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

[hands11]

Sterling can continue to own the team AFAIK. And make whatever decisions he wants.
He'll just have to do it all on second hand information and through delegated authority.
I hope he does sell though.

It's true he's been known to be a scumbag for a long time. It's also true he HAS
operated in a racist manner albeit within the limits of what he could get away with.
His views have long been his views and they're not the product of senility
or umpteen rx taken daily.

And Sterling ain't the boss of the NBA. The Assoc may not be able to force the
sale of his team, but they are fully empowered to do what they did do. Bravo
to them for that.

I think the guy was an embarrassment to them on several fronts. The issues with racism coming up is one thing. The fact that he is married and running around with with young 20 year old publicly is another thing.

Dude is 80. Come on.

Contrast him to Ted. Its like night and day.

Clearly the old man was set up. The recording is proof of that. Her leading questions are proof of that. She totally played him and she had an agenda. That is clear. Honey can I get you some juice. Honey drink your juice...LOL She was doggie him like a child. Right in the middle of the argument before she lofted another round of set up questions at him.

So given it clear he was set up. I mean she recorded it, of course it was a set up.
Question is... who was involved in planning it ? Anyone that thinks she did that all on here own ? I doubt it.

What was her agenda ? What was the agenda of whoever she was working with ? Was Magic consulted in all this ? His proximity to the situation and the fact SHE bring Magic into the conversation in a set up question leaves some bread crumbs. Magic wanting to buy an NBA team is another factor. So is the announcement so soon after all this happened.

I think the owners wanted him out. He had that team to long, was to old and was to much of an embarrassment for several reasons. He was a liability. The fact he was publicly coming to games with his young 20 year old mistress was both a black eye and an opportunity.

Personally, I think lots of people were in on this. They wanted that old man out and since franchises don't come available for purchase that often, they wanted some control over how that happened and to who. They didn't want the team to just get transferred to his wife who in all likelihood had some of the same issues he did. Come on. This is a women who not only tolerated all this mistress stuff, but he tolerated it publicly.

Personally I don't get involved with how people run their marriages. If thats how a couple does it and it works, that's up to them. But this guy owns and NBA team. That makes a big difference. He isn't some oil mogul. NBA owners are part of a product image. You can't role like that publicity and not get the attension of other NBA owners. Specially if you are associated with racism as well. I mean you can if you keep it very private and you are very careful with the women you choose. You might be able to get by that way, but even then you expose yourself. Its just to easy to record things and share them these days.

Its a brave new world with all these recording devices and the ability to share them over youtube, etc. All she had to do was his record on her iPhone and have it sitting right there in front of him. He would have no idea it wa recording. This kind of stuff has gone on forever. Worst you would get was an audio tape. Something that needed manually copied. Only so many people could get it. Tapes could get destroyed. Only so many ways to get it to the news. And if you missed the news you missed it. Today, we all saw it with in a day. We can access it again with a simple internet search. THINGS ARE SO DIFFERENT.

I think the owners wanted him out.

Capitalism is a full contact sport. Can I prove any of this. No. Would I be shocked if this was closer to the truth. Not at all.

[nate33]

hands, You think a significant percentage of existing NBA owners were in on it?

I doubt that. I think most of the owners privately have Mark Cuban's outlook on the matter. They knew they had to force Sterling out, but they were very uncomfortable with the precedent. With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that the owners would agree to hatch a plan like this.

But I do agree with you that something stinks about this. If there is a conspiracy involved, my guess is that it's from whatever group or groups that are most interested in purchasing the Clippers. The number one suspect is Magic's Guggenheim group.

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.

[AFM]

Nate,
Wasn't Sterling suing his girlfriend or whatever? For 2M, and she said she would "get him back".

[Nivek]

This conspiracy was genius-level planning.

Umm, yeah, let's get that racist white guy's black girlfriend to take some pictures with some black dudes, and then...who can we get to call him? Ted? Yeah, Ted. So, Ted calls him up and bust his balls about his girlfriend hanging out with black men. Get him all riled up. Then, when Sterling calls his girlfriend, she'll record him saying she should stop publicizing her associations with black people. Then, she should demand $2 million from him in exchange for keeping quiet. Don't worry, he'll never pay it. Then...we give it to TMZ and...voila...crap meets fan.

[AFM]

I'm saying there's probably not a conspiracy. She was trying to get back at him.

[montestewart]

Sterling has done inestimable damage to "I'm not a racist. My girlfriend is black."

[montestewart]

I'm saying there's probably not a conspiracy. She was trying to get back at him.

I thought it was Sterling's wife suing her, but regardless, I wouldn't rule out her having to listen to his racism as at least partial motivation

[verbal8]

I'm saying there's probably not a conspiracy. She was trying to get back at him.

I thought it was Sterling's wife suing her, but regardless, I wouldn't rule out her having to listen to his racism as at least partial motivation

The suit is from Sterling's wife alleging that she used fraud to get Sterling to give her cars and a fancy house. Sterling's wife is suing since legally half of the assets are hers.

[montestewart]

I'm saying there's probably not a conspiracy. She was trying to get back at him.

