ImageImageImage

Sarver ESPN story

Moderators: bwgood77, Kerrsed, Qwigglez, lilfishi22

User avatar
lilfishi22
Forum Mod - Suns
Forum Mod - Suns
Posts: 26,604
And1: 14,909
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Australia

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#241 » by lilfishi22 » Mon Nov 8, 2021 5:16 am

bigfoot wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:Did the rounds over the weekend listening to different takes on the situation and the only defense that was ever even mentioned was that there is no video or audio recording of him saying those awful things But while there is no hard evidence, it was noted that the image of a racist/sexist/misogynistic/toxic owner might be enough of a deterrent from players, coaches and/or front office staff to join the Suns organisation that Sarver may be forced to sell.

I've never really thought too deeply into whether the allegations were enough to force Sarver to sell because to me, they are separate matters but time and time and again, I've seen posters on this board conflate the two suggesting because it might not be enough to force him to sell, the allegations are therefore not as bad. Or there is a subtle defense of Sarver because more than likely those willing to speak out are those who have left on a bad note and so therefore it's nothing but hurt feelings.

I really do find some of the takes on this board concerning considering some are more ready to defend a guy who we know is a bad owner and we all have heard enough stories before this to know that he's probably not a good leader/boss to work for. This is at the very least, confirmation of that.


This is not whether Sarver is a bad owner which I think many people will agree. He has meddled too much in basketball affairs where he is out of his element.

The allegations try to paint him as a bad person. That's different. ESPN reporting that he is a racist and misogynist without proof or full context of the situation is another matter. ESPN doesn't put on a fair trial where all evidence is presented. Fortunately, for Sarver's good or bad, the NBA will investigate and we will have answers.

Now being a good leader is also much different than being a bad person. Sure he may yell and curse and belittle employees. But certainly, most of us have experienced this with bosses or parents or siblings or relatives or friends or teachers or coaches. Thinking back on your life experiences it would be mighty rare to not have someone close to you who has not been a perfect leader but is a good person.

So when people paint with a broad brush saying Sarver is cheap and meddles with the basketball team and therefore is bad and then equate that to him being a racist and misogynist is the real problem. In America, people are innocent until found guilty, not just because ESPN put out some clickbait that was quite frankly poorly presented. The NBA investigation will be the real trial.

So do you take issue with ESPN putting out an article based on interviews with past Suns staff because it paints Sarver in a bad light? Or that the report is accusatory in nature and little old Sarver is a victim of a clickbaity article? Or do you take issue with Sarver's no harm no foul "yelling and belittling of employees" being blown out of proportions as it's being painted as Sarver's treatment of his employees falling far short of the lowest levels of professionalism? Or is the issue with the supposed mischaracterisation of a good/not-bad guy as a toxic leader (and potentially worse)? What is the appropriate way for these allegations to come to light?

I've worked for my share of poor leaders and managers in my time and while they are at worst incompetent and not great to work for, they haven't had sexist, racist or misogynistic accusations levied against them. I can understand a person (good or bad) being a poor or incompetent leader just as I've worked with good people who are bad workers for one reason or another but the other allegations are extraordinary and extremely serious in nature and certainly shouldn't be taken lightly. While Sarver hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt that you are giving him, seemingly you're giving none to a senior writer at ESPN who's reputation is also at stake with the allegations he's reporting in his article. ESPN would not have allowed the piece to be published without them being confident they can back up those claims otherwise Sarver could sue for defamation.

I agree that the NBA investigation will be one trial and not the back and forth between the article and Sarver's mouthpieces but I also believe Sarver should sue for defamation or at the very least, force a a retraction, as a way to clear his name.
alamin330 wrote:This draft reminds me of the 2003 draft.
Lebron - Zion, Barrett like Melo, wade like Culver, garland like tj ford, hunter like bosh, white like Barbosa, Clarke like David West. I think this draft is actually going to be deeper though
User avatar
bigfoot
Suns Forum Anti-Tank Commander
Posts: 8,801
And1: 5,321
Joined: Sep 16, 2010
 

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#242 » by bigfoot » Mon Nov 8, 2021 11:02 am

lilfishi22 wrote:
bigfoot wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:Did the rounds over the weekend listening to different takes on the situation and the only defense that was ever even mentioned was that there is no video or audio recording of him saying those awful things But while there is no hard evidence, it was noted that the image of a racist/sexist/misogynistic/toxic owner might be enough of a deterrent from players, coaches and/or front office staff to join the Suns organisation that Sarver may be forced to sell.

