Doc to Leave if Sterling Stays?

ESPN says Doc is likely to quit if Sterling is not removes.  As much as I detest ESPN, this seems logical.


Sam

[size=32]CEO: If Sterling stays, Doc likely goes
Updated: July 23, 2014, 5:43 PM ET
By Ramona Shelburne | ESPN[/size]

LOS ANGELES -- The interim CEO of the Los Angeles Clippers testified in state court Tuesday afternoon that coach and team president Doc Rivers has told him on multiple occasions that he doesn't think he wants to CONTINUE as coach if Donald Sterling remains owner of the team.

Dick Parsons said he has talked to Rivers, several players and key sponsors who are troubled by Sterling's continued ownership of the franchise, which is being adjudicated in a California probate court.

At issue is whether Shelly Sterling acted properly in selling the franchise, without her husband's expressed consent, for a record $2 billion to former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. Parsons was called as a witness in the trial Tuesday to discuss the effect the continuing uncertainty over the ownership situation has had on the Clippers franchise.

"If Doc were to leave, that would be a disaster," Parsons said. "Doc is the father figure of the team. Chris [Paul] is the on-court captain of the team. But Doc is really the guy who leads the effort. He's the coach, the grown-up, he's a man of character and ability -- not just in a basketball sense, but in the ability to connect with people and gain their trust. The team believes in him and admires and loves him. If he were to bail, with all the other circumstances, it would accelerate the death spiral."

More from ESPN.com
In court on Tuesday, interim Clippers CEO Dick Parsons outlined a "death spiral" scenario for the team if Donald Sterling retains ownership, Arash Markazi writes. Story

Donald Sterling's lawyers objected to Parsons' testimony on Rivers, arguing that only Rivers should be allowed to speak on his state of mind in this matter, and if that were the case, Rivers should be called as a witness. While Judge Michael Levanas agreed with the notion, he allowed Parsons to express his opinion on the matter and noted he would not consider it as fact.

"I don't understand why they didn't call Doc Rivers and the players they want to call to give that testimony," Sterling's lawyer Bobby Samini said. "I understand Mr. Parsons had an opinion about what might happen, but they could've easily brought those individuals in to give that testimony themselves."
Samini also cast doubt on some of Parsons' more dire predictions about the Clippers' financial stability should Sterling remain owner.

"I understand -- I'm just not seeing the sinkhole out here swallowing us all up," he said. "But that was the testimony Mr. Parsons gave."

Parsons said that although ticket revenue was essentially the same as the past season's, many of the team's 20 or so sponsors have made it clear they want to continue a relationship with the team only if Sterling is replaced as owner. He cited MANDALAY BAY and Kia Motors as examples of sponsors who are "sitting at the edge of the pool and don't want to go in the water unless there is resolution" on the ownership situation.

Parsons said during cross-examination that only six or seven sponsors had explicitly asked to be disassociated from the Clippers following the scandal that enveloped the team after Sterling's racially insensitive comments were published April 25 by TMZ.com. The team gave the remaining two-thirds "a holiday" before they felt compelled to disassociate from the franchise.

LESTER MUNSON ANALYSIS
The latest Sterling lawsuit is laughable both in form and in substance. It is badly drafted and fails to state anything remotely resembling a valid legal claim. The lawyers obviously threw it together in a hurry.

The various "causes of action" are the theories you use when you have no real solid theory for your lawsuit. The 11th cause of action may have some minimal importance.

If these lawyers can find a judge who will somehow conclude that there is a chance that Donald Sterling is entitled to an injunction (a highly unlikely scenario), then they could use the judge to intervene in the probate trial. It is a possibility, but a remote possibility. Most judges in Los Angeles would defer to the probate trial.

There is no question that Donald Sterling remains in desperation mode. 
-- Lester Muinson

"If none of your sponsors want to sponsor you, your coach doesn't want to coach you and players don't want to play for you, what do you have?" Parsons said.

Parsons and Bank of America expert Anwar Zakkour testified that the $2 billion price Ballmer agreed to pay for the franchise was much higher than the team's revenues justified under the most aggressive and optimistic predictions.
"Whether you want to call it a slam dunk or a home run, none of us believed we would get to the $2 billion," said Zakkour, who helped conduct the hurried sale. "None of us even believed we'd get to the $1.8 billion number, so that says it now."

