If Doc Rivers leaves the Clips, should Ted break the bank...

[Nivek]

I'm generally not one to want draconian punishments for stuff people say. But, I think the recording in this case is really more of a "last straw" kind of thing. And, it's the kind of thing that probably couldn't have happened before Twitter and other social media was so huge. Lots of ways for folks to voice their outrage, and the net is an amplifying echo chamber. Probably bigger than the masses taking it to the pixels was the decision of companies to drop their sponsorship of the Clippers. For purely financial reasons, the NBA had to move quickly to stop the dollars from fleeing.

I don't think there's much of a slippery slope here. And, I can't seem to dredge up much sympathy for Sterling beyond the -- wow, that must really suck to be in his position at the moment -- sorta thing. Then again, he'll get to console himself for the next few years with the billion dollars he gets for selling the Clippers.

[asindc]

I think the NBA got it right in banning him. He is bad for business and brand. Personally, I would never support a Clipper's team owned by him and I probably would not use any brand that is willfully advertising with a known racists.

However, I don't think he should be forced to sell the team. As a proud African American, I have no problem with someone being in the KKK. At one time, homosexuality, interracial marriage, and gender/racial equality were taboo subjects. Being American is being free to believe what you believe and not be skewered for it (though that is quickly changing). I hate this PC culture. Having a deep religious faith can get your ostracized in the community. I don't think any of us have the right to force our thoughts or opinions on another...unless it will physical harm someone.

Sterling was clearly practicing plantation style management. Sleep with "our" women and use "out" men to enrich himself. I like Cuban's and Barkley's nuanced approached to this situation.

I have no idea if this is true, but I assume all player contracts are with the league. Think about the Amnesty provision prior to this new CBA. The league enacted that, not an individual owner.

The coach's contract is probably directly with the Clippers.

I hope they give all players a choice to leave the Clippers this summer. The NBA needs to diminish the value of his franchise. I believe his wife is just as wrong as he is and transferring ownership to her...accomplishes nothing (just obfuscates the obvious).

I'm proud of the players. They made it clear, that Sterling would not be an acceptable employer. I think he will fight hard to keep the team..that is why you have to make the franchise value tank.

The first part of the bolded statement is absolutely true. The second part that is underlined has never been true.

[verbal8]

Theoretically I can see a slippery slope being created, however I don't think that Sterling really sets one.

Sterling is in this situation because:
1. He had a long pattern of racist, sexist behavior
2. He showed no remorse or serious attempt to distance himself from the behavior - although because of the pattern any attempt would have likely failed
3. He got caught in a manner that no one could ignore
4. His actions has the potential to have a vast financial impact on the NBA

If an NBA owner has a poor pattern of behavior, gets caught, refuses to show remorse and impacts the finances of the NBA, should they remain owner?

I think the big question is ultimately why did it go on so long without the NBA doing anything.

I'm generally not one to want draconian punishments for stuff people say. But, I think the recording in this case is really more of a "last straw" kind of thing. And, it's the kind of thing that probably couldn't have happened before Twitter and other social media was so huge. Lots of ways for folks to voice their outrage, and the net is an amplifying echo chamber. Probably bigger than the masses taking it to the pixels was the decision of companies to drop their sponsorship of the Clippers. For purely financial reasons, the NBA had to move quickly to stop the dollars from fleeing.

I don't think there's much of a slippery slope here. And, I can't seem to dredge up much sympathy for Sterling beyond the -- wow, that must really suck to be in his position at the moment -- sorta thing. Then again, he'll get to console himself for the next few years with the billion dollars he gets for selling the Clippers.

[dobrojim]

Sev, it would have been morally wrong, but the Assoc would have had economic grounds
for doing it (tossing out an openly gay owner in the 50/60s). For better or worse, being
in the entertainment business makes you subject to the whims of public opinion.