I've never really thought too deeply into whether the allegations were enough to force Sarver to sell because to me, they are separate matters but time and time and again, I've seen posters on this board conflate the two suggesting because it might not be enough to force him to sell, the allegations are therefore not as bad. Or there is a subtle defense of Sarver because more than likely those willing to speak out are those who have left on a bad note and so therefore it's nothing but hurt feelings.

I really do find some of the takes on this board concerning considering some are more ready to defend a guy who we know is a bad owner and we all have heard enough stories before this to know that he's probably not a good leader/boss to work for. This is at the very least, confirmation of that.


This is not whether Sarver is a bad owner which I think many people will agree. He has meddled too much in basketball affairs where he is out of his element.

The allegations try to paint him as a bad person. That's different. ESPN reporting that he is a racist and misogynist without proof or full context of the situation is another matter. ESPN doesn't put on a fair trial where all evidence is presented. Fortunately, for Sarver's good or bad, the NBA will investigate and we will have answers.

Now being a good leader is also much different than being a bad person. Sure he may yell and curse and belittle employees. But certainly, most of us have experienced this with bosses or parents or siblings or relatives or friends or teachers or coaches. Thinking back on your life experiences it would be mighty rare to not have someone close to you who has not been a perfect leader but is a good person.

So when people paint with a broad brush saying Sarver is cheap and meddles with the basketball team and therefore is bad and then equate that to him being a racist and misogynist is the real problem. In America, people are innocent until found guilty, not just because ESPN put out some clickbait that was quite frankly poorly presented. The NBA investigation will be the real trial.

So do you take issue with ESPN putting out an article based on interviews with past Suns staff because it paints Sarver in a bad light? Or that the report is accusatory in nature and little old Sarver is a victim of a clickbaity article? Or do you take issue with Sarver's no harm no foul "yelling and belittling of employees" being blown out of proportions as it's being painted as Sarver's treatment of his employees falling far short of the lowest levels of professionalism? Or is the issue with the supposed mischaracterisation of a good/not-bad guy as a toxic leader (and potentially worse)? What is the appropriate way for these allegations to come to light?

I've worked for my share of poor leaders and managers in my time and while they are at worst incompetent and not great to work for, they haven't had sexist, racist or misogynistic accusations levied against them. I can understand a person (good or bad) being a poor or incompetent leader just as I've worked with good people who are bad workers for one reason or another but the other allegations are extraordinary and extremely serious in nature and certainly shouldn't be taken lightly. While Sarver hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt that you are giving him, seemingly you're giving none to a senior writer at ESPN who's reputation is also at stake with the allegations he's reporting in his article. ESPN would not have allowed the piece to be published without them being confident they can back up those claims otherwise Sarver could sue for defamation.

I agree that the NBA investigation will be one trial and not the back and forth between the article and Sarver's mouthpieces but I also believe Sarver should sue for defamation or at the very least, force a a retraction, as a way to clear his name.


No, I take issue with forum posters who say Sarver is guilty of racism and misogyny because in this order 1) he is a meddling owner on the basketball front, 2) he has poor leadership skills, 3) therefore everything in the article must be true, and 4) therefore he should be removed as owner.

In terms of the benefit of the doubt for Sarver, you have Booker, Monty, James Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Nash, Steve Kerr, Lon Babby, and a majority of Suns' ownership all saying they have not seen racist or misogynist behavior from Robert. Also, there have been absolutely no reported incidents to NBA HQ or the NBA players association in the past. You have Sarver admitting to pantsing someone and talking to Taylor Griffin about shaving his nuts.

On the flip side, in the ESPN report, you have Earl Watson (fired), an anonymous executive (probably McD, also fired), and an anonymous co-owner (probably Najafi, who owns the second-highest percentage of the Suns) plus an unknown number of anonymous employees make these accusations.