Zakkour warned that if the sale fell through and the NBA restarted termination proceedings, there was significant risk the franchise would sell for far less.

"There are two things in my profession that are bad when you SELL A FRANCHISE: uncertainty and transparency," Zakkour said. "I think there's been a lot of press speculation that he paid a very full price for the Clippers. The highest price ever achieved for a sports team, when you focus on just the sports team."

Zakkour mentioned that the Los Angeles Dodgerssold for $2.15 billion, but that deal included $300 million to $400 million in real estate.

Dean Bonham, a sports marketing expert called by Sterling's lawyers, testified the sale price could increase if bidding were re-opened.

STERLING BANNED FOR LIFE



NBA commissioner Adam Silver banned Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life in the wake of Sterling's racist comments. Full coverage »

After court adjourned Tuesday, Donald Sterling filed another lawsuit in Superior Court against the NBA, commissioner Adam Silver and Shelly Sterling.

"The NBA can have their vote any time they want if they think they can remove him as the owner," Samini said. "Donald Sterling came and said many times, 'I want the NBA to do it.' I think that's what he's waiting for. He's going to see if they're going to actually go through with that."

The probate court trial will resume Wednesday afternoon. Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday. None of the attorneys would comment on what transpired during a meeting with Ballmer and Donald Sterling on Monday afternoon, except to confirm that the meeting took place.

Asked about a possible settlement, Samini said, "Anything could happen, but I don't see it in the tea leaves right now."

Sam,

I posted a stupid joke on the earlier thread.  I see that you may have had trouble with the formatting of the previous thread, so I will repeat my stupid joke here so you can delete the other thread if you want to.

Okay, here goes (with a minor edit):

The Sterling legal team is so cheap.

How cheap, you say?

They are so cheap, they didn't subpoena Doc Rivers because they didn't want to pay him mileage from Orlando to LA.

gyso

gyso,

It's not at all stupid.  The fact is the odds are about 50/50 that it's no joke at all.

It stays in both spots as far as I'm concerned.

Sam

Db,

I don't pretend to know a whole lot of details about this case, but I did have a year of business law.  On several occasions, I've served as an expert witness on business law court cases.  And I had four years of military law.  None of those experiences makes me very knowledgeable on the law because I've probably forgotten the vast majority of anything I learned.

But one fact struck me in all three scenarios and has remained my most vivid memory of the experiences/  The law is very much about interpretation.  For example, suppose all owners have to sign some boilerplate form to the effect that they promise not to engage in any activities that are detrimental to the league.  Considerable time could conceivably be spent on the issue of what the terms "engage in any activities" and/or "detrimental to the league" mean.

And one of several ways of addressing the issue would be to conduct a survey of the general public to elicit the public's interpretation.  After all, the general public (presumably narrowed down to NBA fans or even possibly just Clippers fans) is a major element in shaping the reputation of the NBA.

Such surveys were the basis for my role in the cases—one involving a possible change of venue for an underworld character, one involving alleged false advertising, one pertaining to the issue of secondary meaning, and the fourth involving trademark infringement in the automotive industry.  I testified in three of the cases.

As a matter of interest (on a slow NBA day), the game that's played in a lot of court cases is that, in order to convince the judge to introduce research into evidence, the research firm must (1)  adhere strictly to something like two dozen standards of research and must go overboard in ensuring there is no source of bias that is not controlled by the research and (2) be ready for the opposing lawyer to hire competing research firms to tear the research apart.

In one case (Mass. Blue Cross Blue Shield was the plaintiff and my client, I was on the stand for two days as the opponent's attorney grilled me on detail after detail—even challenging me on the accuracy of the interviewers in recording responses.  Fortunately, I lucked out, and the judge admitted the research into evidence.  The actual testimony about the research was very brief and anticlimactic because getting it admitted is the major roadblock.  And my client won the case.

Suppose you were a judge and the matter of damage to the NBA caused by Sterling's comments was in question.  Which way do you think the public would "vote?"  As a researcher, I could have no opinion, so I'll leave the conclusion to you.

For every survey that is conducted to serve as evidence, there are multiple other approaches, and each of those approaches could potentially turn the verdict in one direction or another.  In the Sterling case, I expect there will be steps taken by both sides to prove that his privacy was or was not violated respectively.