It's clear the Assoc now has both moral and economic grounds for what they did.
No one should feel too sorry for Sterling considering how well his relationship with the Assoc
worked out for him economically. He paid something $15M for the Clippers. Let him
take the proceeds from a forced sale and start a new bigots basketball league of his
very own. He can be the commissioner.

jim, thanks for acknowledging the question. And I greatly appreciate your candor in recognizing that legally there would be no difference in the current situation from my hypothetical. And that's where I was going - the "morals" of the day have changed before and can change again. So while some are very confident that the Association took the "right" move, it is entirely possible that the same move could be used in the future for something they might not consider so "right".

In no way am I even close to condoning Sterling, his lifestyle, his practices, or his words. I am repulsed by all of them. I just urge caution in the rush to judgment - not the moral judgment of individuals, but the legal judgment.

Put another way, there are a certain number of similarities with the Dixie Chicks, when they lost their record deal (or whatever - don't remember all of the specifics) over their comments about Bush. From a business standpoint, the label has a reputation to protect, and their fans (the label, and some of the Chicks' fans) were turned off and threatening boycotts. So they acted in their best economic interests and cut ties with the band. Just interesting that many of the same people/groups who were crying foul then are cheering loudly now...


[Edit to add the obligatory: No, I'm not equating WHAT the Chicks said to what Sterling said.
I am comparing the situation they found themselves in AFTER they made their comments.]

You may have partially misunderstood me. I think there is more consistency in the
morals, at least as far as what they ought to be. To take an extreme example,
slavery wasn't less immoral when the Constitution was ratified than it is today or in 1863.
Bigotry against groups X, Y or Z, same thing. The morals may not be uniformly
agreed upon in broader society, that I'll wholeheartedly agree with you about.

I don't know if we should go into the whole DixChix thing. What they actually said
(paraphrazing) "we're ashamed to be from the same state as W" seems pretty mild compared
to what we seen and heard since 2009. The rationalization that they said it on foreign
soil always seemed really thin to me as well. I'm not sure what difference where someone
is when they say something (in or out of country) should make. But you are probably
correct that the record companies responded to an economic threat. I have little
doubt that money talked large at that time.

Whose ox is being gored?

[sfam]

Sev, it would have been morally wrong, but the Assoc would have had economic grounds
for doing it (tossing out an openly gay owner in the 50/60s). For better or worse, being
in the entertainment business makes you subject to the whims of public opinion.

It's clear the Assoc now has both moral and economic grounds for what they did.
No one should feel too sorry for Sterling considering how well his relationship with the Assoc
worked out for him economically. He paid something $15M for the Clippers. Let him
take the proceeds from a forced sale and start a new bigots basketball league of his
very own. He can be the commissioner.

jim, thanks for acknowledging the question. And I greatly appreciate your candor in recognizing that legally there would be no difference in the current situation from my hypothetical. And that's where I was going - the "morals" of the day have changed before and can change again. So while some are very confident that the Association took the "right" move, it is entirely possible that the same move could be used in the future for something they might not consider so "right".

In no way am I even close to condoning Sterling, his lifestyle, his practices, or his words. I am repulsed by all of them. I just urge caution in the rush to judgment - not the moral judgment of individuals, but the legal judgment.

Put another way, there are a certain number of similarities with the Dixie Chicks, when they lost their record deal (or whatever - don't remember all of the specifics) over their comments about Bush. From a business standpoint, the label has a reputation to protect, and their fans (the label, and some of the Chicks' fans) were turned off and threatening boycotts. So they acted in their best economic interests and cut ties with the band. Just interesting that many of the same people/groups who were crying foul then are cheering loudly now...


[Edit to add the obligatory: No, I'm not equating WHAT the Chicks said to what Sterling said. I am comparing the situation they found themselves in AFTER they made their comments.]

What are the legal responses? Under the agreements among the league and the owners, can they force Sterling to sell? Apparently Silver and his lawyers think so (or at least acting as if they think so). Homosexual acts were illegal until relatively recently, and prosecuted in the 50s and 60s. I assume the league would have responded swiftly to an openly gay owner, and possibly to an owner who was desperately trying to keep it a secret.

Dixie Chicks? All I know about them is that they, or at least one of them, publicly stated an unpopular view, and the record company showed where it stod with that view. If they were legally entitled to do so, that's pretty much that. There are often extreme consequences for making unpopular statements, whether they are public or merely inadvertently revealed, whether they are hateful or in some ways admirable. Speech has consequences.