I thought it was Sterling's wife suing her, but regardless, I wouldn't rule out her having to listen to his racism as at least partial motivation

The suit is from Sterling's wife alleging that she used fraud to get Sterling to give her cars and a fancy house. Sterling's wife is suing since legally half of the assets are hers.

The suit alleges that she "intentionally deceived Sterling as to how much hotter than the Plaintiff she was."

[hands11]

hands, You think a significant percentage of existing NBA owners were in on it?

I doubt that. I think most of the owners privately have Mark Cuban's outlook on the matter. They knew they had to force Sterling out, but they were very uncomfortable with the precedent. With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that the owners would agree to hatch a plan like this.

But I do agree with you that something stinks about this. If there is a conspiracy involved, my guess is that it's from whatever group or groups that are most interested in purchasing the Clippers. The number one suspect is Magic's Guggenheim group.

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.

I don't know how it went down Nate. But its interesting to speculate. I think something went down. Its all lining up to nicely.

Like any investigation, you try to establish facts and motive.

Did she set him up. Clearly she did.
Did she ask leading questions to do it. Clearly yes.
Did she bring up Magics name and then Bird. Yes. It wasn't Sterling who brought up Magic it was her.
Was he old and going to sell the team at some point soon or transfer it to his wife. Yes
Do NBA franchise come up for sale ofter. No
Was he an embarrassment to the other owners. I think its safe to say yes.
Was he vulnerable to this kind of manipulation. Clearly yes. As are most men by hot women offering it up.

I could go on but you get the picture and beside I already laid it out in more details.

How would the owners be involved ? I would imagine something like this. The meet and talk about how he is a bad owner. How he is bad for their image. What is likely to happen when he dies. Who will get the team. How him publicly bringing his mistress to the games is bad for their image and a risk. They talk about this kind of stuff and come to an agreement that they would like him out. They also talk about minority ownership and who they might want to invite to the dance. They aren't going to let just anyone into the club. They would want to control this. They know they have an image problem. They know it needs addressed. Better to control the transition of minority/black ownership then not. Would they rather have Magic or some rapper. That kind of thing. It would be big picture stuff like this. And then an agreement that something should be done. Because if a team come up for sale and some group they don't approve up throw big money out there, then they have a PR problem explaining why they went in another direction. They would want to control this.

From there, they can step back and have a much small group take care of things. Hatch a plan. Something that keep their hands clean. Then one something is worked out, all they need to now is that its a go. Get ready. Its doing down. Be ready with your statements.

That the way these things would go down. It wouldn't be everyone knowing every detail. I don't even know if it would require all the owners to even know anything was going to happen. Just enough to get it done.

[hands11]

Nate,
Wasn't Sterling suing his girlfriend or whatever? For 2M, and she said she would "get him back".

More then that. His wife was suing here. Just google it. Sterling gave her stuff from the community property. Wife wasn't happy about that.

You can be sure the owner were on top of what was going on with him.

[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.

[queridiculo]

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.

[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.]

[montestewart]

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.

[Ruzious]

No, he's being punished for what he said; not necessarily what he thought. And if it was someone without his history, the punishment likely would have been far less severe. And if he had apologized for what he said, he probably could have lowered the penalty, but he hasn't. He's not a victim.

A semantic argument. If you're not permitted to discuss your thoughts in private with someone for fear of them being discovered and used against you, then what's the point of having private thoughts.

It's far from semantics. You were making it out like the STATE was reading his mind. People tell what other people tell them all the time. Perhaps she betrayed him by airing their conversation, but that kind of thing has happened throughout history. Shakespeare used to write about such things slightly before Al Gore invented Instagram.

[Ruzious]

Nate,
Wasn't Sterling suing his girlfriend or whatever? For 2M, and she said she would "get him back".

More then that. His wife was suing here. Just google it. Sterling gave her stuff from the community property. Wife wasn't happy about that.

You can be sure the owner were on top of what was going on with him.

Not "more than that"; instead of that.

[Ruzious]

Sterling has done inestimable damage to "I'm not a racist. My girlfriend is black."

Thank you.

[verbal8]

Sterling has done inestimable damage to "I'm not a racist. My girlfriend is black."

Thank you.

I thought Strom Thurmond had busted that myth.

[go'stags]

Sev, you're right that morals of the day change.

But do you think there will ever be a day in the FUTURE when these types of comments are acceptable? That doesn't seem to be the direction we are heading.

there is obviously no way to tell. but I think there ere a lot more people back then who would have disagreed with banning a gay owner, at least privately., than there are people who would think they are okay today. I understand the point you are making, but I think what I just said is a crucial difference in regards to the "changing morality" argument.

I was pretty young when the Dixie Chicks thing happened, too young to care/have an opinion, but I have no problem with it anymore. At the end of the day people/companies will keep what is in their best interest at the forefront. just the way it is, and I don't have a problem with it.

It's not "messed up" for punishing Sterling for what he said in private. He got caught saying racist things. People are upset. We are all responsible for what we say and do. Tough sh*t.