There is a lot of doubt in this report. Again this is why we wait until the NBA completes its investigation. Sarver and Suns franchise will not come away unscathed. Almost certainly, over the course of 17 years, things will have happened that will be red flags and need to be addressed. Probably not the removal of Sarver is my guess.
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#243 » by Ghost of Kleine » Mon Nov 8, 2021 3:12 pm

I get both perspectives within reason and will wait for the results of the investigation myself. But also find great potential validity in the number of various allegations and in believing potential victims. Personally for me though, What interests me the most in all of this is the mention of numerous NDA agreements. I know that at times these are necessary for businesses of a sensitive nature to a company's interests. However, I do wonder if these can be ordered opened for potential review in interest of the investigation into potentially even more heinous and possibly criminal interactions???

I just have to wonder why so many terminations or lawsuits that were settled in that context had necessary NDAs'. And more importantly it there's anything associated with some of those that go beyond the scope of business dealings? :dontknow:
Image
Bogyo
Starter
Posts: 2,276
And1: 1,340
Joined: Jul 29, 2013

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#244 » by Bogyo » Mon Nov 8, 2021 6:02 pm

Ghost of Kleine wrote:I get both perspectives within reason and will wait for the results of the investigation myself. But also find great potential validity in the number of various allegations and in believing potential victims. Personally for me though, What interests me the most in all of this is the mention of numerous NDA agreements. I know that at times these are necessary for businesses of a sensitive nature to a company's interests. However, I do wonder if these can be ordered opened for potential review in interest of the investigation into potentially even more heinous and possibly criminal interactions???

I just have to wonder why so many terminations or lawsuits that were settled in that context had necessary NDAs'. And more importantly it there's anything associated with some of those that go beyond the scope of business dealings? :dontknow:


I'm pretty sure he has done (almost?) all of the things he is accused of. There are multiple people saying the same stories, and cases, there is one or two where they speak about "more than a dozen" people backing a story. So its (at least) 13 peoples story against one. Some others say 2-4 witnesses. Unlucky for us, none of these are the true, despicable racist stuff, just the "general aaahole" type stories like the wife in the bikini pictures and the Taylor Griffin shaved nuts piece...

I would want Sarver gone, even without these.
However, I'm not sure if they can really prove things in a way which will be enough to oust him, especially not by the other team owners who don't want their trash to come to sunlight.

Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#245 » by Ghost of Kleine » Mon Nov 8, 2021 7:36 pm

Deadspin (@Deadspin) Tweeted:
Adam Silver set the precedent with Donald Sterling — he must continue it with Robert Sarver and Neil Olshey https://t.co/HADDoaEh5T https://t.co/svaYDVT0Nj
Read on Twitter
?s=20
Image
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#246 » by Ghost of Kleine » Mon Nov 8, 2021 8:04 pm

Bogyo wrote:
Ghost of Kleine wrote:I get both perspectives within reason and will wait for the results of the investigation myself. But also find great potential validity in the number of various allegations and in believing potential victims. Personally for me though, What interests me the most in all of this is the mention of numerous NDA agreements. I know that at times these are necessary for businesses of a sensitive nature to a company's interests. However, I do wonder if these can be ordered opened for potential review in interest of the investigation into potentially even more heinous and possibly criminal interactions???

I just have to wonder why so many terminations or lawsuits that were settled in that context had necessary NDAs'. And more importantly it there's anything associated with some of those that go beyond the scope of business dealings? :dontknow:


I'm pretty sure he has done (almost?) all of the things he is accused of. There are multiple people saying the same stories, and cases, there is one or two where they speak about "more than a dozen" people backing a story. So its (at least) 13 peoples story against one. Some others say 2-4 witnesses. Unlucky for us, none of these are the true, despicable racist stuff, just the "general aaahole" type stories like the wife in the bikini pictures and the Taylor Griffin shaved nuts piece...

I would want Sarver gone, even without these.
However, I'm not sure if they can really prove things in a way which will be enough to oust him, especially not by the other team owners who don't want their trash to come to sunlight.

Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.



Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.

