Posted on 05/16/2014 2:23:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has sent a letter to the National Basketball Association telling the league he won't pay his $2.5 million fine and rejecting his lifetime ban, according to multiple media reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Huh? Where do you get that take on Silver?
You're looking at the wrong clause. Look at Article 24 which outlines the powers of the Commissioner. Clause (l): "The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000."
Sterlings infraction wasn't shooting his mouth off. His infraction was costing the NBA money and causing labor issues through shooting his mouth off. The 'best interest of the association' is whatever Silver says it is. The fine was within Silver's authority to levy, based on a document that Sterling himself agreed to. Sterling can sue over this but he's going to lose.
“...but I do care that a man’s comments, made in private, are being used to rob him of his property. This should concern everyone.”
Seems like it is a slippery slope. But what is the recourse for a company who loses business because of something that was said in private by one of its franchised owners to an open mistress lizard person and then made public?
“I don’t want to see you in public eating 80% of the food we sell.” What would a fast food company do?
“I don’t want to see you in public driving 80% of the cars we sell.” What would a car company do?
What if a competitor starts using it in a an ad campaign? And cars and food can’t get offended and threaten to go on strike. I don’t know, does the parent company have any recourse?
Freegards
The phrase “best interests of the Association” is rather wide and subjective —
He might just deem that having Magic Johnson as owner of the Clippers is in the “best interest of the Association”.
Or keeping LeBron James from sitting out next season is in the “best interests of the Association”.
The owners had better take note — they may be next
Sorry - the ‘damage’ you cite is the *result* of a verbal utterance by Sterling. The league constitution separates verbal utterances and acts as the catalysts for such results. A verbal utterance is explicitly set apart from an act.
If the contract that is the NBA constitution is enforced per its own content, the league loses big time.
The content of Sterling’s character notwithstanding, the NBA screwed the pooch by overreaching, legally. (Of course, Obama’s screwing the GM bind holders did show that contracts are no longer enforceable, so...)
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in “The Friends of Voltaire”, 1906, by S. G. ...
This was an expression of Voltaire’s attitude. I guess it is passe now. How far this country has fallen!
yeah, he did a backtrack on that...or roger mason, the spokesdude for the “union” of players spoke out of line.
but the media won’t attack mason for lying.
Already in the crosshairs is the owner of the Orlando Magic. He doesn't enthusiastically endorse homosexual "marriage"...he, instead, sides with Moses, Jesus Christ, and the apostle Paul...as well as five thousand years of civilized society.
Good. EFF THE RACE HUSTLERS.
That'll be an interesting argument in court. Because the "instrumental cause" of the penalty WAS INDEED his statement...gotten under suspicious circumstances at best.
If allowed to stand, Sterling's lawyers could argue, then the entire Constitution is null and void--the "best interest" of the league could mean Sterling farted in an elevator and upset some sponsors.
Do you think the NBA owners want to put that kind of power into one man's hands?
LaBron threatened to not play.... that threat probably hurt the league in some way too. Players getting arrested for being thugs are bad for their image too, right? Did they ban Jay-Z and his anti-white racist buddies?
I prefer a market solution to the issue—Not Fascism.
“I prefer a market solution to the issue—Not Fascism.”
How is it fascism? I don’t understand. Seems to me the only solution would be for fans and players and the media to not care about what he said, but that didn’t happen. So what is the NBA supposed to then do about it? Ignore it or what?
Freegards
Yes, if they ignore Jay-Z and his anti-white racism, they should ignore what is said in private conversations
I agree that it is completely hypocritical. But I don’t really expect anything else from the NBA, I mean come on. Just look at the product they put out. I’m not even a fan.
Seems to me the fans and players are the ones that get to decide what is ignorable for the NBA or not. Obviously they can ignore black on white racism, because their fans and players don’t care about it or agree with it. Just like the NFL can ignore their league being HGH riddled because their players and fans don’t care about them ignoring it.
Freegards
It certainly is. And all the owners signed off on it so they have to abide by what Silver decides what constitutes best interest.
He might just deem that having Magic Johnson as owner of the Clippers is in the “best interest of the Association”.
Silver doesn't have the power to strip an owner of his team. That requires the other owners to agree. While Article 24 gives Silver broad discretion on levying sanctions on infractions not covered in other areas and deciding 'best interest of the Association', it also limits the punishments he can impose.
Or keeping LeBron James from sitting out next season is in the “best interests of the Association”.
That falls under Section 36 and yes, he could suspend any player for infractions he deems are against the best interests of the NBA. Fine's lower though - $50,000 max.
The owners had better take note — they may be next
Which is why I don't see enough owners voting to strip Sterling of his team.
So then you're saying Silver could fine him the million for shooting off his mouth and another $2.5 million for actions against the best interests of the NBA? Because nothing in the constitution or bylaws that I was prevents multiple fines for multiple infractions.
The content of Sterling’s character notwithstanding, the NBA screwed the pooch by overreaching, legally.
One can argue that they overreacted to the racist ramblings of a stupid old man, but having decided to act I disagree that Silver used the wrong clause to nail Sterling with.
Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws - operative phrase ...
*********************
It is covered ,, and the max fine is $1m (monetary penalty only) ,, This will end up in civil (complex) court and take years to decide ... it will be decided far after Donald dies in his favor and it will drag the NBA through the mud.. meanwhile the Clippers ownership (of which Donald is a part) will continue to share in the TV money no matter what and if they are illegally cut off from what is rightfully theirs and it harms them (as it will) ,, the heirs to the clippers will own the NBA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.