Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728 LastLast
Results 313 to 324 of 334
  1. #313
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,311

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?



    No, he couldn't have dragged this out. Not with the arbitration agreement.

    And he didn't sell the team. His wife did.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #314

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    No, he couldn't have dragged this out. Not with the arbitration agreement.

    And he didn't sell the team. His wife did.
    I know you are SUPREMELY confident in your stance re: dragging it out, and I know why(MRS HR) but I simply don't buy it. sorry. It is what it is. The arbitration agreement doesn't block out the sun, the constitution and every other law and practice in this country.

    And the Sterlings are still married, so they both sold it.




  3. #315
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,311

    Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    I know you are SUPREMELY confident in your stance re: dragging it out, and I know why(MRS HR) but I simply don't buy it. sorry. It is what it is. The arbitration agreement doesn't block out the sun, the constitution and every other law and practice in this country.
    Certainly your right to believe that. I have hundreds of cases and precedent on my side, all concluding what I've been saying about binding arbitration.

    There's no constitutional dispute in this matter so you bringing that up is a straw man.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    And the Sterlings are still married, so they both sold it.
    He gave her permission to sell. She sold the team.
    Last edited by HoustonRaven; 05-30-2014 at 12:03 PM.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #316

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Certainly your right to believe that. I have hundreds of cases and precedent on my side, all concluding what I've been saying about binding arbitration.

    There's no constitutional dispute in this matter so you bringing that up is a straw man.

    .
    So if the owners voted him "out" and the top bid for the team was $1 he has no recourse?

    That isn't an anti-trust violation as the owners conspired against him? Not all "media legal experts" agree with you.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...am-silver-nba/

    and another that includes precedent.
    http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...429-story.html




  5. #317
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,311

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    So if the owners voted him "out" and the top bid for the team was $1 he has no recourse?
    Him selling and voting him out are two different things.

    Because of the binding arbitration agreement, he had two options -- not sell and get voted out or sell and make some cash -- and he went with the option that was best for him.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    That isn't an anti-trust violation as the owners conspired against him? Not all "media legal experts" agree with you.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...am-silver-nba/

    and another that includes precedent.
    http://www.latimes.com/sports/sports...429-story.html
    For one, the SI article has been posted probably a half a dozen times, has been rebutted in full and is now over a month old. It couldn't be any less topical to this discussion.

    The LA Times article is just as old and ponders things that we know are true or not true, now that a month has passed and things have changed since its writing. The author suggest their bylaws may be binding "like arbitration". Well, we now know it's is in fact a binding arbitration agreement and that Sterling signed it. The author is discredited by the second paragraph.

    I aware of the anti-trust claims and I don't care what the media "experts" say. The owners are allowed to collude amongst themselves when the topic of their collusion is league business. By these "experts" definition, every decision that they make is subject to anti-trust violation. It's a very lazy way to examine the evidence. As discussed earlier in the thread, saying Sterling has options gets more clicks. Arbitration restrictions do not.

    BTW, for someone who is over the top skeptical of the media, you sure do rely on them when it suits your argument.

    Glad you moved on from the Constitutional side of the coin though.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  6. #318

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    By constitution I was hinting at Anti-trust.

    In this day and age, our litigious society with bench legislation being standard practice, I simply suggest that finding a judge to block the sale/theft of the team for a matter of weeks or months is a reasonable scenario, IMO. Never once came remotely close to suggesting he would win, simply that he could delay long enough to get a fair sale price(which, I originally thought would be closer to next season starting). He obviously needed to do NONE of that to get a well above fair sale price so it is totally moot at this point.




  7. #319
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    7,809

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    NBA has approved the sale. Now it goes to the owners for a vote.

    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/s...geles-clippers

    As part of the sale agreement, Shelly Sterling and the Sterling family trust have agreed not to sue the NBA and to absolve the NBA of litigation by others, including Donald Sterling.
    "I got this." - Justin Tucker




  8. #320
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastern Shore
    Posts
    2,399

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyD79 View Post
    Pretty sure he will make more than that. But his wife will get at least half. I heard an analysis on espn. They said that sterling only went to court when he was sure he'd win. His style is more to settle. I didn't research it personally, but if they were right, this fits his M.O. yet the media loved to play up the litigation angle.
    $2 billion. Wow! I didn't see that coming, nor did anyone else. I thought maybe if there were several interested groups bidding that it would drive the price up, but man that's an insane amount of money.

    I think Sterling laughs all the way to the bank.
    Last edited by lowrider; 05-31-2014 at 09:00 AM.
    "Screw it, let's ride"!




  9. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    By constitution I was hinting at Anti-trust. In this day and age, our litigious society with bench legislation being standard practice, I simply suggest that finding a judge to block the sale/theft of the team for a matter of weeks or months is a reasonable scenario, IMO. Never once came remotely close to suggesting he would win, simply that he could delay long enough to get a fair sale price(which, I originally thought would be closer to next season starting). He obviously needed to do NONE of that to get a well above fair sale price so it is totally moot at this point.
    The man would have to be insane to postpone a $2 billion sale.

    Oh, wait.....




  10. #322

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyD79 View Post
    The man would have to be insane to postpone a $2 billion sale.

    Oh, wait.....
    yup...

    and would have to be insane to NOT attempt to postpone a $300m sale price, if that was the offer...

    I was ASSuming, that was the type of "fire sale" offers he was going to receive. A few pages back I "estimated" the value around $800m, based on Forbes #'s and recent sales(Bucks).




  11. #323

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyD79 View Post
    The man would have to be insane to postpone a $2 billion sale.

    Oh, wait.....
    LOL




  12. #324
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,311

    Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyD79 View Post
    The man would have to be insane to postpone a $2 billion sale.

    Oh, wait.....
    Well played, Sir
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland