Knicks · NBA Adam Silver conference (page 4)
mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
That's a good point
mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
She told him the call was being recorded. So she got his consent. It must've went right over his old head
gunsnewing wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
She told him the call was being recorded. So she got his consent. It must've went right over his old head
Really? I didn't hear that. (Not doubting you. I'm just surprised they haven't pointed that out on the news)
gunsnewing wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
She told him the call was being recorded. So she got his consent. It must've went right over his old head
haven't heard that, or seen it mentioned anywhere except by you
gunsnewing wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
She told him the call was being recorded. So she got his consent. It must've went right over his old head
Went over his head because he was looking at the floor for his balls........
Nalod wrote:visions of the strip club scene from bad grandpagunsnewing wrote:mreinman wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nalod wrote:OasisBU wrote:Nice work by Silver - I didn't think the NBA would go this far but it's impressive to see he has a brass set and will confront this type of controversy head on.The questions I have are:
1) why wasn't he banned/removed from the NBA hall of fame? And how did he actually get inducted considering his track record as an owner?2) Sterling admitted the recording was his voice - why isn't he trying to fight it? Seems a little out there to me that a guy who loves to litigate would admit to something that would be so damaging (even if it would eventually be proved it was him)
3) Will Sterling appeal/litigate? I find it doubtful given his admission of guilt but who knows, the punishment is severe so he might.
4) Will the owners support Silver on this and push Sterling out? Most likely but Nalod brought up some things about these guys (Countrywide, Fracking, etc) that may not be a big deal now but once you set a precedent it cannot be undone
5) what about the precedent that has been set here? We have all said things in private that could be misconstrued or offensive to others - now an illegally taped conversation has been released to the public and persecution has followed. Whether you think he is scum of the earth or not is not the issue - speech is no longer free and privacy no longer exists. Sure there are consequences for what you say in public but now we are going after what happens behind closed doors. That is something I find deeply troubling because of it's implications for the future of this country.
All in all I think this was the only outcome that would work in this situation. I do believe that everyone here has lost a little - the players and coaches of the Clippers have had their trust betrayed, the league has suffered a massive racial scandal when it positions itself as progressive, the country is embroiled in another high profile race scandal, the Jewish community has to deal with the perception that it harbors prejudice, and the list goes on.
Good has come out of it too: I think the world has taken a step forward towards reducing the tolerance of racism, it still exists but things are changing. I believe the players are a little more unified and so is the NBA community as a whole. Silver has shown he is the real deal and will hopefully be a great commissioner for the league.
I looked him up, he is not listed in the HOF. http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers-i...
Its his voice, he can't deny it. Nothing to litigate if its you.
He has been banned for life which the constitution allows in NBA bylaws. He adheres to it as an owner. He could fight it.
Silver has the support of the owners to get his asz out..
If you watch Silver's conference he answers your questions.
Nalod - you know you can litigate anything - see Oscar Pistorious, Sandusky, bridge gate, any case involving DNA evidence. He could argue the recording is illegal (which I heard it is). He could have denied it was him and fought the recording. It's not like she was wearing a wire.
My guess is he was probably given legal advice to rip this off like a bandaid so the storm will die down quickly rather than fight it and risk further tapes and allegations from coming out. Either that or he feels so guilty over being exposed that he is just going to admit it and walk away.
Im sure there is more to the story of why she did what she did. Sure you can litigate but what are you litigating? The Bylaws of the NBA?
No doubt there is an arguement to your point but in the end its not the legality of the recording. IN fact, the skank girlfriend may be in a heap of trouble when all is said and done for the damage she did, but if there are hours and hours of this crap that was for him to decide further disclosure. IM sure she had some proof of him saying these things. She was seen yesterday going to the lawyers and talking to NBA investigators. That itself does not implicate but NBA and the owners would want to be very certain it was him and seems like they had the proof. Just my take.
Can he sue the NBA in the aftermath? I would think to keep things hush-hush they already adhere to private binding arbitration.
Yeah, I don't think you can record someone without their permission, *especially* in a situation where there's an expectation of privacy. I think he'd have a very strong lawsuit against the woman. That said, she may not have any assets for him to collect anyway, and he would look terrible going after her.Does he have to sue her? Can't she just be prosecuted for breaking the law?
She told him the call was being recorded. So she got his consent. It must've went right over his old head
Went over his head because he was looking at the floor for his balls........
tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?
Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
Similar ruling in regards to card counting (hardly the same as misconduct such as racism):
“How do casinos get away with excluding card counters from playing blackjack”? “Isn’t this discrimination”?
The Nevada courts have allowed casinos to exclude card counters because technically they are private property, and under the ancient common law right a property owner could kick-off his property anyone for any reason, or even without a reason. Many players and lawyers believe that barring skillful players from playing blackjack is an unconstitutional form of discrimination. However, the Supreme Court prohibits discrimination only against persons who are members of “suspect classifications” based on race, creed, sex, national origin, age, or physical disability (i.e. card counters are not listed in the “suspect classifications”). Therefore, until a law is passed or blackjack players bring a challenge, casinos will continue the practice of barring card counters.
mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
Bonn1997 wrote:People keep saying what Sterling or his lawyer should do but no one knows what they want to do. Fighting back is stressful and potentially even worse PR. They may not care enough.
He has to sell- if he doesn't, free agents will just boycott his team and it's resale value will plummet- at the moment he'll get a high price with Griffin and CP3 on board.
tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
He could fight it and this case it is certainly new precedence since it was an illegally taped private conversation that led to the ban. They could not ban before for racial misconduct because Elgin Baylor lost the case but they can ban him from an illegally taped conversation? He may actually win the case (as far as just attending games).
