If the NBA has cause under its constitution and policies (which Sterling signed to be part of the club) and can prove he violated those policies, then they cut him.

He is the legal owner of the franchize….it’s not just « at his pleasure. » While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document. 2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments–in most (if not all) similar cases, there’s clear illegality involved such as gambling–that is not the case with Stirling.

People might get what they want of course–where off color comments said in privacy are grounds for taking people’s stuff. I doubt this issue will ever see the inside of a civil courthouse. It’s the same type of situation. Actually, that may not be an issue.

They don’t make people who commit vehicular homicide sell their cars. They don’t make people who commit vehicular homicide sell their cars. They don’t make people who commit vehicular homicide sell their cars. It’s kinda like a corporate takeover.A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him.

Not true.George Zimmer’s Firing From Men’s Wearhouse Puts Him In Company Of Many Other Ousted Founders more than half of founding CEOs leave within just three to four years after they start their companies — before they have a chance to become well-known enough to grab headlines. I’m sure he will sue that woman so bad that her grandkids’ grandkids will owe his family money. although, even still I think she has done more damage to him than he will do to her. If the NBA has cause under its constitution and policies (which Sterling signed to be part of the club) and can prove he violated those policies, then they cut him.

Mr. Not if the CEO is the owner. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox Originally Posted by grmpysmrf Originally Posted by cosmictraveler While I agree with the fine I really can’t understand by law if they can force him to sell the team. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners.

Here they are: »(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.(b) Transfer or attempt to transfer a Membership or an interest in a Member without complying with the provisions of Article 5.(c) Fail to pay any dues or other indebtedness owing to the Association within thirty (30) days after Written Notice from the Commissioner of default in such payment.(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its 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.(e) Wager or countenance wagering by its officers or employees on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.(f) Willfully permit open betting, pool selling, or any other form of gambling upon any premises owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the Member or an Owner, except, subject to Article 8(a), for gambling activities that are lawful in the applicable jurisdiction and do not involve in any way, directly or indirectly, gambling with respect to any aspect of the Association’s games, events, property, players, or other personnel.(g) Offer, agree, conspire, or attempt to lose or control the score of any game participated in by a Team operated by a Member of the Association, or fail to suspend immediately any officer or any Player or other employee of the Member who shall be found guilty, in a court of law or in any hearing sanctioned by this Constitution and By- Laws, of offering, agreeing, conspiring, or attempting to lose or control the score of any such game or of being interested in any pool or wager on any game in which a Team operated by a Member of the Association participates.(h) Disband its Team during the Season, dissolve its business, or cease its operation.(i) Willfully fail to present its Team at the time and place it is scheduled to play in an Exhibition, Regular Season, or Playoff Game.(j) Willfully misrepresent any material fact contained in its application for Membership in the Association. »His private comments do not fit into any of them, therefore the 3/4 vote probably does not apply. –(image the reverse where a few decades ago, he said something pro-civil rights in private, and were being removed as owner). Originally Posted by grmpysmrf Originally Posted by cosmictraveler While I agree with the fine I really can’t understand by law if they can force him to sell the team. And even than it’s not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts–this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts. If this man instead owned ten million dollars worth of Basketball memorabilia, and then said racists things, it would be an infringement of freedom of speech to try and take them away from him just because he is a racist.

If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. It is legal for an owner of a basketball team to be fired, just like a CEO can be forced out by the board. Flick probably makes the best case for the NBA dropping him.(post18)If the corporation no longer wants to associate with a franchise owner they do not have to. Originally Posted by SowZ37 It is legal for an owner of a basketball team to be fired, just like a CEO can be forced out by the board.. He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners.

I have not read the NBA constitution, but as I posted before I don’t know what ground it could stand against the wording in his actual contract with the league. I would bet that that clause is in there and marketing essay
if so #2 is easily crossed… not sure what the NBA constitution being a legally binding document has any importance because the terms in the contract in which he purchased the team would probably trump all, Where I’m sure, « Don’t embarrass the league » is written. Different situation. Of course there is. I suspect that their franchise constitution allows the majority of owners to grant/remove franchise ownership within guidelines. Different situation.

