Clippers and property rights

Just a couple questions here to think about. I am just wondering about how you think the supreme court would rule if faced with the case of ownership of property and and the legality nba constitution? Would the owner have the right to lock out the team if he choose to?

I am sure part of being an owner in the NBA, is adhering to the rules and codes of conduct in accordance to NBA policy. (Giving the league final say) I am sure it is all in the fine print somewhere when they signed the paperwork.
The thing that makes me wonder is IF Sterling were to try and fight it, wouldnt the taped phone conversation be inadmissible in court since California is a two way state, meaning that BOTH parties MUST know the call is being recorded?

The relevant part of the constution is:

The most relevant rule to what the commissioner was able to do in the Sterling situation is found in Article 24(l), which is the "Best Interest of the Association" clause. The commissioner is able to give any punishment he sees fit when it's not clearly covered by the constitution and by-laws. (Via Deadspin)

The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner's judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

Source

It's pretty open-ended what they can do, but the question of property rights is relevant. Nothing in that constitution says the NBA can take away a team. But the NBA could do something like prevent other teams playing them or cause other roadblocks that would effectively take away value.

But the owner is wealthy enough to fight whatever the NBA decides to do, so the whole thing would be interesting.

We in the Seattle area are, of course, suggesting the team be sold to the local owners' group and resurrect the Sonics.

My prediction is that it will come out that they were both aware of the recording and it was done because he could not remember some of his remarks he made that offended her. So this was to help him try to be a better person. She will never want to take the stand and reveal that this was all a ploy by interested parties to force a sell of the team unwillingly and promises were made to her of being taken care of with money by the ones behind the ploy.

a reply to: schuyler

The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This right here, "without limitation". This allows them to make him SELL the team, he is not being asked to forfeit the team.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Hopefully we do not hear about her "suicide" anytime soon.

Can anyone tell me if the league has the power to make the players free agents if they request it? If so, that would make for rather interesting times imo.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: schuyler

The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This right here, "without limitation". This allows them to make him SELL the team, he is not being asked to forfeit the team.

Interesting that you would link to my own post. The relevant sentence as a whole in context is:

The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.

I do not interpret that as forcing him to sell the team. It doesn't say that. The "things" that are "without limitation" are fines, suspensions, and forfeiture of draft choices with an express limitation of fines to $2.5 million. The first two are aimed primarily at players, who are the ones who tend to get fined and suspended, but the last is obviously team-oriented. In any case, "without limitation" does not mean anything the commissioner can dream up, though that is where the NBA is hanging its hat. In fact, the sentence in question is specifically limiting by laying out in what areas anything can be done.

I don't think they have a leg to stand on, frankly. It'll be an interesting show.

originally posted by: aboutface
Can anyone tell me if the league has the power to make the players free agents if they request it? If so, that would make for rather interesting times imo.

I heard yes but he could still use the draft to get more "hired hands". So now corporations are considered to be people until it comes to ownership of said people. Is this really just about getting a black person as the owner now?

a reply to: schuyler

Lets put it this way...If the MLB can ban George Stienbrenner from baseball,(he was banned for life several years ago, but ended up getting back in somehow) I am sure the NBA has the same rights.

It's all theatre folks.
Pretty neat how the NBA has been in the headlies for the past few days.
It seems the dead question of racism is back on the front page as well.
Must be an election year.

originally posted by: g146541
Must be an election year.

Preliminary contract negotiations, for the Clippers TV rights, start at the end of this season.

Article

I found this article to be helpful for all the legal stuff.

While Silver said he had not polled the owners, he expressed confidence there will be sufficient support to oust Sterlin. Silver's bold prediction suggests he has the necessary votes. That said, expect there to be some debate among owners. No owner will defend Sterling's racism, but some might question whether article 13 and potentially other authorizing language was intended for this type of transgression. Expect some owners to raise the following four concerns:
1. Neither the Clippers nor Sterling is in financial trouble. Article 13 was designed as an extraordinary remedy for such a problem -- not other problems. While sponsors have dropped their deals with the Clippers and players have contemplated boycotts, the team appears to be in strong financial shape with a deep-pocketed, if reviled, owner. There is no reason to believe that Sterling has committed financial fraud, and while he has been sued over allegations of race, those cases were either settled or unsuccessful.
2. The Clippers are not run in a racist way. Sterling may be extremely bigoted and hold reprehensible views, but there is no reason to suspect that the team itself operates in a racist way. The current Clippers workplace appears to be a productive setting, devoid of allegations by players or other employees that they have experienced racism. Similarly, there are no reports that the Clippers have directed ticket sales and marketing efforts away from minority fans. As a franchise, the Clippers appear to be well-run, which would make it an unusual candidate for termination.
3. Lack of 'morals clause'. Article 13 lists a series of enumerated wrongs, some of which are specific but none of which seem directly relevant to an owner whose racism expressed in a private conversation sparks national outrage. Some owners might argue that if the NBA wanted ouster as a remedy for a situation like this one, the constitution and bylaws' drafters would have included it. Along those lines, there is no "morals clause" in these documents that empowers the ousting an NBA owner. The absence of a morals clause, in contrast to the inclusion of other provisions, could suggest that such a clause was intentionally omitted.
4. Precedent. While Sterling's actions seem unlikely to be replicated by another owner, some owners could worry that if they agree to oust Sterling, different situations might give rise to the same consequence for other owners. Once one owner is ousted, there is precedent to do it again. Mark Cuban recently voiced those exact concerns, calling the situation "a slippery slope."


