April 30, 201412 yr The fact that people have a problem with the ruling baffles me.... Some true colors are coming out. I have no problem with the ruling but are they and should they be consistent with what else happens. If someone makes a racist remark are they also banned from NBA. I mean isn't calling someone racist names a racist? This goes for all involved. Where is the line drawn.
April 30, 201412 yr I have no problem with the ruling but are they and should they be consistent with what else happens. If someone makes a racist remark are they also banned from NBA. I mean isn't calling someone racist names a racist? This goes for all involved. Where is the line drawn. You make it sound like Sterling made one off-color comment and got banned from the NBA for it, which isn't the case at all.
April 30, 201412 yr The fact that people have a problem with the ruling baffles me.... Some true colors are coming out. My issue is with the invasion of privacy. I feel like the guy is and was a social pariah. My issue is that he didn't do anything illegal and his business is getting taken away. I see GT's point and why the ruling was made. I was thinking of this from a purely Constitutional perspective. The NBA ' S constitution reads differently and I am on board with it. Not everyone is caught up in what was said. I don't know anyone who agrees with him.
April 30, 201412 yr My issue is with the invasion of privacy. I feel like the guy is and was a social pariah. My issue is that he didn't do anything illegal and his business is getting taken away. I see GT's point and why the ruling was made. I was thinking of this from a purely Constitutional perspective. The NBA ' S constitution reads differently and I am on board with it. Not everyone is caught up in what was said. I don't know anyone who agrees with him. His business is not being taken away. If the owners vote to force the sale of the Clippers, Sterling will pocket roughly a BILLION dollars. If it was taken away, he'd get nothing...
April 30, 201412 yr I have no problem with the ruling but are they and should they be consistent with what else happens. If someone makes a racist remark are they also banned from NBA. I mean isn't calling someone racist names a racist? This goes for all involved. Where is the line drawn. I think they drew it with ownership. There is a difference when you are the owner of a franchise that damages the brand. Why does everything have to be treated the same? Big difference in players and coaches and the standards they must live up to. There should be decisions made case by case. No other owner in the NBA appears to be racist at all or have a history of it.
April 30, 201412 yr Why does everything have to be treated the same? .[/QUOT Because that the way it is nowadays. Political correctness. People complain about equality. If a player is using racial slurs then ban him also. Might as well start with Charles Barkley too.he works for the NBA.
April 30, 201412 yr I think Silver made a great decision with a lifetime ban and highest fine allowed. I'm cool with a forced sell. Actually, I'd be cool if it was a forced sell to the league at a FMV to expedite the process (no idea if that's an option). An outright taking of the Clippers gives me a lot of pause, as it should most. From what I've read it would be a forced sell which is much different than taking his business. A distinction that seems to be lost on some.
April 30, 201412 yr His business is not being taken away. If the owners vote to force the sale of the Clippers, Sterling will pocket roughly a BILLION dollars. If it was taken away, he'd get nothing... Still being taken away, same as eminent domain.
April 30, 201412 yr I have no problem with the ruling but are they and should they be consistent with what else happens. If someone makes a racist remark are they also banned from NBA. I mean isn't calling someone racist names a racist? This goes for all involved. Where is the line drawn. Line is drawn at the purchase agreement where he agreed to the leagues terms.
April 30, 201412 yr Still being taken away, same as eminent domain. Not being taken away. Being forced to sell. For a BILLION dollar profit. With a B...
April 30, 201412 yr Why does everything have to be treated the same? .[/QUOT Because that the way it is nowadays. Political correctness. People complain about equality. If a player is using racial slurs then ban him also. Might as well start with Charles Barkley too.he works for the NBA. The difference is the franchise would be crushed and the value would drop quickly, you have to protect your brand. The NBA needs every franchise to be strong. If it is an isolated player or commentator the franchise would not suffer nearly as much. The person will with endorsements, fines, maybe loss of job. Not saying it is acceptable if they do it also, but big difference with the franchise and the brand.
April 30, 201412 yr His business is not being taken away. If the owners vote to force the sale of the Clippers, Sterling will pocket roughly a BILLION dollars. If it was taken away, he'd get nothing... Poorly chosen words. His ability to do absolutely anything positively or negatively in day to day operations was taken away effectively opening the door to a forced sale. He can't leave the franchise to his family (which may or may not matter to him). He will come out better than 99.99999999% of the world financially.
April 30, 201412 yr Poorly chosen words. His ability to do absolutely anything positively or negatively in day to day operations was taken away effectively opening the door to a forced sale. He can't leave the franchise to his family (which may or may not matter to him). He will come out better than 99.99999999% of the world financially. I mean, he's clearly a family man... :lol2:
April 30, 201412 yr The fact that people have a problem with the ruling baffles me.... Some true colors are coming out. I think that one can have concerns with what was done without being supportive of Sterling. It does bother me that that a conversation that a man had privately has lead to this, especially if the recording was made illegally. My biggest concern is that it appears to set a precident that if an owner says something that is unpopular the NBA has the ability to strip them of their team. I'm not sure what other topic could be as polarizing as racism but who knows what will happen in the future. As I have stated before I don't think he was long for owning the team anyway, given the public outrage, so to me him losing the team is not really relavent to my concerns as to the fact the league is now allowed to punish owners for unpopular speech or opinions.
April 30, 201412 yr The best thing about this is the irony in the fact that Sterling's racist comments were about Magic Johnson and now Magic will probably be the person that buys his team. I have a problem with this.....doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.