Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

[HoustonRaven]

I've heard some rumblings that they want the Sterling name removed from the league. I know that Silver has said this fight is against him, not her. But if they remain married, does Donald then become a silent partner? How will the league feel about this?

As I said in an earlier post. There is going to be a long drawn out fight in court about whether the NBA can force him to sell HIS property. Then, if they rule against him, there is going to be another interesting situation for the courts about wifey's ownership share and whether she can assume majority ownership and remain in that role. In that case, can the league force her to then sell? This is going to be an ugly situation for both the NBA and the Sterling family.

And you still don't understand arbitration.

The courts are not an option under a mandatory arbitration agreement. The league has, amongst all of its owner, a mandatory arbitration agreement for all disputes.

[lowrider]

And you still don't understand arbitration.

The courts are not an option under a mandatory arbitration agreement. The league has, amongst all of its owner, a mandatory arbitration agreement for all disputes.

I understand arbitration and I understand that he has no recourse under the terms of the NBA constitution. The NBA has a rock solid document, written by attorneys that basically makes them judge, jury, and executioner. Sterling agreed to these terms when he signed on as an owner. What I'm suggesting is that one way he could challenge the decision is by saying that Silver and the owners colluded to oust him. I'm not suggesting that he has a good shot of winning that argument, but he has a right to challenge in court. and I'm pretty sure he will.

Here's the way I think this could play out: The NBA will officially charge him (in writing), saying basically that he willfully violated the provisions of article 13 by doing harm to the league with the racial comments. He will respond by saying that he did NOT willfully violate provisions of article 13. The league will vote to oust him. He will then invoke antitrust laws and base his argument on collusion, and then challenge the language and intent of article 13, which would be settled by the courts. A long, drawn out process.

I'm not an attorney and I don't understand all of the anti-trust laws or when they can be invoked, but everything I am reading recently says that Sterling has ways in which he can use this to challenge any decision to force him to sell his business. His chances of winning are not good, but he can definitely drag this thing through the courts for some time.

[Dade]

I understand arbitration and I understand that he has no recourse under the terms of the NBA constitution. The NBA has a rock solid document, written by attorneys that basically makes them judge, jury, and executioner. Sterling agreed to these terms when he signed on as an owner. What I'm suggesting is that one way he could challenge the decision is by saying that Silver and the owners colluded to oust him. I'm not suggesting that he has a good shot of winning that argument, but he has a right to challenge in court. and I'm pretty sure he will.

Here's the way I think this could play out: The NBA will officially charge him (in writing), saying basically that he willfully violated the provisions of article 13 by doing harm to the league with the racial comments. He will respond by saying that he did NOT willfully violate provisions of article 13. The league will vote to oust him. He will then invoke antitrust laws and base his argument on collusion, and then challenge the language and intent of article 13, which would be settled by the courts. A long, drawn out process.

I'm not an attorney and I don't understand all of the anti-trust laws or when they can be invoked, but everything I am reading recently says that Sterling has ways in which he can use this to challenge any decision to force him to sell his business. His chances of winning are not good, but he can definitely drag this thing through the courts for some time.

Sterling may very well try to challenge it somehow...however the contract he signed is written very tight, with little wiggle room. Anti-trust doesn't apply here.

The problem is there are a lot of articles out there written by people who are not themselves lawyers and are being read by people who are not lawyers.

[jonboy79]

I understand arbitration and I understand that he has no recourse under the terms of the NBA constitution. The NBA has a rock solid document, written by attorneys that basically makes them judge, jury, and executioner. Sterling agreed to these terms when he signed on as an owner. What I'm suggesting is that one way he could challenge the decision is by saying that Silver and the owners colluded to oust him. I'm not suggesting that he has a good shot of winning that argument, but he has a right to challenge in court. and I'm pretty sure he will.

Here's the way I think this could play out: The NBA will officially charge him (in writing), saying basically that he willfully violated the provisions of article 13 by doing harm to the league with the racial comments. He will respond by saying that he did NOT willfully violate provisions of article 13. The league will vote to oust him. He will then invoke antitrust laws and base his argument on collusion, and then challenge the language and intent of article 13, which would be settled by the courts. A long, drawn out process.

I'm not an attorney and I don't understand all of the anti-trust laws or when they can be invoked, but everything I am reading recently says that Sterling has ways in which he can use this to challenge any decision to force him to sell his business. His chances of winning are not good, but he can definitely drag this thing through the courts for some time.

