(05-14-2014 03:02 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  OK so lets try this another way. Which one of those rules did he break?

If I remember the press conference he was fined 2.5 million and banned for life for conduct detrimental to the team...forcing him to sell the team is up to the other owners as they can vote to force him to sell.

But I'm no lawyer...Adam Silver is.

So what rule did he violate?

Ok, since Memphis can't wrap his head around your question (too many psychedelic escapades with MyLittlePony94 in Vegas), I'll answer... Sterling butthurt a bunch of titbags that can't handle offensive opinions laid out in his own privacy, and illegally made public by someone who just wants his money.

^ just a victim of bad timing...i mean, right after I answered the question.

I blame you... I needed the opportunity to use the "psychedelic escapades" comment against you. TAKE YOUR TIME ANSWERING NEXT TIME.

(05-14-2014 03:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:58 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:45 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:32 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  OK so lets try this another way. Which one of those rules did he break?

If I remember the press conference he was fined 2.5 million and banned for life for conduct detrimental to the team...forcing him to sell the team is up to the other owners as they can vote to force him to sell.

But I'm no lawyer...Adam Silver is.

So what rule did he violate?

13(a) and 13(d)

From SI:

Quote:Article 13 of the NBA's constitution details grounds for terminating ownership of an NBA team. There are 10 separate grounds to justify termination. The ground that has received the most attention, 13(a), is apparently not central to the NBA's legal strategy. 13(a) bars any willful violation of league documents. Its expansive wording was thought to give the NBA wide discretion in linking Sterling's conduct to his ouster. However, the fact that Sterling was privately recorded and that the recording was shared without his consent would make it difficult to prove he possessed a willful state of mind to break NBA rules. This is an important distinction from when Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott made racist comments in public, and thus wilfully broke MLB rules. Unlike Schott, Sterling presumably did not intend to publicly embarrass the NBA in public and harm its business. If he had such a desire, he would have likely used a public forum.
13(d) is more limited in scope, but, crucially, does not require Sterling intended to harm the league. 13(d) states that an owner cannot "fail or refuse to fulfill....contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely." Sterling's failure to adhere to covenants contained in his franchise agreement and joint venture agreement, among other documents, arguably meant that he failed to satisfy his contractual obligations. The fact that players threatened a boycott and sponsors dropped their support of the Clippers after Sterling's words were made public suggest that Sterling adversely "affected" the NBA and its members adversely.


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/new...z31inNJjia

So they know it wasn't intentional, nor aimed at any particular person or persons, yet they want to crucify him anyways. I'm glad you posted that.

13(d) doesn't care about intent...moreover, as an owner, Sterling signed off on that rule...so he knew it was there.

(05-14-2014 03:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  13(d) doesn't care about intent...moreover, as an owner, Sterling signed off on that rule...so he knew it was there.

And if all of our private conversations were illegally recorded and given to the public, we'd all be screwed. By "all," I mean every U.S citizen.

I hope Sterling goes to court with this. He shouldn't have to apologize for comments he made in private. Politicians get caught making stupid treasonous comments and nothing comes of it. Can anyone remember those comments O made to the Russian president about his second term and the leeway that he would have after that?

Sterling should sue the girl for taping him without his permission. I'm surprised he hasn't.

(05-14-2014 03:01 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:54 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 02:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:   some folks just don't know good movies...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120669/

Eeeeeee, I don't quite know what to make of that now, but I do retract my statement. I assume you're the oddball journalist.?

"An oddball journalist and his psychopathic lawyer travel to Las Vegas for a series of psychedelic escapades."

I'm not good enough friends with Memphis to go on vacation with him.

I'd have to choose you for my attorney, however, I wouldn't be willing to travel to Vegas with you for a series of "psychedelic escapades." *shudders*

(05-14-2014 03:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 03:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  13(d) doesn't care about intent...moreover, as an owner, Sterling signed off on that rule...so he knew it was there.

And if all of our private conversations were illegally recorded and given to the public, we'd all be screwed. By "all," I mean every U.S citizen.