Yeah! I agree man. :nod:
Poor word usage on my part. I should have said something indicating more severe and possibly blatant verifiable circumstances perhaps. I first stated possible criminal undertones as there might have been instances of more extreme physically misogynistic possibly borderline sexual instances that in a more sensitive climate of today could be percieved as legitimate assault and could he found prosecutable now under enhanced law provisions, etc? Or perhaps more blatant and severe circumstances of racism, etc that because those employees felt they couldn't really fight, they settled out and signed those non disclosure agreements that would cover up those instances.

I'm just aware that there are/ have been occasional instances of wealthy bosses, owners (politically connected), etc avoiding potential criminal/ civil prosecution through coercive NDAs' These people with much less financial power and limited resources were influenced by high power attorneys to just accept their NDAs, As otherwise they'd be left in financial ruin due to long extensive litigation costs, counter litigation levied against them and overall them in general not being able to fight the big law firms retained by the rich. Now I'm not implying there's definitively more to be found? Only that I'm very curious as to why there were so many reported NDAs' for these specific employees that had conflicts with Saver causing them to leave the suns, and what the context/ nature of those conflicts might have been?

I'll be content with whatever the investigation determines. But again, those NDAs' do make me wonder as to the possible nature of their content beyond the scope of routine business practices. Could any of those NDA's possibly contain more severe instances wherein given our current social/ political climate, it could seal his fate??
Image
Mulhollanddrive
RealGM
Posts: 10,000
And1: 6,612
Joined: Jan 19, 2013

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#247 » by Mulhollanddrive » Mon Nov 8, 2021 10:25 pm

Saw the Jalen Rose clip and thought it was a bit of a sneaky assassination.

Didn't outright say Sarver called Ayton a lazy n word, but included it as a hypothetical reason why players might not want to come to Phoenix.
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#248 » by Ghost of Kleine » Mon Nov 8, 2021 11:32 pm

David Kevin (@theIVpointplay) Tweeted:
Jahm Najafi's bio on the Suns own website is pretty interesting. https://t.co/HpOPkneoOE
Read on Twitter
?s=20
Image
JDLAW
Suns Forum CBA and Legal Expert
Posts: 2,478
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 08, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#249 » by JDLAW » Mon Nov 8, 2021 11:58 pm

Mulhollanddrive wrote:Saw the Jalen Rose clip and thought it was a bit of a sneaky assassination.

Didn't outright say Sarver called Ayton a lazy n word, but included it as a hypothetical reason why players might not want to come to Phoenix.


Didn't see Rose's statement, but this could be false light defamation. Often times a person who has been defamed will not pursue a case because they do not want the public scrutiny and so not want to have to go through the Discovery process, especially a deposition which could become public record.

Rose has always been salty about the Suns, in large part because of his short unsuccessful stint as a player during D'Antoni's time.
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#250 » by Ghost of Kleine » Tue Nov 9, 2021 12:02 am

Locked On Suns Podcast (@LockedOnPHXSuns) Tweeted:
As Sarver fallout continues, @wtevs joins the show

☀️ NBA voices respond
☀️ The real victims
☀️ 'Narrative' versus real accountability

https://t.co/orL6ZuVT85
https://t.co/PgrXGx2ioV https://t.co/tA51EivwcB
Read on Twitter
?s=20
Image
JDLAW
Suns Forum CBA and Legal Expert
Posts: 2,478
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 08, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#251 » by JDLAW » Tue Nov 9, 2021 12:26 am

Ghost of Kleine wrote:
Bogyo wrote:
Ghost of Kleine wrote:I get both perspectives within reason and will wait for the results of the investigation myself. But also find great potential validity in the number of various allegations and in believing potential victims. Personally for me though, What interests me the most in all of this is the mention of numerous NDA agreements. I know that at times these are necessary for businesses of a sensitive nature to a company's interests. However, I do wonder if these can be ordered opened for potential review in interest of the investigation into potentially even more heinous and possibly criminal interactions???

I just have to wonder why so many terminations or lawsuits that were settled in that context had necessary NDAs'. And more importantly it there's anything associated with some of those that go beyond the scope of business dealings? :dontknow:


I'm pretty sure he has done (almost?) all of the things he is accused of. There are multiple people saying the same stories, and cases, there is one or two where they speak about "more than a dozen" people backing a story. So its (at least) 13 peoples story against one. Some others say 2-4 witnesses. Unlucky for us, none of these are the true, despicable racist stuff, just the "general aaahole" type stories like the wife in the bikini pictures and the Taylor Griffin shaved nuts piece...