This has been my thought process as well.

Basically the owners are complete morons for signing such a silly agreement, and I''m not certain, that, when they realize how dumb this is, that they will truly have all the votes they feel they have.

If I'm another owner, no way I vote for this... I'd be more worried about losing my team then worrying about how much it costs me that Sterling said those things that may perhaps weaken the leagues draw as a whole by a slight margin.

The precedent that incredible permanent damage can be done based on someone's private thoughts with no actions... That's gotta be scary for the other owners. One recorded dirty joke, and any owner in pro sports can lose their franchise. Ridiculous.

[HoustonRaven]

Sterling may very well try to challenge it somehow...however the contract he signed is written very tight, with little wiggle room. Anti-trust doesn't apply here.

The problem is there are a lot of articles out there written by people who are not themselves lawyers and are being read by people who are not lawyers.

/debate

And even the ones who are lawyers are glancing over just how binding MBA agreements are, especially in Federal Court. There's hundreds of cases establishing precedent with MBA agreements.

His only recourse in federal court is to first challenge the MBA agreement itself.

[NCRAVEN]

The thing I wonder, is if the force him out and the wife still owns the team, will that satisfy everyone else? Players, fans etc?

[jonboy79]

The thing I wonder, is if the force him out and the wife still owns the team, will that satisfy everyone else? Players, fans etc?

I wouldn't think even a little bit.

[jonboy79]

His only recourse in federal court is to first challenge the MBA agreement itself.

That could take some time correct? I'm sure someone with his means could draw that out for quite some time...

He doesn't have to win(in court), just drag it out close to the next season beginning to "win"

[HoustonRaven]

That could take some time correct? I'm sure someone with his means could draw that out for quite some time...

He doesn't have to win(in court), just drag it out close to the next season beginning to "win"

Let me put it to you this way.

My wife deals with MBA agreements almost daily. From time to time, someone challenges the MBA agreement and files in federal court. Within two weeks, 75% are summarily dismissed without even so much as a hearing. The rest is a hodgepodge of results, not lasting more than a month or so. But yes, sometimes people do win their MBA challenges.

His chances of winning are razor thin and if he's the accomplished lawyer that the media is claiming, he knows it. He can't claim that he entered into the MBA under duress since he's been operating freely under it for more than 2 decades. He can't claim bias (yet) as there's no arbitrator ruling of anything, just the commish using his powers (powers that he agreed to, btw).

[lowrider]

This has been my thought process as well.

Basically the owners are complete morons for signing such a silly agreement, and I''m not certain, that, when they realize how dumb this is, that they will truly have all the votes they feel they have.

If I'm another owner, no way I vote for this... I'd be more worried about losing my team then worrying about how much it costs me that Sterling said those things that may perhaps weaken the leagues draw as a whole by a slight margin.

The precedent that incredible permanent damage can be done based on someone's private thoughts with no actions... That's gotta be scary for the other owners. One recorded dirty joke, and any owner in pro sports can lose their franchise. Ridiculous.

It's going to be interesting to see how the vote shakes out. You know that the attorneys are all over this and have to be concerned about the precedent that could be set in place with this decision. Mark Cuban talked about this early on, and you know there are other owners who are concerned. I assume they'll get the votes but it may not be unanimous.

[jonboy79]

Let me put it to you this way.

My wife deals with MBA agreements almost daily. From time to time, someone challenges the MBA agreement and files in federal court. Within two weeks, 75% are summarily dismissed without even so much as a hearing. The rest is a hodgepodge of results, not lasting more than a month or so. But yes, sometimes people do win their MBA challenges.

His chances of winning are razor thin and if he's the accomplished lawyer that the media is claiming, he knows it. He can't claim that he entered into the MBA under duress since he's been operating freely under it for more than 2 decades. He can't claim bias (yet) as there's no arbitrator ruling of anything, just the commish using his powers (powers that he agreed to, btw).

I don't think he cares if he wins... that is/was/has ALWAYS been my point.
MERELY, if he is still the owner of the team, within one month of the NBA season starting, he has already won.

If his sole goal is to drag this out as long as possible, could he theoretically do that?

[HoustonRaven]

If you're still on the fence as to whether the owners will vote out Sterling, go watch the interview he gave to Anderson Cooper.

Yikes.