EPTI mean even if the vote was supposed to be unanimous,I really doubt that it wouldn't go through.
It's going to be unanimous either way,no one wants to stick out as a sore thumb to the sponsors and get labeled as proxy racist rofl
NBA Playoffs 2013-2014 - Page 43
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Ru ba
Serbia1812 Posts
I mean even if the vote was supposed to be unanimous,I really doubt that it wouldn't go through. It's going to be unanimous either way,no one wants to stick out as a sore thumb to the sponsors and get labeled as proxy racist rofl | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
And I think the owners who just don't want to set a precedent of being forced to sell a team have a legit argument too | ||
|
Ru ba
Serbia1812 Posts
| ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
On April 30 2014 03:51 On_Slaught wrote: It's only 3/4 votes. They need 22 of the 30 to vote yes. Well, I think they're going to be needing 22 of 29. On April 30 2014 03:54 DystopiaX wrote: They don't have to publicize who voted each way. And I think the owners who just don't want to set a precedent of being forced to sell a team have a legit argument too I don't think it's yet known if the voting will be public. Van Gundy questioned if it is to be public or not. On April 30 2014 03:55 Ru ba wrote: wasn't the precedent already set tho?someone told me a past owner was forced to sell before There is no precedent. McCourt and Wilpon in the MLB aren't the same scenario if that's what you're referencing. | ||
|
Ru ba
Serbia1812 Posts
| ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
Can someone remind me why Jemele Hill is on television? Stephen A. Smith at least used to be a reputable reporter. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
also precedent is a silly argument. there's always a first time for everything. without this 'precedent' if someone does something really really bad, they could still get kicked out of the league. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I kid. | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
"But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that." source That's Cuban's stance and I can see other owners having that stance as well since most of them are very smart businessmen. I really hope he's completely gone, personally, but I don't think the owners are going to vote him out (if they even have the power to do that). | ||
|
AgentW
United States7725 Posts
| ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
|
Ru ba
Serbia1812 Posts
KnicksLemonBao 2576 points an hour ago Why can't james dolan be racist? sometimes reddit really delivers lol | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On April 30 2014 04:27 ketomai wrote: source That's Cuban's stance and I can see other owners having that stance as well since most of them are very smart businessmen. I really hope he's completely gone, personally, but I don't think the owners are going to vote him out (if they even have the power to do that). This is a question requiring far more subtlety than anyone in the sports world could muster. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
![[image loading]](https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t34.0-12/10252144_309331152550294_2111973134675761373_n.jpg?oh=22ee21a62a1d737ea9654004a125e6d3&oe=5361AA62) | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On April 30 2014 05:16 Haiq343 wrote: Freedom of speech does not grant you freedom from the consequences of your speech. Or in this case being an irredeemable shitwad for decades. It is not even a little bit relevant that Sterling said it in private. The NBA can decide to conduct business as it sees fit, including following the bylaws to force a sale. The loss/potential loss of sponsors is absolutely the driving force for the other owners no doubt, but any claims of 'liberty' and 'property rights' or whatever is a straw-man. It is somewhat odd because the right to free association is usually the argument used by the person bucking the trend, but now it's being used as a tool by the majority. If Donald Sterling were to defend himself by saying that he did not break any law, then you would respond that the law is not the full extent of your responsibility for moral conduct. If you say that it is not against the law to remove him, then I will reply with the same statement. Long story short, you can't have your cake and eat it too all the time. | ||
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
I'm shocked Silver got the lifetime ban on Sterling. I truly expected a decent fee along with a year or 2 suspension. Gonna go out on a limb again and say the NBA won't get the 3/4s they need to force Sterling to sell. The whole circumstance in how the recording was obtained ALMOST makes me feel bad for him( basically getting setup by a gold-digging 30 year old?), but I can't feel bad for anyone that makes such ignorant comments. Cuban, for once, is the clear voice of reason here imo. No shenanigans, no craziness, just simple logic and reason. | ||
|
Haiq343
United States2548 Posts
On April 30 2014 05:34 Jerubaal wrote: It is somewhat odd because the right to free association is usually the argument used by the person bucking the trend, but now it's being used as a tool by the majority. If Donald Sterling were to defend himself by saying that he did not break any law, then you would respond that the law is not the full extent of your responsibility for moral conduct. If you say that it is not against the law to remove him, then I will reply with the same statement. Long story short, you can't have your cake and eat it too all the time. I just had a delicious piece of cake the other day, and there'll be more. I get what you're pointing out, however I think it's both the legal and moral thing to kick Sterling to the curb. I understand that if I became part of a business venture, all of my comments potentially reflect upon that business and my partners should be able to expect me to fall within social norms of acceptable behavior. In fact you'll find that this is more and more true for private citizens as well (see: what not to put on your Facebook page etc), there's absolutely no reason to conclude that because he has Scrooge McDuck money, Sterling should be exempt from those consequences. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On April 30 2014 05:16 Haiq343 wrote: Freedom of speech does not grant you freedom from the consequences of your speech. Or in this case being an irredeemable shitwad for decades. It is not even a little bit relevant that Sterling said it in private. The NBA can decide to conduct business as it sees fit, including following the bylaws to force a sale. The loss/potential loss of sponsors is absolutely the driving force for the other owners no doubt, but any claims of 'liberty' and 'property rights' or whatever is a straw-man. 1st Amendment protections really apply to the government, not employers / private parties. If a private corporation wants to fire you because you made incredibly racist / bigoted comments, I'm fairly certain there are no Constitutional issues with that. I know nearly nothing about Constitutional or even Employment law, but I could also see the players saying these comments rise to the level of a hostile work environment under employment laws, which causes all sorts of issues that the NBA does not want to deal with. That said, Sterling needs to go. If he doesn't sell now, Clippers' stars will leave, and nobody will ever sign with them. The value of the franchise will CRASH. In his own self interest, he should sell now while they still have valuable assets (aka: a great fucking team). Given the current situation, selling now is selling high for Sterling. | ||
| ||
