Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

**NCRAVEN** · 05-01-2014, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dade

Yes, what he said is enough to force him to sell the team. When his remarks became public, it created a negative backlash for the league. Fans and players wanting to, or at least planning to boycott...sponsorships were pulled. The remarks cause detriment to the league in potentially lost revenue and negative press.

Again as I posted earlier, Chapter 35A of the NBA Constitution states "Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team"

Sterling's comments resulted in the above. This is pretty cut and dry. Not sure what people aren't understanding.

Just because I, you,we, think it is cut and dry doesnt mean it is. I ve said I think he'll be gone. But I doubt he'll go quietly,making it a nasty drawn out process. I could see it being 6 months or more before its finished. Or even close to it.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-01-2014, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Just because I, you,we, think it is cut and dry doesnt mean it is. I ve said I think he'll be gone. But I doubt he'll go quietly,making it a nasty drawn out process. I could see it being 6 months or more before its finished. Or even close to it.

He can't draw it out, that's the point. The arbitration clause prevents him from doing that.

Except for a very limited challenge, he waived his right to court proceedings when he agreed to arbitration.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-01-2014, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

He can't draw it out, that's the point. The arbitration clause prevents him from doing that.

Except for a very limited challenge, he waived his right to court proceedings when he agreed to arbitration.

Didnt Arod draw his out? Before he gave up, or did he give up during arbitration

**HoustonRaven** · 05-01-2014, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Didnt Arod draw his out? Before he gave up, or did he give up during arbitration

Arod was bound by a CBA. It's an employee - employer situation. I'd have to see the MLB CBA.

**Random Thoughts** · 05-02-2014, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Dade

Yes, what he said is enough to force him to sell the team. When his remarks became public, it created a negative backlash for the league. Fans and players wanting to, or at least planning to boycott...sponsorships were pulled. The remarks cause detriment to the league in potentially lost revenue and negative press.

Again as I posted earlier, Chapter 35A of the NBA Constitution states "Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team"

Sterling's comments resulted in the above. This is pretty cut and dry. Not sure what people aren't understanding.

First paragraph of Article 14, which is "Procedure for Termination" says: The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner shall be terminated on the occurrence of any of the events described in Article 13 by the following procedure:...

Now, where can I find Chapter 35A? The best I can find is Article 35(d), which deal with the misconduct of a player....

**Random Thoughts** · 05-02-2014, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

He can't draw it out, that's the point. The arbitration clause prevents him from doing that.

Except for a very limited challenge, he waived his right to court proceedings when he agreed to arbitration.

It is the arbitration that makes it a bit more complicate since the NBA, through its commissioner, makes it position known... By appealing, Sterling wouldn't get a fair shake at the arbitration.... I will need to read this in depth... I read an article that discussed this element.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-02-2014, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

It is the arbitration that makes it a bit more complicate since the NBA, through its commissioner, makes it position known... By appealing, Sterling wouldn't get a fair shake at the arbitration.... I will need to read this in depth... I read an article that discussed this element.

Fair has nothing to do with and unless it's written in their by laws, there isn't an automatic right to appeal. The only way out of mandatory binding arbitration is to prove the contract was signed under duress, thus voiding the entire contract, or show that an arbiter assigned was biased.

Considering he's been an owner for over two decades now, he's going to have a hard time proving duress. And Silver is a smart attorney himself. His first phone call will be to the American Arbitration Association to get an arbiter when / if the time comes.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-02-2014, 10:43 AM

In somewhat related news.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-S...Caused-Breakup

Floyd Mayweather, who faces the heavy-handed Marcos Maidana on pay-per view Saturday night from Las Vegas, tweeted out that his recent breakup stemmed from his fiancee's abortion. The Tweet quickly coaxed a delete.

"The real reason me and Shantel Christine Jackson @missjackson broke up was because she got a abortion," the undefeated welterweight tweeted, "and I'm totally against killing babies. She killed our twin babies."

Reportedly, Jackson, who had received a $10 million engagement ring from the fighter, initially told Mayweather she had miscarried. Since the breakup last year, she has moved on to a relationship with the rapper Nelly.

The publicizing of such private information, and the pro-life pronouncement, quickly elicited online outrage.

"Mayweather posting that announcement (basically called her a baby killer) plus ultrasound photos on FB is abusive behavior," Sports on Earth writer Jessica Luther tweeted. She labeled Money Mayweather and his online followers "anti-choicers." Another writer sees the Tweet as a potential disqualification for buying the Clippers, an idea the sports world's highest-paid athlete floated earlier this week. "Reminder that Floyd Mayweather is interested in owning the Los Angeles Clippers," Michael Katz wrote at SB Nation. "That seems like a bad idea."

I guess it doesn't matter if you're against something or someone (Donald Sterling) or for something or someone (Mayweather) you shouldn't own a team.

Sterling's comments, I get why people think he should not own a team. Mayweather on the other hand? I don't get that.

**jonboy79** · 05-02-2014, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

You're being a bit absurd with your example.

If there's an arbitration clause, and all reports say there is, it means he can't contest it in court. He'd have to pierce the veil of the arbitration agreement (VERY high bar) and then say the league acted fraudulently. Hard to do after you've admitted your wrong doing.

So yes, it is that simple.

I was intending to be absurd for the purpose of showing an obvious example of where contract law is beneath standard law.

MY point in bringing this back to the topic however, would go antitrust.

This is just my off the cuff, un-studied non-lawyer opinion, but...

I can understand forcing him out of the league, it's the forced sale that doesn't seem right to me.

Let's say that the team is removed from the NBA, at that point, it is the NBA's monopoly exemption that stops sterling from earning a living. He CAN'T create a competing league in which to enter his team.

And I'm also not stating he has grounds or will win, I simply think he might get a judge to listen, arbitration agreement or not... he just has to get a judge to agree to listen to arguments to throw a gigantic wrench in the plan.

FWIW, I think the end result no matter what will be an artificially elevated sale price to ensure he is gone in time to start next season.

**TonyD79** · 05-02-2014, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

He CAN'T create a competing league in which to enter his team.

Who says he can't? He probably won't be successful but what would stop him from creating one?

**HoustonRaven** · 05-02-2014, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by TonyD79

Who says he can't? He probably won't be successful but what would stop him from creating one?

His words

**jonboy79** · 05-02-2014, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

His words

yes my words.
Decades of the barriers to entry growing with the monopoly exemption.

I guess, theoretically he COULD... but it's not a realistic option in the slightest.

So basically, forcing him to sell the team is depriving him of a right to earn a living. Which might be a stretch for a guy that would have over half a billion in the bank, after taxes... It just doesn't seem right that someone could be forced to sell their business like that.
I repeat, I am not saying this from a "I have studied this up and down" POV, simply looking at it logically is all.
And MY POINT, is that he simply has to get a judge to agree to listen to his arguments, not BUY THEM. He doesn't have to win in court to cause major problems for the NBA, simply get it there..