NBA Playoffs 2013-2014 - Page 44

On April 30 2014 05:49 andrewlt wrote:
I'm surprised that the NBA doesn't have a clause about fiduciary duty in its bylaws. If it does, I haven't seen anybody talking about it.

On April 30 2014 06:30 Jerubaal wrote:
My sympathies. :p I took a few con law classes and my reaction was "this is all bullshit". Luckily most of the retardation is only at the Supreme Court level.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

On April 30 2014 07:24 oneofthem wrote:
it's not like sterling is getting his stuff confiscated here. he'll still get his billion

On April 30 2014 07:28 On_Slaught wrote:
Does anybody think that Stern would have taken this same action? He basically did nothing for decades while Sterling acted similarly.

On April 30 2014 05:47 Klogon wrote:


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.

On April 30 2014 06:30 Jerubaal wrote:
My sympathies. :p I took a few con law classes and my reaction was "this is all bullshit". Luckily most of the retardation is only at the Supreme Court level.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10852199/challenge-donald-sterling

On April 30 2014 07:35 Klogon wrote:


You mean "bullshit" as you in disagree with how this is being handled, or my comments were bullshit?

Honestly, I think Sterling is going to sue on every issue regardless of the outcomes bc he has money to burn on it, but I don't think he'll get anywhere. I'm sure the NBA legal team and the lawyers at Wachtell Lipton stayed up all 72 hours and did their research to make this recommendation. Hell, Silver himself is a lawyer by profession (Clerked for Kimba Wood in SDNY; Cravath; NBA legal team). Sure there will be a fight, but I think for most of us once the decision is handed out we can forget about it and move on.

On April 30 2014 07:32 cLutZ wrote:


I disagree with the second part of your statement. The value of the Clippers is enormous with, or without Blake Griffen and CP3. Why? Because Sterling thinks they are, and in every negotiation of sale he would (correctly) say, "well you guys wont be me, so people will come", plus you get these sexy contracts/draft picks.

Also, as a Law School Grad, I continue to say that the NBA doesn't want this fight (and MLB/NFL/NHL dont want them to take it), they will lose, and they might lose all the way to the US Supreme Court losing an antitrust case. Sterling knows where the bodies are buried concerning the obvious collusion from years back.

On April 30 2014 07:39 Klogon wrote:


But would the anti-trust issue be the one raised, and if so, would the Supreme Court even hear the case that centered on that particular issue when the single-entity structure of US professional teams has already been decided by the Supreme Court? I don't remember the particulars of those cases as my knowledge of those cases date back like 8 years to when I took an undergraduate Sports Law class, but I believe it has been fairly settled in US case law that the structure of the US sports system is fine. But knowing nothing about how much litigation there is on this issue recently or the pressure on SCOTUS to take up the issue again, I'd be interested to hear anything you might know on it.

On April 30 2014 07:31 wei2coolman wrote:

Force of sales is pretty close though, if that's the case.is probably what

The exposure is pretty large here, so Stern would have to address it eventually.

On April 30 2014 07:50 cLutZ wrote:


There are quite a few old Supreme Court Antitrust decisions that basically say that professional sports leagues are ok. The rationales used in such decisions are no longer supported by how the Supreme Court interprets antitrust law, instead they rely on Labor Law (basically complicity with the players union) to act as a shield against collusion charges. This is why the players contemplated decertifying the union in the recent NFL/NBA lockouts.

He was already on the verge of winning the same lawsuit in the 80s, and stripping him of his franchise would be an egregious enough violation of property rights that the courts will be compelled to step in on one of many legal theories. Antitrust is just the one that would be most detrimental to the sports leagues.

“I can't tell you what a judge will actually do,” said Jeffrey Kessler, [head of both Anti-Trust and Sports Law at Winston Strawn]. Kessler was speaking only for himself, but he has represented the NBA players union and is “familiar” with the NBA’s secret rules. [I've also found that Kessler is the one who helped create Free Agency in the NFL, and is now expanding into the college arena. Seems like a big deal in this field.] He added, “I believe the league has the authority to do this and that circumstances would justify it.” (Skadden Arps attorney Jeffrey Mishkin, the league’s chief outside counsel, referred an inquiry to the league.)

“I do not think he has a case,”Kessler said. “I think if he had any good sense, which he may or may not have, he would agree to go off into the sunset and promptly sell his team.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117583/clippers-owner-donald-sterling-could-halt-nbas-silvers-planned-sale

“There is a chance that [he] would bring a lawsuit based on antitrust law, challenging the termination as being an illegal restraint of trade or illegal group boycott,” said Marc Edelman, an associate law professor at Baruch College’s Zicklin School of Business, who specializes in sports and antitrust law. “As a general matter, it’s illegal for a collection of businesses to reach a concerted effort to refuse to deal with a competitor.”

Edelman noted that an exception would be if the NBA could prove that its association with Sterling was somehow toxic -- that is, that the owner’s controversial reputation was damaging the league’s image, and by extension its monetary value. “The termination would have the best chance of surviving antitrust law if it can be shown that the configured relationship with Sterling would have put the entire league at risk of liability based upon purportedly continued actions and statements of racial bias,” Edelman said.

http://www.ibtimes.com/can-nba-fire-donald-sterling-legal-questions-surround-investigation-racist-rant-1577400