I would want Sarver gone, even without these.
However, I'm not sure if they can really prove things in a way which will be enough to oust him, especially not by the other team owners who don't want their trash to come to sunlight.

Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.



Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.

Yeah! I agree man. :nod:
Poor word usage on my part. I should have said something indicating more severe and possibly blatant verifiable circumstances perhaps. I first stated possible criminal undertones as there might have been instances of more extreme physically misogynistic possibly borderline sexual instances that in a more sensitive climate of today could be percieved as legitimate assault and could he found prosecutable now under enhanced law provisions, etc? Or perhaps more blatant and severe circumstances of racism, etc that because those employees felt they couldn't really fight, they settled out and signed those non disclosure agreements that would cover up those instances.

I'm just aware that there are/ have been occasional instances of wealthy bosses, owners (politically connected), etc avoiding potential criminal/ civil prosecution through coercive NDAs' These people with much less financial power and limited resources were influenced by high power attorneys to just accept their NDAs, As otherwise they'd be left in financial ruin due to long extensive litigation costs, counter litigation levied against them and overall them in general not being able to fight the big law firms retained by the rich. Now I'm not implying there's definitively more to be found? Only that I'm very curious as to why there were so many reported NDAs' for these specific employees that had conflicts with Saver causing them to leave the suns, and what the context/ nature of those conflicts might have been?

I'll be content with whatever the investigation determines. But again, those NDAs' do make me wonder as to the possible nature of their content beyond the scope of routine business practices. Could any of those NDA's possibly contain more severe instances wherein given our current social/ political climate, it could seal his fate??


NDAs are sometimes included in contracts including employment contracts. There are legitimate purposes for NDAs including to protect certain business secrets and other proprietary information that a business does not want in the public so that competitors can take advantage. NDAs cannot be used to shield criminal activity, or activity that tends to violate public policy. Federal and State governments often set aside NDAs and confidentiality agreements when investigating civil and criminal wrongdoing. ESPN's article tells one side of the story, Sarver's statements tells another side. Somewhere in between the truth lies. What Sarver is accused of by the ESPN article is not criminal in nature, but could violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII. These tend to be civil in nature as opposed to criminal, but nevertheless because they are laws, government agencies such as the EEOC can coerce parties to an NDA to testify by the use of a subpoena and the court's coercive powers. Don't assume I am taking Sarver's or ESPN's side in this dispute, I need to see a lot more evidence from a neutral investigation before I from my own opinions.
JDLAW
Suns Forum CBA and Legal Expert
Posts: 2,478
And1: 1,255
Joined: May 08, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#252 » by JDLAW » Tue Nov 9, 2021 12:42 am

Ghost of Kleine wrote:Locked On Suns Podcast (@LockedOnPHXSuns) Tweeted:
As Sarver fallout continues, @wtevs joins the show

☀️ NBA voices respond
☀️ The real victims
☀️ 'Narrative' versus real accountability

https://t.co/orL6ZuVT85
https://t.co/PgrXGx2ioV https://t.co/tA51EivwcB
Read on Twitter
?s=20


I listened to the first 10 minutes of this and I wish I hadn't. Just 2 people talking about things they have no greater knowledge of than you or I. I have no knowledge of whether Sarver had done any or all of the things set forth in the ESPN article, but these 2 make it sound like there are 70 people who are in agreement that he did. So did the ESPN article. Having practiced law for a lot of years and having done cases like this, I find it a little concerning that these employees and former employees have not filed with the EEOC and sued Sarver.
User avatar
Ghost of Kleine
Master of Tweets
Posts: 5,876
And1: 2,297
Joined: Apr 13, 2012

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#253 » by Ghost of Kleine » Tue Nov 9, 2021 1:04 am

JDLAW wrote:
Ghost of Kleine wrote:
Bogyo wrote:
I'm pretty sure he has done (almost?) all of the things he is accused of. There are multiple people saying the same stories, and cases, there is one or two where they speak about "more than a dozen" people backing a story. So its (at least) 13 peoples story against one. Some others say 2-4 witnesses. Unlucky for us, none of these are the true, despicable racist stuff, just the "general aaahole" type stories like the wife in the bikini pictures and the Taylor Griffin shaved nuts piece...

