From your very own link:
I haven't seen all resolution or agreements, so I cannot be sure, though I think even with a quick look the NBA has a case. I concede litigation is possible (and likely), but I’ll posit one solution for consideration that I think could satisfy either section, though more likely part (d).
As I've said over & over on this forum, you can not read. You quite literally do not understand what those words say and you can not therefore comprehend them.
There is a reason 5 people are here making fun of you. It isn't because you are informed on this topic.
Agree. He's either the biggest troll on this board or one of the dumbest people I've ever had a conversation with. The more he posts, the more i lean towards the latter. It takes three posts of spoon feeding him a question before he even acknowledges it. Then he just answers that he's right and he knows it.
Anyone who reads this thread from top to bottom will no doubt have the same impression.
I could come up with extreme hypotheticals as well:
What if Michael Jordan jokingly calls his golfing partner a "fa**ot" after a poor drive and some caddy recorded it? Does that justify taking his ownership away?
What if someone finds an old memo or email in which another NBA owner made a racist joke 12 years ago? Does that justifying taking his ownership away?
Entertaining these extreme hypotheticals is foolish. You have yet to fully comprehend the current scenario so coming up with hypotheticals is just stupid. I imagine it's just one more way to deflect the conversation and ignore the obvious deficiencies in your argument.
Ok. So this is the provision you are relying upon right?
The odds that you actually understand what this provision means are slim to none so I'm going to try and spell this question out as best I can so that even someone like you can attempt to answer it. My guess is that it will still be to no avail. The provision reads:
Termination of Ownership or Membership
The membership of any member or interest of any owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the ember or owner shall do or suffer any of the following:
(d) fail or refuse to fill its contractual obligations to the Association, it's Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or it's Members adversely.
Try to read that and actually understand what it means. A plain reading of this provision requires two things before the owners would even be allowed to vote.
First, Sterling has to have breached a "contractual obligation" that he owed to one of the parties listed in the provision. Hint, to breach this "contractual obligation", the NBA is going to have to point to whatever contract it is that you are alleging he breached. In other words and to try and spoon feed this to you, this would be a contract in writing that Sterling breached if this is indeed the provision you are relying upon.
Second, and only after finding the above, the NBA would then need to show that Sterling's failure to meet his "contractual obligations" have adversely affected the NBA.
So for you to state that all this provision requires is showing that his comments had an adverse impact in the nba is simply incorrect.
Finally, perhaps your most tenuous argument, that if the NBA owners voted him out (but only getting the right to have such a vote after proving the two prongs above), that it would be very quick and dismissed right away is also incorrect and shows your complete lack of knowledge in the judicial system and how the courts operate.
First, you stated earlier in this thread that he likely wouldn't even seek legal recourse because his attorneys would advise him that he would lose. That's stupid. If a billionaire walks into a high profile attorney's office (or any attorney for that matter) and says he would like to hire you for a lengthy intense litigation battle where the attorney fees could easily reach 7 figures, the attorney/firm is not going to talk him out of it. Pretty damn simple.
Second, you seem to think once the suit is filed, a judge looks at it right away and makes a decision as to dismiss it or not. There will be a lot of legal battles, motion hearings and discovery well before a judge would even get the opportunity to dismiss the case.
The discovery mentioned above is important. If the nba tried to terminate his ownership using the provision you cited to, Sterling would argue that there have been other owners in the past whose actions or words have also adversely affected the nba yet their ownership was not terminated. Sterling had been an owner for 30 years and I'm guessing he has seen a lot if shady stuff in that timeframe and he would be able to bring all of this to light to attempt to prove the nba is unfairly targeting him because they have never taken similar action in the past.
You completely dodged the question and your examples were even dumber. He has a history of racism and didn't make a comment, he made many racist comments including demeaning the league product. Joining the KKK is a much more relevant example than MJ saying faggot on the golf course. Please answer the question then we will go from there. Thanks.
So joining the KKK is more analogous to Sterking's comments than the other hypothetical that talked about finding racist comments in an owners email? Only in your world akphidelt.
Even by your own admission, your hypothetical was "extreme." What's the point of arguing "extreme" hypotheticals when you can't wrap your tiny brain around the current scenario.
Everything is addressed in post 305.
Well sponsors were pulling out, players were talking of boycotting, coach was talking of quitting. If it was an isolated incident where he was caught with saying one racist comment he could get by. But he has a history and a 15 min long audio of some incredibly racist views. There is no way a judge would force the NBA to keep this guy. Thoughts don't count when the Govt is after you but they do count when a private business you are a part of goes after you. If 3/4ths of the owners vote, it's case closed.
