Breaking News: Shelly Sterling wins court case!

[Dino-Might]

The issue in the trial was whether Donald Sterling had the mental capacity to continue to make sane decisions about his family trust fund.

The judge probably took one look at the 2 billion dollar sale and thought, "if he's turning that down, he MUST be crazy!"

[EntropyPR]

While people focus on an 80 year old man's personal views inside the comfort of his own home, they seem to ignore the bigger issue which is the attack on personal freedoms.

Donald Sterling has the freedom speech, it's why nothing legal has been done towards him. But as owner of the Clippers he represented the NBA, and ANYONE who has actually worked in real life knows that if you make your company look bad you are gonna pay a price.

People here seem to confuse the legality of the girlfriend taping the conversation (which was illegal) over the NBA finning, suspending and then making sure Sterling sold under their bylaws. As an owner Sterling agreed to those bylaws that in effect screwed him over.

As an "employee/representative" of the NBA or any company, if you make the company look bad, they will punish you. Every company has a guidebook or ethics agreement in their contract, you sign it, and you sign your "personal freedoms" away when it relates to making the company look bad. If I made WWE look bad, I know for sure I'd get fired because I agree to that when I got my job.

The only legal play Sterling has now is pressing charges against his girlfriend or whatever the **** she is for illegal wiretapping.

But legally? The NBA didn't do anything wrong, or anything Sterling didn't agree to when he signed whatever contracts he did when he bought the Clippers.

How many times have you wrestled John Cena?

Im not a performer, I work in marketing for WWE. I met John at NXT ArRIVAl though.

[mrsocko]

Why was Sterling forced to sell his team over a private conversation?

Biggest sham in NBA history.

Translation: "This is Amurica! Dey took his jeeerb!"

This comment is offensive in itself.

But I forgot it's ok to make offensive remarks, just as long as it's about Caucasians.

Or Christians.

[GreenHat]

Imagine this: A prominent McDonalds franchise owner makes remarks so damning that it hurts the McDonalds business, other franchises, the McDonalds reputation severely, so much so that even sponsors withdraw. His franchise employees are mentally hurt and unwilling to work for him in the future and customers are also very upset. Furthermore, he has a history of such damning remarks and actions.

How long do you think he remains a McDonalds franchise owner?

Until he dies or sells.

Sterling's remarks didn't actually hurt the NBA longterm (just as his previous remarks and actions didn't which were worse didn't). And his employees kept working for him despite empty threats to the contrary. Fans also kept showing up.

You are very narrow-minded. His previous actions lacked the evidence and were not as blatant as this past recording. Furthermore, his employees had clear plans to stop working for him and only worked one game under his ownership before Silver banned him.

So no, the McDonalds owner would be removed immediately.

SO why would his employees play that game? They didn't know he would be banned after. If anything that would be the game to skip if you were serious. Instead they wore their uniforms inside out.

His actions got him convicted in a court of law. There was clear and blatant evidence. In reality most fans don't care about the morality of their owners. They might get mad for a little while but longterm they sweep it under the rug.

And no the Mcdonald's owner would not be removed immediately. As someone who has been involved in that business as an owner before (not particularly Mcdonalds) you are way off.

[SwiLL2432]

Im not a performer, I work in marketing for WWE. I met John at NXT ArRIVAl though.

Performer? Dont you mean athlete? Lol Dolph Ziggler FTW

[QRich3]

Until he dies or sells.

Sterling's remarks didn't actually hurt the NBA longterm (just as his previous remarks and actions didn't which were worse didn't). And his employees kept working for him despite empty threats to the contrary. Fans also kept showing up.

You are very narrow-minded. His previous actions lacked the evidence and were not as blatant as this past recording. Furthermore, his employees had clear plans to stop working for him and only worked one game under his ownership before Silver banned him.

So no, the McDonalds owner would be removed immediately.

SO why would his employees play that game? They didn't know he would be banned after. If anything that would be the game to skip if you were serious. Instead they wore their uniforms inside out.

His actions got him convicted in a court of law. There was clear and blatant evidence. In reality most fans don't care about the morality of their owners. They might get mad for a little while but longterm they sweep it under the rug.

And no the Mcdonald's owner would not be removed immediately. As someone who has been involved in that business as an owner before (not particularly Mcdonalds) you are way off.

No, they did not. He settled all those discrimination cases outside of court, paying up to $8 million for some of them. That's why there wasn't proof, and you can't kick a guy out without hard evidence, even if it's blatant he's guilty.

Also, this is not the first time the NBA tried to remove Sterling, if you try to push him out every year without evidence to do it successfully, you're only making the guy stronger. From the LA Times in 1982:



As for his employees not boycotting right away, you're asking for a big time decision that will greatly affect their careers (givin up the most likely successful playoff run in the career of most of them) just in case he doesn't get removed. It's wisest to wait and see if the powers that be take care of it, without the need of something that drastic. In the end, time showed they were right and the NBA successfully removed Sterling without them needing to just give up a year of work. That doesn't mean that if it was needed they wouldn't do it as a last measure.

[GreenHat]

You are very narrow-minded. His previous actions lacked the evidence and were not as blatant as this past recording. Furthermore, his employees had clear plans to stop working for him and only worked one game under his ownership before Silver banned him.

So no, the McDonalds owner would be removed immediately.

SO why would his employees play that game? They didn't know he would be banned after. If anything that would be the game to skip if you were serious. Instead they wore their uniforms inside out.

His actions got him convicted in a court of law. There was clear and blatant evidence. In reality most fans don't care about the morality of their owners. They might get mad for a little while but longterm they sweep it under the rug.

And no the Mcdonald's owner would not be removed immediately. As someone who has been involved in that business as an owner before (not particularly Mcdonalds) you are way off.

No, they did not. He settled all those discrimination cases outside of court, paying up to $8 million for some of them. That's why there wasn't proof, and you can't kick a guy out without hard evidence, even if it's blatant he's guilty.

Also, this is not the first time the NBA tried to remove Sterling, if you try to push him out every year without evidence to do it successfully, you're only making the guy stronger. From the LA Times in 1982:



As for his employees not boycotting right away, you're asking for a big time decision that will greatly affect their careers (givin up the most likely successful playoff run in the career of most of them) just in case he doesn't get removed. It's wisest to wait and see if the powers that be take care of it, without the need of something that drastic. In the end, time showed they were right and the NBA successfully removed Sterling without them needing to just give up a year of work. That doesn't mean that if it was needed they wouldn't do it as a last measure.

My mistake. I thought he had lost in court.

But yes he has had several salacious settlements which didn't hurt the team or league longterm in terms of fans/sponsors/employees. I think this would have died down and had no longterm effect. The previous assertion that the franchise would cease to function is absurd.

You're speculating at best on the players. Nearly every time there is talk of a boycott it ends at just a talk. How many games do you think they would have waited? What we do know is no matter how upset they were, they still played.