I would want Sarver gone, even without these.
However, I'm not sure if they can really prove things in a way which will be enough to oust him, especially not by the other team owners who don't want their trash to come to sunlight.

Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.



Also, I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you can not put a "possibly criminal" interaction in an NDA, or if you do it's not valid.
"Hey, I saw old Bob shoot a guy dead, but I signed an NDA and now I can't testify against him?" I don't think NDA's go like that.

Yeah! I agree man. :nod:
Poor word usage on my part. I should have said something indicating more severe and possibly blatant verifiable circumstances perhaps. I first stated possible criminal undertones as there might have been instances of more extreme physically misogynistic possibly borderline sexual instances that in a more sensitive climate of today could be percieved as legitimate assault and could he found prosecutable now under enhanced law provisions, etc? Or perhaps more blatant and severe circumstances of racism, etc that because those employees felt they couldn't really fight, they settled out and signed those non disclosure agreements that would cover up those instances.

I'm just aware that there are/ have been occasional instances of wealthy bosses, owners (politically connected), etc avoiding potential criminal/ civil prosecution through coercive NDAs' These people with much less financial power and limited resources were influenced by high power attorneys to just accept their NDAs, As otherwise they'd be left in financial ruin due to long extensive litigation costs, counter litigation levied against them and overall them in general not being able to fight the big law firms retained by the rich. Now I'm not implying there's definitively more to be found? Only that I'm very curious as to why there were so many reported NDAs' for these specific employees that had conflicts with Saver causing them to leave the suns, and what the context/ nature of those conflicts might have been?

I'll be content with whatever the investigation determines. But again, those NDAs' do make me wonder as to the possible nature of their content beyond the scope of routine business practices. Could any of those NDA's possibly contain more severe instances wherein given our current social/ political climate, it could seal his fate??


NDAs are sometimes included in contracts including employment contracts. There are legitimate purposes for NDAs including to protect certain business secrets and other proprietary information that a business does not want in the public so that competitors can take advantage. NDAs cannot be used to shield criminal activity, or activity that tends to violate public policy. Federal and State governments often set aside NDAs and confidentiality agreements when investigating civil and criminal wrongdoing. ESPN's article tells one side of the story, Sarver's statements tells another side. Somewhere in between the truth lies. What Sarver is accused of by the ESPN article is not criminal in nature, but could violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII. These tend to be civil in nature as opposed to criminal, but nevertheless because they are laws, government agencies such as the EEOC can coerce parties to an NDA to testify by the use of a subpoena and the court's coercive powers. Don't assume I am taking Sarver's or ESPN's side in this dispute, I need to see a lot more evidence from a neutral investigation before I from my own opinions.


Thanks for the clarity on things man. Greatly appreciated insight! :bowdown:
Image
User avatar
bwgood77
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 79,098
And1: 46,936
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Austin
Contact:
   

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#254 » by bwgood77 » Tue Nov 9, 2021 1:42 am

JDLAW wrote:
Ghost of Kleine wrote:Locked On Suns Podcast (@LockedOnPHXSuns) Tweeted:
As Sarver fallout continues, @wtevs joins the show

☀️ NBA voices respond
☀️ The real victims
☀️ 'Narrative' versus real accountability

https://t.co/orL6ZuVT85
https://t.co/PgrXGx2ioV https://t.co/tA51EivwcB
Read on Twitter
?s=20


I listened to the first 10 minutes of this and I wish I hadn't. Just 2 people talking about things they have no greater knowledge of than you or I. I have no knowledge of whether Sarver had done any or all of the things set forth in the ESPN article, but these 2 make it sound like there are 70 people who are in agreement that he did. So did the ESPN article. Having practiced law for a lot of years and having done cases like this, I find it a little concerning that these employees and former employees have not filed with the EEOC and sued Sarver.