I mention all of this to suggest that it could be premature to assume one outcome or another.

By the way, my favorite case was one in which my survey never got to court because it didn't come out the way my client desired.  So he buried it.

It was a change of venue case, and it involved a guy named Gennaro (or Gerry) Angulo, who became the top hood in New England within five or years of his trial.  But, when we conducted the survey, his career or murder, drugs, prostitution, and any other illegal act you can name was in its relative infancy.

Nonetheless, his attorney hoped to prove that the public had made up its mind about his client, the defendant, so we conducted a survey.  There were really only two questions were structurally simple, but their content was a bit offbeat.

Question 1: "1'm going to mention several names.  For each name, please tell me whether you are very familiar, somewhat familiar, somewhat unfamiliar, or very unfamiliar with that name.  Here are the names:

Joseph DiMaggio
Francis Sinatra
Lawrence Berra
Gennaro Angulo
And another half dozen Italian-American names that I can't recall

(By the way, the names were asked in constantly rotating order to avoid any possibility of "order bias.")

Question 2. (Asked only of those people who were at least "somewhat familiar" with the name): Would you say your opinion of (REPEAT NAME) is very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?"

Question 2 was asked about Gennaro Angulo in only 3% of the cases, because only 3% of the hundreds of random respondents were even "a little familiar" with the name.  That's why the study got buried.  At least we got paid.  From the lawyer's checking account.

Sam

DBrown,

An intelligent post.

I think you make a very good point about the contractual obligations of both Doc Rivers and Chris Paul. Sure, they would lose those battles, but even in losing those battles, I would have to say their motivations at the very least are just.

When it comes to what Sterling said in private, I can understand the hesitancy to just abrogate his ownership of the Clippers because it creates an open-ended question. What else can an owner say to be banned/forced to sell his team? Mark Cuban was one of the ones to bring up this very fact in the public spotlight.

However, there is another side to this. Aside from his Constitutional rights to free speech, we cannot discount the fact that the NBA is a private entity. Essentially, that means they have great lateral to include/exclude any people they wish for any reasons they deem appropriate. Being an owner in the NBA is not a right, but a privilege.

Also, this was largely a PR move on the NBA's part. How would the general public perceive the NBA for turning a blind eye and/or condoning Sterling's comments? They'd take a lot of heat from the fans and the media, plus the players could potentially boycott. That would be quite damaging to the NBA's reputation, especially if the stars join in on the boycotting. That would lead to a loss of sponsorships, fans, and ultimately revenue. As they say money talks and the best place to hurt a business is in their wallet.

I for one believe that the NBA's hands were tied the minute the conversation went public. Adam Silver had no choice but to act swiftly and severely. As I said before, the NBA's powers are rather extensive. What potency would the league have if rogue members could simply do as they please? They have control to maintain.

Anyway, I'm sure this will play out with Sterling losing ownership.



KJ

db,

Thanks for the nice words.  I would like nothing better to get together with you and your three boys.  In what general area do you live?

First things first.  If you are remarried, I have very good news for you.  The second time around is not just better.  It's like being in a different world.  I was married for 20 years when my wife said I was a great guy but she didn't like being married and wanted to go to Peru and live with the mountain people.  So she did, leaving me as a single parent of three kids, ages 5, 6 and 10.  And it was also a multi-racial situation, which is neither here nor there but it was looked at differently in the early 70s than nowadays, and even walking through a shopping mall often invited some kind of invective.  And it was no bed of roses to have the boy be the only black in his first grade class.  Even the teacher was freaked out. Moreover, I had just started the research company I've now been operating for 45 years, and I was going to school full time (during the day) to seek a couple of graduate degrees in Sociology.

Actually, because my mental age was not much older than that of the kids, that period immediately became one of the most enduringly enjoyable of my life.  In fact, my two daughters are visiting today, and we're extremely close even though we live many hundreds of miles apart.  The boy eventually earned both Bachelor's and Master's Degrees, and he is now dividing his time between his native Nassau and Florida as an ambassador of the Bahamas Tourism Council.

Anyway, my second (and final) wife entered my life after several years of the single parent life, and we've now been married 35 extremely happy years.  So you've got a whole lot to look forward to.  The instincts born of experience are marvelous guideposts.

