Should racist comments force LA Clippers owner to sell team?

I can't even fathom how he got to be recognized for the advancement of black people. I thought it was well known he was a racist.

Idris said:

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

His invitation to that awards banquet has been revoked.

How incredibly unfortunate.

8pm ET on CNN, Cooper has an interview with Sterling,

The Sterlings are not dumb ... maybe racist, but they are lawyers and haglers in true form. They are making calculated moves right now (something the NBA didn't have time to do) and I don't think the NBA is going to get their way and take the team away with the wife taking charge. There is nothing the NBA can do if she is the figurehead.

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

if they get a 75% vote to oust Sterling, all his partners are also gone. it's in the NBA constitution that all owners sign when they buy a team. They'll be booted. In a league that is 98% african american, it would be political and financial suicide for the owners not to boot them.

I hope it is as easy as you state. One thing I have come to know is once things are in the courts... all bets are off.

This has the potential to get really ugly.

The NBA said they would not punish his wife (who is now estranged conveniantly) and she has 50% ownership. Dumb on the NBA's part to say that, but they did and now have backed themselves into a corner.

Hugh Freaking Dillon said:

Jason P said:

The NBA said they would not punish his wife (who is now estranged conveniantly) and she has 50% ownership. Dumb on the NBA's part to say that, but they did and now have backed themselves into a corner.

That must be new. Just yesterday i read that she was going to fight to keep passive ownership, but commish said "if an owner gets voted out, all partners, including family, get voted out as well"

It was during the press conference when Sterling's ban was announced. Silver was asked point blank if the ban included anyone else and he said only Donald Sterling was impacted by this ban.

Legally he should be able to keep his team and not pay the fine. Ethically he should sell and go on about his business. This will be fun.

Indifference71 said:

JonnyPistachio said:

I guess Sterling is going to fight it (giving up the team) and refuse to pay the fine.
If its a lengthy battle and he is still owner come next year, I think it might be the worst thing he can do for the value of the franchise...Im just guessing, but I would think fans would stop coming, protest will be had, and players and coaches will refuse to be a part of his team.

This will be interesting.

Yep...this is going to be a huge mess if he fights it. It will be interesting to see if players and coaches actually refuse to play/coach if he still owns the team.

I can't get away from this goddamned story in LA! I'm curious about the coverage in other cities and states.

My guess is that this situation - like most (including the now-cancelled-most-likely-for-PR-purposes NAACP event) - will come down to money. People are pissed, but to what end?

I wonder if the players et al will truly refuse to participate. Do they still get paid even if this comes to fruition?

Oh well, at least the attorneys are happy.

callen said:

Legally he should be able to keep his team and not pay the fine. Ethically he should sell and go on about his business. This will be fun.

Based on what exactly? If franchise ownership is regulated by the NBA Constitution and Sterling is in violation of that constitution, why should he be able to keep the team? One would think that as a franchise you would be expected to uphold the standards of the organization or risk losing your franchise.

callen said:

He had a private conversation unknowingly taped and distributed to the media. It's fucked he will loose millions because of this. Think of all you've said about coworkers/friends and family and having it on front page news. Is he a good man??? Different issue.

Your first sentence resonates. I mean, it's illegal in California (not sure where Sterling was when he was recorded), yet I've seen hardly any mention of this.

As to the millions, I think having your name / honor tarnished is much worse than losing money (assuming one has integrity to begin with).

I don't condone Sterling's views at all, but hell...privacy is just that. Not that I'm ashamed of anything I do behind closed doors (well, mostly ), but none of it is anyone else's business.

Anyway, I wonder if everyone else in that organization holds themselves / is held to the same standards.