Irrelevant with respect to Sterling. Yes, we've almost certainly ALL said things in private that we wouldn't want the outside world to see. However, none of us here are subject to the by-laws of the NBA. At the same time, the mere presence of any of us isn't causing others to lose millions of dollars worth of sponsorships in the way that Sterling is. I know that the Sterling defenders keep harping on the illegality of the tape, but it's absolutely 100% irrelevant with respect to what the NBA can do here. The Sports Illustrated analysis further demonstrated my point is that the negative business impact (lost sponsorships and endangerment of the NBA's other business relationships) is the MASSIVE overriding factor in all of this.

(05-14-2014 03:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I hope Sterling goes to court with this. He shouldn't have to apologize for comments he made in private. Politicians get caught making stupid treasonous comments and nothing comes of it. Can anyone remember those comments O made to the Russian president about his second term and the leeway that he would have after that?

Sterling should sue the girl for taping him without his permission. I'm surprised he hasn't.

She has some sort of leverage on him.

But politicians do get in trouble for saying/doing stupid things. Akin, Romney, Wiener (that was supposed to be private too), etc.

guys....chucky is just a funny stupid-arse....cannot believe the handful of supposed 'smarty-farts' that on this board that worry about this shite....

how people don't get the association of the underprivileged that now have money along with color getting a free pass is beyond me.....

in other words.....why wouldn't they fight back???? duhhhhhh

Barkley is a beloved entertainment figure who nobody really takes seriously anyway. It would be the same thing if John Kruk or some other fat, alcoholic, former player turned commentator said it.

(05-14-2014 04:07 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  Barkley is a beloved entertainment figure who nobody really takes seriously anyway. It would be the same thing if John Kruk or some other fat, alcoholic, former player turned commentator said it.

XACLY! he's a doof that knows it.....

(05-14-2014 03:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 03:21 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 03:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  13(d) doesn't care about intent...moreover, as an owner, Sterling signed off on that rule...so he knew it was there.

And if all of our private conversations were illegally recorded and given to the public, we'd all be screwed. By "all," I mean every U.S citizen.

Irrelevant with respect to Sterling. Yes, we've almost certainly ALL said things in private that we wouldn't want the outside world to see. However, none of us here are subject to the by-laws of the NBA. At the same time, the mere presence of any of us isn't causing others to lose millions of dollars worth of sponsorships in the way that Sterling is. I know that the Sterling defenders keep harping on the illegality of the tape, but it's absolutely 100% irrelevant with respect to what the NBA can do here. The Sports Illustrated analysis further demonstrated my point is that the negative business impact (lost sponsorships and endangerment of the NBA's other business relationships) is the MASSIVE overriding factor in all of this.

The NBA's decision came from the negative response of the public and players.

(05-14-2014 04:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  guys....chucky is just a funny stupid-arse....cannot believe the handful of supposed 'smarty-farts' that on this board that worry about this shite....

how people don't get the association of the underprivileged that now have money along with color getting a free pass is beyond me.....

in other words.....why wouldn't they fight back???? duhhhhhh

How long do you have to lead by example before people start to follow?

(05-14-2014 04:13 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(05-14-2014 04:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  guys....chucky is just a funny stupid-arse....cannot believe the handful of supposed 'smarty-farts' that on this board that worry about this shite....

how people don't get the association of the underprivileged that now have money along with color getting a free pass is beyond me.....

in other words.....why wouldn't they fight back???? duhhhhhh

How long do you have to lead by example before people start to follow?

do you really believe chuck has followers that amount to anything meaningful.....

this board is so about the legislation of morality......the media is designed to increase viewershi(t)p....that's all one needs to know....

nobody here can fix the numbing of the gene pool.....you gotta let shite like this go.....it's just not worth it....

honestly, I find how people respond to this nonsense more entertaining....

Here's my take on what Barkley said: So what?

Does saying it or not saying it make the women in San Antonio any less fat? And if they aren't fat then what difference does his comment make? Does thinking it and not saying it make him a different person? Look at the Sterling thing, he makes a comment some considered to be offensive. So what? Who got hurt? No one. He's still paying minorities millions of dollars and isn't mistreating anyone. Having an unpopular opinion that your were born and raised with shouldn't exclude a person from anything as long as no one is being harmed. As many libs on this board love to say, there is no right against not being offended. And as Frank has said, what happened to Sterling is all about the dollars. And if Barkley's comments cause the tv channel's ratings to go down then I suspect they'll dump him just like Sterling.

In the end it's all political correctness. F**king political correctness.