As for the Sterling case, I just want to make certain you didn't think my point was that the case should come down to the judge's opinion versus the public's opinion.  My only reason for involving the public was in the event that Sterling had agreed not to do anything that injured the reputation of the NBA.  Involving the public would simply provide evidence as to whether the reputation of the NBA among the general public had suffered because of Sterling's comments.  Research could also be conducted among other club owners or the NBA Board of Governors or NBA coaches or NBA player alumni or college athletic directors or any constituency that could reasonably be considered to be an important element in shaping the reputation of the NBA.

The evidence would be presented to the judge and, as you said, the judge obviously would make the final decision....BUT perhaps influenced at least partly by how much the evidence revealed that Sterling's actions had besmirched the NBA's reputation among people to whom that reputation mattered.  That's very different from conjecturing, for example, how much the weight of public opinion would pressure the judge.

Whatever the result of the trial, should we start a pool on how soon the first related new book will be published?

Anyway, I envy you your future with your new partner in life.  Enjoy it to the hilt; please give your present wife my best wishes; and I hope we'll meet soon.

Sam

dbrown,

I thought I remembered that you are from somewhere in NC.  I'll be moving down to Charlotte at the end of August.  My local office is in Cary, but I will still be working with the folks up in Millinocket, ME.  I tele-commute from a home office, but I still need to go into the Cary office once in a while.

I agree with Sam, things went much better the second time, sometimes due to the lessons learned from the first time.  My current (and last) wife was my second, and she had four girls, ages 16, 18, 21 and 25 when we met just over 10 years ago.  I had none to add to the bunch.  None of them call me Dad, but by the many definitions of Dad, I am that.  Especially to the youngest, because she lived with us longer and will be reunited with us after we move.  I am Grampy to two of their children, with three more on the way this fall.

The three oldest girls are all pregnant, with due dates in September, October and December.  Two out of these three live in Charlotte, Mrs. gyso cannot get there soon enough!!  As a matter of fact, she is down there now.

This could possibly be the seeds of our forum's first NC get-together!  We'll get Sam down here somehow (LOL).  I really hope the Hornets home game with the Celtics falls on a Saturday, I'll certainly will be looking for that when they publish the season schedule.

I again agree with Sam, enjoy your future with your new partner in life!!  These past 10 years went by in a flash for us, so take care to cherish each moment.

gyso

DS can and probably will litigate his property rights until the day he dies.

There is no happy ending in sight.  As far as contractual obligations, it can be argued that the working conditions under the Clipper's ownership is intolerable because the owner is in fact a racist.

Doc Rivers and Chris Paul as well as other players could refuse to work for the Clippers because the owner is a racist.  So while DS can probably retain ownership of his franchise, his employees may be set free at last.

Worse, the entire team could go on strike and refuse to play.  Support from other NBA players could result in a complete work stoppage across the league.  DS would like nothing better than to see everyone get screwed.  

As the 2014 season gets closer I expect to see both coaches and players for the Clippers seek to have their contracts voided so that they can become free agents.  Then DS will sue these players and coaches for breach of contract and that will be litigated.  However the commissioner could immediately rule in their favor and allow both players and coaches to seek employment with other teams.

I do believe that the league has a right to rule on the validity of contracts.

dboss

DB

I agree with most everything you have stated.

Isn't there some merit to the presumption of privacy in one's own home?

Wonder how much "digging" the lawyers/private investigators for DS are doing?

If there is dirt on any other owner........... well this could be very interesting.
Could be headline stuff for the National Inquirer.

The trail down this road appears very foggy right now with no end in sight.

beat

dbrown,

I agree with your thoughts.  From the start, this whole story has bothered me.  I find myself defending Sterling despite the fact I think he's a disgusting human being.  The only thing that appears to give the NBA a leg to stand on is the language on best interests of the league in the ownership agreement.  Even that seems to open itself up to arbitrary exercise and interpretation.