Read More: sportsillustrated.cnn.com...

When I first heard about this, I really did not pay too much attention to it, as it was a passing article, but it appears that this is gripping the nation, and here is what I take on, and from what I have gathered, this will have some legal precedents that may affect everyone.

If I understand the nature of this case, Sterling and his girlfriend were having an argument, and she was recording him, without him knowing about it. He said something, in a private conversation. She released this to the general public, and it has blown up and out of proportion.

The first question that should be asked: Who cares? Why now should the general public care what this man states, when several years ago, he was accused and ended up having to pay a large fine for excluding minorities from the properties that he owns. No one really cared back then, where was the uproar, when it was proven in court, that he was out right discriminating against minorities back then?
Now we have this right now, and everyone is all upset over a recording that was done, and by all accounts is illegal, cause all he has to state is that he did not know that she was recording the conversation, and thus he now has a defense, in a court of law.

Now here is what is probably going to happen, and it does not bode well no matter how it goes. Sterling can drag this out in court for years, and ultimately prevail on the courts to find in favor of him. As it will be argued in court, that this was a private conversation, that it was gotten by illegal means, and can not be admissible in a court. The court will not want to force him to give up property, based off of a private conversation that was gotten by illegal means. And there may be an appeal, but the chances are good that they will have no choice but to reinstate him. The NBA cannot simply ban him, like that as it pretty much puts them in a bad way, along with the players. All he has to do , is simply put the staff on furlough, while keeping the player held in limbo, until their contracts come up for renewal. And the legal stand would be, as he owns the franchise, he is the owner, and would have final say. And if the staff is not there, then the players will not be sure when they can play, or any of the things that they need.

And if the NBA does manage to force him to sell, then Sterling can turn around and sue not only his girlfriend but also the NBA and ultimately win, for the loss of private property and win the amount he wants.

But more to the point if he loses this, and it goes to court and he does loses the court battle, then it will bode ill for the country, as it sets legal precedents, where someone could use what a person says and force them to lose their property all on the grounds of discrimination, and this will be the precedent that will have been set.

originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: schuyler

Lets put it this way...If the MLB can ban George Stienbrenner from baseball,(he was banned for life several years ago, but ended up getting back in somehow) I am sure the NBA has the same rights.

Apples and oranges.

“It was a sweeping ruling that went beyond what many expected,” says Michael McCann, law professor, and director, at the University of New Hampshire’s Sports and Entertainment Law institute. “It was a move that many of us thought the NBA wouldn’t do because of litigation.”

McCann said there are still legal issues that need to be sorted out. Silver, a trained and experience lawyer, believes he has the legal right to punish Sterling, based on league bylaws and regulations. But Sterling may be reluctant to give up so easily.

“His much stronger claim could be in the forfeiture of the team, and there he could have a case,” said McCann. “There are some antitrust lawyers, who believe that if the NBA and its teams conspire to kick him out and force him to sell his team, he would lose money as a result.”

McCann, who serves as a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated and NBA TV, also said the financial penalties could also prompt Sterling to fight.

“He has an incentive to fight because of capital gains tax, and specifically, if he sells the team, he’ll have to pay an enormous tax because he bought the team for 12 and half million and it would likely sell for seven, eight, 900 million dollars. He would pay a 33 percent tax on the difference,” said McCann, who notes that if Sterling were to hang onto the franchise, his family could inherit the team, and not have to pay capital gains taxes.

Source

There are many chomping at the bit to buy but are truely missing out on an opportunity to show forgiveness and leadership skills that would make them a better owner than the current. It would be more beneficial to have him at the game sitting with those that claim he is a hater. truth is neither color is going away and we are all gonna have get over the kneejerking. It looks like he may end up with a ring after all this so his hate if real must not be a problem with day to day operations.