Except that I don't think the relationship between the label and the artist is not akin to the relationship among a group of collaborators that the NBA owners are. The Dixie Chicks would be the NBA player in the Clippers analogy - they have a contract with an owner to perform services for the owner - only in this case its a record label instead of a sports franchise. This would be no different if a player said something that turned off a large segment of the population. The other difference of course is that the Dixie Chicks generated an entirely new fanbase off of this action - those opposed to Bush and the Iraq war started buying their music even if they weren't earlier fans. I don't see the white surpremacists rushing to Sterling's aid here and giving him a new team or some such.

EDITed to add the word "not" in the first sentence.

[hands11]

It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. Presumably, Sterling is going to fight this. If he does, he might try to prosecute Stiviano for recording him and leaking it. If so, he could get her on the witness stand and force her to tell the truth under oath.

Wish I could remember where I read this, but apparently his gf was tasked with recording his conversations because of his forgetfulness, so it would appear that the recordings didn't take place without his consent.

Sort of throws out the whole conspiracy angle if you ask me.

The tipping point seems to have been the suit seeking a return of the gifts Sterling gave her. She probably wasn't all that thrilled about the prospect of possibly having to return what she dug so hard for and decided to pay him back.

Riggggght

And just where did you hear that

[hands11]

Whatever happens with Sterling aside.

Let this be a warning people.

You can be recorded at any time. Be careful who you associate with.

And with the internet, you can be flamed as well. Someone can post your business wherever. Act like they are you, etc.

I can't imagine what must happen with younger people dating, etc and bad break ups.

[noworriesinmd]

Whatever happens with Sterling aside.

Let this be a warning people.

You can be recorded at any time. Be careful who you associate with.

And with the internet, you can be flamed as well. Someone can post your business wherever. Act like they are you, etc.

I can't imagine what must happen with younger people dating, etc and bad break ups.

I was dating hard until recently. It's all about who you associate with. Crazy is crazy and you normally know when you are with crazy. I don't feel sorry for an 80 yr old guy dating a 20 something woman. He is stupid. Seriously, you have your girl record your conversations...because you forget....it's all on him, he should know better.

In most states recording someone without their knowledge is a criminal offense, though I think in Cali it is a misdemeanor..while in MD I think it is a felony. It's just like revenge porn, anyone who is dumb enough to have naked pictures taken electronically is just asking for trouble. Most of our lives should be governed by common sense.

[dobrojim]

Except that I don't think the relationship between the label and the artist is not akin to the relationship among a group of collaborators that the NBA owners are. The Dixie Chicks would be the NBA player in the Clippers analogy - they have a contract with an owner to perform services for the owner - only in this case its a record label instead of a sports franchise. This would be no different if a player said something that turned off a large segment of the population. The other difference of course is that the Dixie Chicks generated an entirely new fanbase off of this action - those opposed to Bush and the Iraq war started buying their music even if they weren't earlier fans. I don't see the white surpremacists rushing to Sterling's aid here and giving him a new team or some such.

EDITed to add the word "not" in the first sentence.

I'm not that sure about the size of that. Being a quasi-country act, I would expect that
they lost a whole lot of fans more than they gained. Maybe in the long view, when it
turned out they were 'right' that the war was a clusterf#k of epic proportions, the views
of the angry who dismissed them at the time were softened.

Totally agree that white supremacists are not going to be of much value to Sterling now.

[verbal8]

Totally agree that white supremacists are not going to be of much value to Sterling now.

I don't think white supremacists are of much value to anyone.

[AFM]

Whatever happens with Sterling aside.

Let this be a warning people.

You can be recorded at any time. Be careful who you associate with.

And with the internet, you can be flamed as well. Someone can post your business wherever. Act like they are you, etc.

I can't imagine what must happen with younger people dating, etc and bad break ups.