It would probably end up in the state supreme court.
Don't see any chance of this happening though it would be a fascinating case and it could be a very important ruling.
As far as forcing him to sell the team, the NBA enacted their nuclear bylaws so that they can vote out an owner just for being detrimental to their business model and/profit margins (e.g. having a proxy vote to remove a CEO).
tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
Im sure he can buy via stub hub and go to a game, but if he goes thru the team and wants security or VIP treatment he will be made gone.
Nalod wrote:tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
Im sure he can buy via stub hub and go to a game, but if he goes thru the team and wants security or VIP treatment he will be made gone.
absolutely not. he is banned from "attending" games.
he cannot show up in the building
gunsnewing wrote:Why would he want to attend the game as a civilian after all this despite being having the right?
That is not the point. Its a question of the law.
mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
He could fight it and this case it is certainly new precedence since it was an illegally taped private conversation that led to the ban. They could not ban before for racial misconduct because Elgin Baylor lost the case but they can ban him from an illegally taped conversation? He may actually win the case (as far as just attending games).
It would probably end up in the state supreme court.
Don't see any chance of this happening though it would be a fascinating case and it could be a very important ruling.
As far as forcing him to sell the team, the NBA enacted their nuclear bylaws so that they can vote out an owner just for being detrimental to their business model and/profit margins (e.g. having a proxy vote to remove a CEO).
This whole thing is not just crazy but interesting because as you said there is new precedence here.... the whole thing about the banning, at least from my perspective was to remove him from all decision making regarding an NBA franchise, or associations... that was accomplished.. but if he sells the team, he no longer has power or influence over any NBA affairs, so how can it be justified keeping him from attending a game.. I can see as an owner because he would still be seen as having associations with the NBA...
Forcing him to sell the team, I can see that, the NBA is comprised of owners who all have vested interest in what other franchises do since they operate as one, although they operate separately. So forcing him to sell can be seen as protecting their investments.. I would call it conduct detrimental to the league... the same way they suspend players for conduct detrimental to the team...
Nalod wrote:tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
Im sure he can buy via stub hub and go to a game, but if he goes thru the team and wants security or VIP treatment he will be made gone.
yea, I guess that is my question nalod.. how can you really keep him from NBA games as a patron if he no longer has association with the league and is not an owner.. he didn't violate any of the rules in the stadium, which if you look at the tickets can get you thrown out and or banned...
mreinman wrote:gunsnewing wrote:Why would he want to attend the game as a civilian after all this despite being having the right?That is not the point. Its a question of the law.
exactly, lets say he wants to one day go... does he have the right? by law? As an owner I guess he signs certain agreements that allows the league to enforce certain punishments as an owner, player or affiliate.. but once he is no longer any of those.. what does the law state?
tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:mreinman wrote:tkf wrote:I had a question, not sure if we have any lawyers on this site, but sterling was banned from, attending games. I am not clear but is that just a ban while he is an owner? lets say he sells the team and then next year he wants to attend a bobcats/ pacers game... can he not just buy a ticket and attend? especially if the stadium was built with tax dollars? how could you keep him out?Any team (or the NBA) has the right to ban a fan for what it deems as misconduct it is no different than banning a fan for habitual heckling.
I understand banning a fan for misconduct at an arena, but if a fan is heckling or fighting at a bar down the street, you can't ban him from games then... If I were his lawyer I would definately address the banning from all games as a patron, once he sells the team...
He could fight it and this case it is certainly new precedence since it was an illegally taped private conversation that led to the ban. They could not ban before for racial misconduct because Elgin Baylor lost the case but they can ban him from an illegally taped conversation? He may actually win the case (as far as just attending games).
It would probably end up in the state supreme court.
Don't see any chance of this happening though it would be a fascinating case and it could be a very important ruling.
As far as forcing him to sell the team, the NBA enacted their nuclear bylaws so that they can vote out an owner just for being detrimental to their business model and/profit margins (e.g. having a proxy vote to remove a CEO).
This whole thing is not just crazy but interesting because as you said there is new precedence here.... the whole thing about the banning, at least from my perspective was to remove him from all decision making regarding an NBA franchise, or associations... that was accomplished.. but if he sells the team, he no longer has power or influence over any NBA affairs, so how can it be justified keeping him from attending a game.. I can see as an owner because he would still be seen as having associations with the NBA...
Forcing him to sell the team, I can see that, the NBA is comprised of owners who all have vested interest in what other franchises do since they operate as one, although they operate separately. So forcing him to sell can be seen as protecting their investments.. I would call it conduct detrimental to the league... the same way they suspend players for conduct detrimental to the team...
Right ... but the way they came about the knowledge of the detrimental conduct was suspect (and illegal).
This was a clear violation of his first amendment rights and it could be as important as cases like miranda vs arizona.
This wiretap would obviously not stand up in court as far as prosecution but can it be used to ban someone from a league?
If the argument is that they can ban him anyway if they feel that he is detrimental or has racial tendencies without proof, then who cares if Elgin Baylors case held up or not?
Adam Levine is a lawyer and I am sure that he knows that this case is weak but he probably also knows that Sterling probably won't fight it.
I think that we are going down a dangerous road with allowing an illegal recording to dictate any sort of punishment. Forcing him to sell his team is within their right without the tape but the 2.5 million dollar fine and lifetime ban even post sale? There is no precedent for that.