As for Doc and Chris Paul I'd love to tell them both to go take a hike.  Both knew the kind of person Sterling was and they were willing to sign a contract and accept his money.  Once one of Sterling's many little eruptions caught widespread attention they start shouting their sanctimonious song that they won't coach or play while he's owner.  Personally, I hope if either decide to stay out, their contracts can be terminated.  Taking the money from someone long known to have questionable views at best, then hitting the heights of hypocritical behavior only because he's widely called out, makes Rivers and Paul next behind the Donald Sterlings of the world in the buffoon line in my book.  My bet is they'll both show up for work, even after their public outcry.

On a more pleasant note, count me in with you and others in the 'better the second time around' marriage club.  It sounds like you've found a wonderful life partner this time.

Regards

db,

The reason the clause sounded subjective was that it was fabricated by me, not excerpted from any specific contract of which I'm aware.  I deliberately made it subjective to illustrate how the matter of interpretation can be a major factor in a court case and (2) as you stated, there are many elements that could factor into an interpretation—even by a judge.

People certainly have the right to make private judgments relatively early in a court base based on what seems to them to be right and wrong.  My point is that this is not necessarily how the law works.  It's more a case of what a mixture of the law, the evidence, and the human factor produce as a decision.  Any of these three ingredients may be weighted more than the other two depending on the specific nature of the case.

I'll just mention a name.  O.J. Simpson.  I rest my case.

In most years, my wife and I (with our two kids, the cats) drive to St. Pete Beach and St. Augustine in Florida for vacation.  We take the westerly route (I-91, I-77, etc.  There's no good reason why we couldn't make a small detour to Raleigh or no detour at all to Charlotte.  So maybe a get-together would be a good possibility.

This year, we're hoping to go to Nassau if a timeshare trade comes through.  If not, we'll certainly go to Florida; and, even if we do go to Nassau, we might very well go to Florida (if the house we now have on the market sells).  So let's keep it in mind.  Perhaps we might persuade Bog Heckler to join us, since he seems to have his bags packed at all times.  And maybe some others.  Dboss is in Georgia,  Several members are in Florida.

Let's see how things play out.

Sam

Now that sounds like fun.

Dboss

Eventually, Sterling's ownership of the Clippers would amount to a moot point. What good would it do for both the team and the league to lose sponsorships and fans?

I understand what you guys are saying about privacy, but consider this: Sterling is not at any risk of going to jail. Also, as a team owner, he is bound by the rules of the NBA. At any other kind of place of business, an employee couldn't say absolutely anything they wanted without any consequence. Why would/should the NBA be any different?

The NBA is entitled to maintaining their reputation, and they can decide which people can or can not be part of the league. I don't believe that particular point is really up for any debate.



KJ

DB

And to add (this is my opinion)

Those of old enough to remember a baseball player by the name of Curt Flood. In the 1960's he challenged and eventually won the long standing "reserve clause" that for years tied players to one team. Flood had player for years in St Louis and refused a trade to the Phillies. The matter went all the way to the supreme court and although they voted against removal of the reserve clause a couple years later the ruling was overturned and set up free agency as it exists today.

The reason I bring this up is that whatever rules a league may have they cannot supersede federal laws and the bill of rights. Curt Flood had a nice baseball career but will never be remembered for any of that. He will be remembered for challenging and eventually winning... (from a piece I researched.........)

"After 12 years in the major leagues," Flood wrote, "I do not feel that I am a piece of property to be bought and sold irrespective of my wishes." He wished to play in the 1970 season, the 31-year-old insisted, but not with Philadelphia, and he believed he had "a right to consider offers from other clubs before making any decision." When Kuhn denied his request, Flood sued him and Major League Baseball, alleging that the reserve clause violated antitrust laws as well as the 13th Amendment, which barred slavery and involuntary servitude.

Flood v. Kuhn went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Flood's case was backed by the testimony of former players, such as Jackie Robinson. No active players agreed to testify, however, and the court ruled against Flood in a 5-3 decision in 1972. By that time, the Phillies had traded Flood to the Washington Senators, for whom he played only 13 games before retiring in 1971. Although unsuccessful, his historic challenge paved the way, for federal arbitration of salary demands, which the MLB organization agreed to in 1973. Two years later, an arbitrator effectively reversed the court's 1972 verdict, throwing out the reserve clause and opening the door for the modern free agency that exists today.




Even Augusta National had to let women members in eventually.

DS might be every name anyone wants to describe him, and perhaps even worse than that. BUT what he is alleged to have said seems rather mild in the grand scheme of things.