I was dating hard until recently. It's all about who you associate with. Crazy is crazy and you normally know when you are with crazy. I don't feel sorry for an 80 yr old guy dating a 20 something woman. He is stupid. Seriously, you have your girl record your conversations...because you forget....it's all on him, he should know better.

In most states recording someone without their knowledge is a criminal offense, though I think in Cali it is a misdemeanor..while in MD I think it is a felony. It's just like revenge porn, anyone who is dumb enough to have naked pictures taken electronically is just asking for trouble. Most of our lives should be governed by common sense.

Subtle brag post. You post on RealGM, you aren't getting any coochie brutha...

[Spence]

The Wizards are not firing a coach who just won a playoff series and may win another. They'd justifiably be a laughingstock of the NBA -- not for the first time, but this would certainly be a new reason for it.

Who wants to work for a franchise that fires a coach that took his team from 25 wins the year before to the second or even third round of the playoffs the very next year?

Even Wal-Mart doesn't treat its employees that badly?

Okay, sure they do. But you get my point.

[Severn Hoos]

Totally agree that white supremacists are not going to be of much value to Sterling now.

I don't think white supremacists are of much value to anyone.

Actually, they are quite valuable to the people who use them to paint a large portion of the country with a broad brush...

[Severn Hoos]

Sev, it would have been morally wrong, but the Assoc would have had economic grounds
for doing it (tossing out an openly gay owner in the 50/60s). For better or worse, being
in the entertainment business makes you subject to the whims of public opinion.

It's clear the Assoc now has both moral and economic grounds for what they did.
No one should feel too sorry for Sterling considering how well his relationship with the Assoc
worked out for him economically. He paid something $15M for the Clippers. Let him
take the proceeds from a forced sale and start a new bigots basketball league of his
very own. He can be the commissioner.

jim, thanks for acknowledging the question. And I greatly appreciate your candor in recognizing that legally there would be no difference in the current situation from my hypothetical. And that's where I was going - the "morals" of the day have changed before and can change again. So while some are very confident that the Association took the "right" move, it is entirely possible that the same move could be used in the future for something they might not consider so "right".

In no way am I even close to condoning Sterling, his lifestyle, his practices, or his words. I am repulsed by all of them. I just urge caution in the rush to judgment - not the moral judgment of individuals, but the legal judgment.

Put another way, there are a certain number of similarities with the Dixie Chicks, when they lost their record deal (or whatever - don't remember all of the specifics) over their comments about Bush. From a business standpoint, the label has a reputation to protect, and their fans (the label, and some of the Chicks' fans) were turned off and threatening boycotts. So they acted in their best economic interests and cut ties with the band. Just interesting that many of the same people/groups who were crying foul then are cheering loudly now...


[Edit to add the obligatory: No, I'm not equating WHAT the Chicks said to what Sterling said.
I am comparing the situation they found themselves in AFTER they made their comments.]

You may have partially misunderstood me. I think there is more consistency in the
morals, at least as far as what they ought to be. To take an extreme example,
slavery wasn't less immoral when the Constitution was ratified than it is today or in 1863.
Bigotry against groups X, Y or Z, same thing. The morals may not be uniformly
agreed upon in broader society, that I'll wholeheartedly agree with you about.

I don't know if we should go into the whole DixChix thing. What they actually said
(paraphrazing) "we're ashamed to be from the same state as W" seems pretty mild compared
to what we seen and heard since 2009. The rationalization that they said it on foreign
soil always seemed really thin to me as well. I'm not sure what difference where someone
is when they say something (in or out of country) should make. But you are probably
correct that the record companies responded to an economic threat. I have little
doubt that money talked large at that time.

Whose ox is being gored?

I actually think we're close to saying the same thing, perhaps from different angles. My only point with the Dixie Chicks is that they made a statement (public, for what that's worth) and felt a backlash, including losing a portion of their livelihood. [Once again - I am NOT equating or even comparing the content of their statement, it didn't offend me in the least, and I was no less a fan after they said it than I was before.]

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, it does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of that speech (other than state-enforced consequences like fines and imprisonment). The Chicks faced their consequences and Sterling is now facing his.

[dobrojim]

I think we're on the same page more or less