I suspect that their franchise constitution allows the majority of owners to grant/remove franchise ownership within guidelines. He is the legal owner of the franchize….it’s not just « at his pleasure. » While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document. 2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments–in most (if not all) similar cases, there’s clear illegality involved such as gambling–that is not the case with Stirling. It’s kinda like a corporate takeover.A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him.

Owners have been punished before.These professional clubs have legions of lawyers who draft performance contracts on a regular basis. While I appreciation the revulsion it’s far worse that people think there should be de facto legal consequences to remove property for a legal private comment– Orwell is rolling. Hey, I’m not trying to make waves but several other members have noted the « free speech » argument is invalid in that government is not levying penalties on him. The case will go into arbitration first. In addition to the lawsuit he settled there has been other claims of employer misconduct.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox Originally Posted by SowZ37 It is legal for an owner of a basketball team to be fired, just like a CEO can be forced out by the board.. I obviously don’t know the specifics of their contracts, you could be right that they can’t legally force him to sell it (Although, I still maintain they can based on what I know of ownership of professional sports teams-it is indeed at the pleasure of the organization. if the other owners don’t want somebody to buy a team then they cannot.) but they also don’t have to be connected to that franchise. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox Originally Posted by grmpysmrf Originally Posted by cosmictraveler While I agree with the fine I really can’t understand by law if they can force him to sell the team.

But it is not an infringement of freedom of speech to get fired for being a bigoted idiot. So I suppose it is possible that the NBA could drop the Clippers as a team… either way he no longer owns an « NBA » team.I would think that #2 of your steps would be covered in what’s basically a given in any contract, that you don’t do anything to embarrass the league or the team. If the other owners vote for him to sell the team he has no option but to do so. Good luck trying to prove that in court, especially if it’s all just « claims » and no actual documentations.Speaking of private comments, that woman is toast! She broke the law so bad.

If you walk into your work tomorrow and start telling people privately that you « hate niggers » they will fire you. no free speech about. It’s the same type of situation. We have seen many other professional leagues where the group of owners have opened/closed down team franchises.

Different situation. Originally Posted by MrMojo1 We have seen many other professional leagues where the group of owners have opened/closed down team franchises. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox While I appreciation the revulsion it’s far worse that people think there should be de facto legal consequences to remove property for a legal private comment Probably one of the prices that is paid for operating a legal monopoly. In addition after reading the conditions that the other owners might want to kick him, none of them come close to fitting valid reasons for doing so under article 13 of the Constitution. The code of « legal evidence » isn’t as high in arbitration cases.

Not if the CEO is the owner. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox In addition after reading the conditions that the other owners might want to kick him, none of them come close to fitting valid reasons for doing so under article 13 of the Constitution. He is the legal owner of the franchize….it’s not just « at his pleasure. » While they might try the 2/3 vote by other owners under the NBA Constitution there are several steps they need to cross. 1) they need to establish that the Constitution is in fact a legally binding document.

2) they need to have serious discussion about whether a legal precedent to force people from ownership can or should be based on completely legal activities such as his comments–in most (if not all) similar cases, there’s clear illegality involved such as gambling–that is not the case with Stirling. It’s kinda like a corporate takeover.A few years back Rush Limbaugh was trying to buy a football team (The Rams I think) and the Owners all blocked the sale to him. And even than it’s not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts–this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts.

He owns the team at the pleasure of the league and the other owners. I doubt this issue will ever see the inside of a civil courthouse. It’s the same type of situation. And even than it’s not cut and dry at all: Fundamental Constitutional rights, such as free speech factor MUCH higher and than civil law contracts–this is why I very much doubt an NBA decision to pull ownership would win if Stirling were willing to push it up through the courts.

Owners have been punished before..