In my opinion I just do not see how the league can force him to sell the Clippers.

beat

Beat,

But what in the constitution could keep Silver from giving Sterling the boot?



KJ

Interesting thread. Aside from the emotion-packed aspect of Donald (and Shelley) Sterling's character, this situation is fascinating to me from a legal standpoint.

I'm not a lawyer. While I've written numerous posts that put me firmly in the anti-Sterling camp, I do think I can examine the legal aspects of the situation from a relatively objective standpoint.

As Sam pointed out, the law is not black-and-white in many cases but is open to interpretation, and this is one case where things are not cut and dried. I've looked for legal opinions amongst all the sideline commentary, and what I've found interesting is that the almost all of the opinions from actual lawyers that I've seen (if not all -- I haven't kept score) think that Sterling doesn't have a case.

I don't put ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson in that category because I don't know the reliability of his opinions on legal matters, he is not a lawyer from what I can tell, and one apparently reputable legal blog thinks Munson is a hack:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/04/espn-legal-analyst-does-disservice-to-all-mankind/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_the_Law_%28blog%29

From my legal layman's point of view, what I find interesting is that there are so many potential aspects to the legal situation. Here's my take on some of them.

Constitutional issues, including freedom of speech and privacy. These are valid concerns, and Sterling was potentially wronged when the tape was released, but my understanding is that this aspect is irrelevant to the case.

Free speech is often misunderstood by some with political agendas to mean that a person can say what they want, no matter how objectionable or offensive. That's mostly true, with certain limitations (yelling "Fire" in a theater, threatening the president, harassment, slander, libel, and so on), but my understanding is that the constitutional right to freedom of speech protects a person from prosecution by the government for that speech; it doesn't mean you can't be fired from your job or suffer other consequences outside of government prosecution. You are free to say what you like, but the Constitution doesn't provide blanket protection from any and all consequences to that act, only that you can't be put in jail for your opinions.

Privacy is much more complicated issue and one that is ill-defined for the modern age. The winds are shifting back and forth on this issue, and this is an important issue of our time that is far from settled.

But in the end, I don't think freedom of speech or privacy play a part in Sterling's case because Sterling's ouster as an owner is based on the harm, economic and otherwise, done to the Clipper franchise and the league as a whole due to events such as sponsors pulling out, Clipper players, coaches, and staff potentially refusing to work for Sterling, and potential league-wide boycotts by players. The NBA's case rests on the fact that its constitution has several provisions that allow the league to impose penalties, including forcing an owner to sell, for causing harm to the league. The NBA won't argue that Sterling isn't allowed to say what he likes in private but instead that the reaction to the public revelation of his comments caused significant harm to the league.

If Sterling has a beef with his privacy rights being violated, then he can take that up with the party who released the tapes, but from the NBA's point of view, that is a separate issue and not related to its case against Sterling. Again, it's not whether the tape is admissible; it's the fact that harm is being done to the league because sponsors, players, and others objected to Sterling's continued presence as an owner once his opinions became public, however they became public.

Franchisor/franchisee relationship and property rights. Because Sterling owns the Clippers as a franchisee, he doesn't have the same property rights to the Clippers as someone does regarding a car, real estate, or other personal property. I haven't owned a franchise, but my understanding is that the franchisor usually has the power to force a franchisee to operate in a certain way or even force a franchisee to sell for often vague reasons. It's usually not in the franchisor's interest to force franchisees to sell, but it does happen. Here is an article describing a Dunkin' Donuts franchisee who was forced to sell:

http://www.mainefranchiseowners.org/a-dunkin-donuts-franchise-owner-had-his-business-taken-away-from-him-in-2009/

Reading the comments below the article, it appears that Dunkin' Donuts management figured a way to make a significant profit by forcing franchisees to sell because Dunkin' Donuts made a percentage every time a franchise was sold. The franchisee was ultimately powerless to stop it because of the legal nature of his relationship with the franchisor. As the article says, "In the end he lost because he says, 'The deck was stacked against me, and they held all the cards.' "

In Sterling's case, although an NBA team isn't a typical restaurant franchise, his property rights are severely limited because he is a franchisee, not an outright owner of the property.

