sanction him for costing you sponsorships.

---

From what I've read, only the Clippers have lost sponsorships. Even with revenue sharing (which I'm not sure team advertising is shared), it seems a tenuous proposition to make that a large stance.

colbert definitely said the "ching chong" stuff on air

LINK

quote:

---

Not yet but this all affects the brand of the league as a whole.

---

that is not actual damages, and if that's the standard then it's about a 1000x worse slippery slope