The CardBoard
Silver decision on Sterling - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Silver decision on Sterling (/thread-7086.html)


Silver decision on Sterling - Mick - 04-29-2014

1.  Banned for life.  Cannot attend games, practices.  Cannot be in facility.  Cannot attend board of governor meetings
2.  $2.5 million fine, the max.
3.  Wants owners to force the sale of the team.  Wachtel Lipton did the interviews.

Sterling acknowledged it was him on the tape.  No other response.

Expressed admiration and support for Doc Rivers, NBPA rep Chris Paul and Kevin Johnson.  Talked to several players before rendering decision, extensively to the three listed and apparently other Clippers.  Said if a current Clippers player under contract doesn't want to play for Clippers in future, he will deal with it when that time comes.

Stumbled on the question "Is the NBA actively seeking African American ownership?"  Said "We are open..."  The answer should be "Yes."

Stumbled a bit on question:  "You say you've known him for 20 years.  He's done racist actions in the past.  Had you seen evidence of this?"  "Uh, I don't know him that well."

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Bruce Wang - 04-29-2014

A couple thoughts:

1. Now I know that Mike Brown is not the worst owner in professional sports.

2. I can understand evil people getting rich.  What boggles my mind is that somebody that stupid could get that rich without a PHD (Papa Has Dough).

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Mick - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 12:34 PM)Publius link Wrote:A couple thoughts:

1. Now I know that Mike Brown is not the worst owner in professional sports.

2. I can understand evil people getting rich.  What boggles my mind is that somebody that stupid could get that rich without a PHD (Papa Has Dough).

He has a JD from Southwestern in LA, 1960.  Was a divorce attorney.  Big litigator, I hear.  Purchased a 26 story apartment building to get into real estate. 

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Farm93 - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 11:22 AM)Mick link Wrote:Stumbled on the question "Is the NBA actively seeking African American ownership?"  Said "We are open..."  The answer should be "Yes."

Stumbled a bit on question:  "You say you've known him for 20 years.  He's done racist actions in the past.  Had you seen evidence of this?"  "Uh, I don't know him that well."

I don't think Silver can say the NBA is seeking African American ownership. That statement would imply some preferential pricing or incentives for a specific group of people, and that would almost certainly create legal problems for the NBA.  "We are open" is the only answer that is viable IMHO.  Besides, having one African American ownership group would not prevent another Sterling type from expressing ridiculous views in the future, so I can see why Silver was not exactly prepared for that question.

Silver also probably does not know Sterling as well as Sterling's mistress apparently knows Sterling.  I doubt Silver has had uninterrupted conversations for hours with Sterling, so he likely does not know him well enough for Sterling to have unedited belief conversations like he did with his Mistress.  Silver knew Sterling professionally, but that level of familiarity was likely not sufficient to know this private Sterling.

For a new commissioner Silver did amazing work in just a few days.  It will be interesting to see how much Sterling gets for the Clippers in this distressed sale type situation.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Leftcoast - 04-29-2014

Can you imagine the nightmare circus that Clippers home games will become if LA make it to the second round?

I bet the whole NBA (owners, players and networks) are now rooting for the Warriors.  Perhaps even the refs.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Farm93 - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 01:32 PM)Leftcoast link Wrote:Can you imagine the nightmare circus that Clippers home games will become if LA make it to the second round?

I bet the whole NBA (owners, players and networks) are now rooting for the Warriors.  Perhaps even the refs.

I think it is a little better than if Silver had not announced the lifetime ban.  I have seen some comments that if the NBA left this unanswered then the Warriors likely were going to win in 6, but now the Clippers at least have a chance. I tend to agree with that line of thinking.  Though I bet the NBA still would like for the Warriors to win in 6 so that this Clipper stuff goes away for a few weeks.

As I love the Warriors and their current style I almost wanted the NBA to let the Clippers sink, but this action by Silver is definitely better for the Clippers and the NBA.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - OutsiderFan - 04-29-2014

Without knowing the NBA Constitution and Bylaws, don't know how feasible this is, but to me the best course of action would have been:

Make all Clippers players under contract Free Agents, like when the NCAA allows immediate transfers to athletes from the schools it smites.  This would lead to the value of his asset (the Clippers franchise) declining, as the team would have to throw out a D-League roster which would lead to falling attendance, lower TV ratings, less merchandise sales, etc.  Then he'd have to sell a massively devalued asset.

But honestly, I'm thinking this episode sets a very precarious precedent no matter how it turns out.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Bruce Wang - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 05:37 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Make all Clippers players under contract Free Agents, like when the NCAA allows immediate transfers to athletes from the schools it smites.  This would lead to the value of his asset (the Clippers franchise) declining, as the team would have to throw out a D-League roster which would lead to falling attendance, lower TV ratings, less merchandise sales, etc.  Then he'd have to sell a massively devalued asset.

The lawyers amongst us can correct me, but this sounds like tortious interference.  Maybe the players' and coaches can sue to get out of their contracts citing a discriminatory and hostile work environment.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - dabigv13 - 04-29-2014

Curious to see how the lawsuits turn out on this. If he were to be forced to sell, it is pretty feasible he would be losing many millions versus an unforced sale. Sterling doesn't seem like the kind of guy to just let that slide.