Sterling family trust. Although Donald Sterling is the person designated with ownership authority in team and league matters, he isn't the actual owner of the team; the Sterling family trust is. That means ownership of the team, including the decision to sell, is held jointly by Donald and Shelly Sterling as co-owners of the trust, and legal provisions of the trust become a factor in the case. It adds a whole layer of complexity from a legal standpoint that is being played out in probate court to determine whether Shelly Sterling's agreement to sell the team to Steve Ballmer is valid. This is also where Donald Sterling's potential mental incompetency comes into play, though I could see this also being a factor in a case between Donald Sterling and the league.

Sterling family trust's agreement to indemnify the league against lawsuits related to her sale of the team. This could be a major coup for the league. On the surface, this means that the trust agrees to cover the cost of any judgments if Donald Sterling wins his lawsuit against the league, which means that Donald Sterling is essentially suing himself for damages (if he wins his $1 billion lawsuit, damages would be paid by the Sterling trust, not the league).

However, from Sterling's point of view, he can contest Shelly Sterling's authority to make the indemnification agreement and invalidate the agreement, thereby putting the league back on the hook for damages from the lawsuit.

Sterling forcing a vote by owners to oust him. The league would vastly prefer for the Clipper sale to Ballmer to go through without actually requiring a vote by owners to force Sterling to sell. Mark Cuban has been forthright enough to discuss this, and he has raised valid concerns about the precedent this would set for the league. If an owner can be forced to sell for this, what other reasons could the league use to force an owner to sell? League owners aren't angels, and some of them may hold opinions equally as objectionable as those voiced by Sterling. Even though Sterling may not have the property rights to prevent a sale, many owners are still sensitive to that issue and don't like the idea that they could be forced to sell what they regard as their property. The league would likely prevail and get 3/4 of the owners to agree on forcing Sterling out, mainly because their own financial interest is at risk with Sterling as an owner, but owners really, really, really want to avoid this going to an actual vote. Sterling knows this and wants to force the vote.

Sterling's scorched-earth tactics and airing dirty laundry on other owners. One of Donald Sterling's best cards isn't a legal one per se but more one of legal intimidation -- that other owners have said and done things as bad or worse than he has without being forced to sell and that he could force all that nasty stuff into the light, either as part of his current lawsuit against the league or in response to an actual vote by the owners against him.

As I mentioned above, Sterling's case is different, not because of the content of what he said, but because of the harm done by sponsors leaving and players boycotting. Other owners may have have said and done bad things, but since that hasn't resulted in an exodus of sponsors, threatened boycott by players, or other demonstrated harm to the league, the case against those owners doesn't rise to the level that Sterling's case does.

Still, there can be no doubt of Sterling's willingness to go down this road and inflict damage on other owners and the league, either as a way to prevent his ouster as owner or, failing that, as retribution for going against him. The reasoning here is that the league would compromise rather than allow that to happen and that Sterling could maintain ownership of the team, even if in a reduced capacity.

k_j_88 wrote:Beat,

But what in the constitution could keep Silver from giving Sterling the boot?



KJ

Where did I say they could not? They can BUT at what cost and what grounds and are they legal to do so? In my opinion they would loose in court if this actually goes that far.......and it sure looks headed that way.

We can almost all agree DS is no saint BUT for the league to strip him of the team or force a sale over a few uneducated words said in private is questionable for sure and unlike Outside to say that privacy has no bearing to me is still up in the air. I think ALL aspects of this are in play till they are not.

So even if the owners do vote him off the island............so what happens then? Stay tuned.

The courts will end up deciding this and we just need to wait and then either agree or not.
Money has power and DS has a lot of the former and perhaps some of the later.

beat

beat wrote:We can almost all agree DS is no saint BUT for the league to strip him of the team or force a sale over a few uneducated words said in private is questionable for sure and unlike Outside to say that privacy has no bearing to me is still up in the air. I think ALL aspects of this are in play till they are not.

I absolutely agree that all aspects, including privacy, are in play. The purpose of my post was to describe various legal aspects of the situation and my understanding of the validity of various arguments regarding those issues.

Regarding privacy issues, my point is that the league can argue that it is irrelevant because they're not claiming that his private comments are responsible for the harm done to the league, but instead that reaction by sponsors, players, and others in response to Sterling's continued status as an owner is what is doing harm.