Yeah, I wouldn't listen to ANY podcasts related to this stuff. I see people all over equating "interviewing 70 for story" = "70 people with their own racist/sexist stories".

I think we saw the bulk of what they got from those interviews (which was not much) in the story, and then you later heard about a lot of people who were interviewed saying they have never seen that type of actions and there were probably most that gave him not much at all or no comment (though not sure a "no comment" would be counted as an "interview").
User avatar
lilfishi22
Forum Mod - Suns
Forum Mod - Suns
Posts: 26,604
And1: 14,909
Joined: Oct 16, 2007
Location: Australia

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#255 » by lilfishi22 » Tue Nov 9, 2021 2:55 am

bigfoot wrote:
lilfishi22 wrote:
bigfoot wrote:
This is not whether Sarver is a bad owner which I think many people will agree. He has meddled too much in basketball affairs where he is out of his element.

The allegations try to paint him as a bad person. That's different. ESPN reporting that he is a racist and misogynist without proof or full context of the situation is another matter. ESPN doesn't put on a fair trial where all evidence is presented. Fortunately, for Sarver's good or bad, the NBA will investigate and we will have answers.

Now being a good leader is also much different than being a bad person. Sure he may yell and curse and belittle employees. But certainly, most of us have experienced this with bosses or parents or siblings or relatives or friends or teachers or coaches. Thinking back on your life experiences it would be mighty rare to not have someone close to you who has not been a perfect leader but is a good person.

So when people paint with a broad brush saying Sarver is cheap and meddles with the basketball team and therefore is bad and then equate that to him being a racist and misogynist is the real problem. In America, people are innocent until found guilty, not just because ESPN put out some clickbait that was quite frankly poorly presented. The NBA investigation will be the real trial.

So do you take issue with ESPN putting out an article based on interviews with past Suns staff because it paints Sarver in a bad light? Or that the report is accusatory in nature and little old Sarver is a victim of a clickbaity article? Or do you take issue with Sarver's no harm no foul "yelling and belittling of employees" being blown out of proportions as it's being painted as Sarver's treatment of his employees falling far short of the lowest levels of professionalism? Or is the issue with the supposed mischaracterisation of a good/not-bad guy as a toxic leader (and potentially worse)? What is the appropriate way for these allegations to come to light?

I've worked for my share of poor leaders and managers in my time and while they are at worst incompetent and not great to work for, they haven't had sexist, racist or misogynistic accusations levied against them. I can understand a person (good or bad) being a poor or incompetent leader just as I've worked with good people who are bad workers for one reason or another but the other allegations are extraordinary and extremely serious in nature and certainly shouldn't be taken lightly. While Sarver hasn't earned any benefit of the doubt that you are giving him, seemingly you're giving none to a senior writer at ESPN who's reputation is also at stake with the allegations he's reporting in his article. ESPN would not have allowed the piece to be published without them being confident they can back up those claims otherwise Sarver could sue for defamation.

I agree that the NBA investigation will be one trial and not the back and forth between the article and Sarver's mouthpieces but I also believe Sarver should sue for defamation or at the very least, force a a retraction, as a way to clear his name.


No, I take issue with forum posters who say Sarver is guilty of racism and misogyny because in this order 1) he is a meddling owner on the basketball front, 2) he has poor leadership skills, 3) therefore everything in the article must be true, and 4) therefore he should be removed as owner.

In terms of the benefit of the doubt for Sarver, you have Booker, Monty, James Jones, Larry Fitzgerald, Steve Nash, Steve Kerr, Lon Babby, and a majority of Suns' ownership all saying they have not seen racist or misogynist behavior from Robert. Also, there have been absolutely no reported incidents to NBA HQ or the NBA players association in the past. You have Sarver admitting to pantsing someone and talking to Taylor Griffin about shaving his nuts.

On the flip side, in the ESPN report, you have Earl Watson (fired), an anonymous executive (probably McD, also fired), and an anonymous co-owner (probably Najafi, who owns the second-highest percentage of the Suns) plus an unknown number of anonymous employees make these accusations.

There is a lot of doubt in this report. Again this is why we wait until the NBA completes its investigation. Sarver and Suns franchise will not come away unscathed. Almost certainly, over the course of 17 years, things will have happened that will be red flags and need to be addressed. Probably not the removal of Sarver is my guess.