Sterling is quite clearly pondscum, but to force him to sell the team based on his privately expressed opinions is quite the slippery slope, as Mark Cuban has pointed out. I'm sure there are plenty of other NBA owners with dirty laundry who are publicly condemning Sterling.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - dabigv13 - 04-29-2014

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/?eref=sihp

Gets into some of the legal issues. Interesting reading, confirms a lot of my suspicions about the difficulty a forced sale would actually face.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - ca245 - 04-29-2014

Sterling got what he deserved, but Silver said that the suspension was only related to the TMZ tapes: "In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior." If so, what should happen if a mega-star NBA player is taped talking to a girlfriend and making homophobic or anti-[whatever ethnicity] statements? One could try to distinguish on the basis that an owner can set the corporate culture and is the face of the franchise. But, by most accounts, except for Sterling himself, the Clippers are not run in a racist manner and a mega-star player, even more than the owner, is the public face of an NBA franchise. Should a mega-star player caught on tape saying similar things be given a lifetime suspension? That's why I think suspending Sterling for an accumulation of offenses would have been better wiser. If, in a similar future incident involving a mega-star player Silver does not hand out a lifetime suspension, he doesn't have to hand-wave an explanation why the Sterling precedent shouldn't apply.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - stupac2 - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 07:06 PM)ca245 link Wrote:Sterling got what he deserved, but Silver said that the suspension was only related to the TMZ tapes: "In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior." If so, what should happen if a mega-star NBA player is taped talking to a girlfriend and making homophobic or anti-[whatever ethnicity] statements? One could try to distinguish on the basis that an owner can set the corporate culture and is the face of the franchise. But, by most accounts, except for Sterling himself, the Clippers are not run in a racist manner and a mega-star player, even more than the owner, is the public face of an NBA franchise. Should a mega-star player caught on tape saying similar things be given a lifetime suspension? That's why I think suspending Sterling for an accumulation of offenses would have been better wiser. If, in a similar future incident involving a mega-star player Silver does not hand out a lifetime suspension, he doesn't have to hand-wave an explanation why the Sterling precedent shouldn't apply.

They don't need any rationale at all since this isn't a court and there aren't meaningful precedents. Sports leagues all over are clearly run in a completely ad hoc, in-the-moment manner.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - dabigv13 - 04-29-2014

Just in recent memory you have the Riley Cooper incident; the Eagles ended up keeping him as a starting WR while dropping their much more talented #1 WR. Some debate about whether or not that decision was made because he was "thug". There are plenty of other incidents of players saying or doing racist stuff. A couple important differences- those comments are usually public, and they're usually in some sense isolated and then immediately apologized for.

Here's a lens for isolating those differences- if Donald Sterling used the n-word to refer to a bouncer in public at a concert, would the reaction be the same?

I think yes it would be, at least very similar. And that's interesting to me, because normally you think of people in power getting away with stuff that their employees can't.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Bruce Wang - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 07:24 PM)dabigv link Wrote:I think yes it would be, at least very similar. And that's interesting to me, because normally you think of people in power getting away with stuff that their employees can't.

There's a reason they call it a players' league.  Reports are that all the players planned to boycott the playoffs unless Sterling got the maximum punishment.  Silver had no choice.  This could have been the catalyst for the players setting up a new league.  They already capture the bulk of the value creation.  The existing league structure is a convenience.  They're the ones in power, and it manifests in their high salaries.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - stupac2 - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 08:11 PM)Publius link Wrote:There's a reason they call it a players' league.  Reports are that all the players planned to boycott the playoffs unless Sterling got the maximum punishment.  Silver had no choice.  This could have been the catalyst for the players setting up a new league.  They already capture the bulk of the value creation.  The existing league structure is a convenience.  They're the ones in power, and it manifests in their high salaries.

Don't the players get barely half of the NBA's revenue? I think you're being wildly optimistic about the power they hold. I mean, it's conceivable that "this one dude is racist" would be more compelling to these guys than "we want more money", but, uh, I doubt it. And if they didn't form a new league over money, why would they over this?

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - washingtonismoney - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 08:31 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Don't the players get barely half of the NBA's revenue? I think you're being wildly optimistic about the power they hold. I mean, it's conceivable that "this one dude is racist" would be more compelling to these guys than "we want more money", but, uh, I doubt it. And if they didn't form a new league over money, why would they over this?

The players do get exactly half the NBA's revenue. The critical difference is public sympathy. The public doesn't really care whether players get half, 51, 52 percent, whatever -- they just see a bunch of multimillionaires vs. billionaires in those fights. But "beloved NBA players vs. flagrantly racist dude?" That's a fight you're not going to win in the court of public opinion.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - stupac2 - 04-29-2014

(04-29-2014, 08:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:The players do get exactly half the NBA's revenue. The critical difference is public sympathy. The public doesn't really care whether players get half, 51, 52 percent, whatever -- they just see a bunch of multimillionaires vs. billionaires in those fights. But "beloved NBA players vs. flagrantly racist dude?" That's a fight you're not going to win in the court of public opinion.

Sure, but that's not what Publius was saying. There was 0 chance of this being a catalyst for a new league, and if the players were the ones in power they wouldn't only get half the money. That's what I was objecting to.

Re: Silver decision on Sterling - Mick - 04-30-2014

(04-29-2014, 05:46 PM)Publius link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=9909.msg88701#msg88701 date=1398818236]
Make all Clippers players under contract Free Agents, like when the NCAA allows immediate transfers to athletes from the schools it smites.  This would lead to the value of his asset (the Clippers franchise) declining, as the team would have to throw out a D-League roster which would lead to falling attendance, lower TV ratings, less merchandise sales, etc.  Then he'd have to sell a massively devalued asset.

The lawyers amongst us can correct me, but this sounds like tortious interference.  Maybe the players' and coaches can sue to get out of their contracts citing a discriminatory and hostile work environment.
[/quote]

Silver dismissed that remedy out of hand during the conference.  But let's face it, who would want to play there?