I don't disagree with this. Maybe some allegations are true, perhaps all of it is true or maybe none of it is true, I don't know. I do know that ESPN had the confidence to publish the allegations knowing full well what it could mean from a defamation standpoint, so I'm keen to see how far this will go.

My take from the beginning has always been to separate the allegations and the whole matter around ownership which a lot of posters in here have considered together. The narrative that because these allegations may not be serious enough to force a sale means that the allegations are not as serious or that it's not much more than disgruntled ex-employees having a whinge is the issue I have.

The allegations are serious, I hope we can agree to that. I can also agree that until they are proven to be true, they are only allegations at this point in time.
alamin330 wrote:This draft reminds me of the 2003 draft.
Lebron - Zion, Barrett like Melo, wade like Culver, garland like tj ford, hunter like bosh, white like Barbosa, Clarke like David West. I think this draft is actually going to be deeper though
Bogyo
Starter
Posts: 2,276
And1: 1,340
Joined: Jul 29, 2013

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#256 » by Bogyo » Tue Nov 9, 2021 6:19 am

Thanks JDLAW! Much appreciated insight / expert opinion.
AtheJ415
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,732
And1: 4,573
Joined: Jul 07, 2014

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#257 » by AtheJ415 » Tue Nov 9, 2021 7:42 am

Reality is regardless of whether this is true or not the damage has been done and as a fan of the team you should want Sarver out. It is not good for the org for him to remain.
User avatar
bwgood77
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 79,098
And1: 46,936
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Austin
Contact:
   

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#258 » by bwgood77 » Tue Nov 9, 2021 7:08 pm

I will never want someone fired/forced out based on false allegations. I have never liked Sarver but you also never know what a new owner brings. In theory that richer other owner seems like maybe because he has more money he is more likely to dip into the tax. Something about him seems off though. He seems to be the one owner of many with his own agenda (wanting to gain control) so is likely giving somewhat negative comments to the article along with Earl and McD to stir the pot.

On the other hand, power plays happen and maybe he'd be a good one.

Situations these days with these types of allegations are big but so much information comes out on the internet daily that stuff gets mostly forgotten about quickly too. Even prior to the article, yet a couple weeks after the Schultz tweet that stirred everyone, no one was talking about it.

Look at the far bigger deal with Kobe actually sexually assualting/raping someone. Even though he admitted it and that it was just a "misunderstanding" and he paid her to settle out of court, that certainly didn't come close to ruining him. And this is nothing like that, even if the era is a bit different.

Ultimately it would be great to have a new owner who would spend a ton, but at the same time I'm happy with where the team went from 2 years ago to 5 months ago and where we are, and am happy with the team leadership. I know AtheJ was not a Monty fan and thought losing the finals was all his fault and may want him out, but overall I'm happy with Monty.

Having said all that, Sarver is an embarrassment, even without considering all this other stuff, so I would welcome a more reputable, better owner.

I just don't know if he should be ousted simply because of what appears to be a questionable article at best.

And a big ownership change could really shake things up and have implications to how the team played. I imagine if that other owner took over, there is a reasonably good chance he would want to replace most everyone who publicly backed Sarver, outside of possibly Jones.

I care about winning titles, and we were two games away. No new owner guarantees anything...though it would be nice to better invest in our future...G league team, holding onto picks, etc.
User avatar
darealjuice
Suns Forum Future All Star
Posts: 6,071
And1: 7,831
Joined: Apr 22, 2016
Location: Phoenix
   

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#259 » by darealjuice » Tue Nov 9, 2021 10:58 pm

Read on Twitter


Sarver's wife sending messages and texts to people that came forward lol
Revived
RealGM
Posts: 29,278
And1: 14,465
Joined: Feb 17, 2011

Re: Sarver ESPN story 

Post#260 » by Revived » Tue Nov 9, 2021 11:14 pm

darealjuice wrote:
Read on Twitter


Sarver's wife sending messages and texts to people that came forward lol

The same wife who’s bikini photos he was showing off to Suns staffers asking them to rate her lol.

Return to Phoenix Suns