Well...
Here are the latest two fronts on the Sterling war against the NBA and all good taste...
1) Shelley Sterling has gone ahead with her (IMHO, illegal) attempt to sell the team, with early bids coming in to her believed to be in the range of $1 - 1.2 billion, ESPN reports.
This is becoming so obviously a tactic to force the situation into open court, it's not even funny.
On surface, the maneuver actually makes sense.
Sterling can't directly sue the NBA for the banishment or the almost-certain decision (though I no longer believe it will be unanimous, unless Mark Cuban is forced, through gritted teeth, by Commissioner Silver to make it so) for the removal of LACBC Inc. from the league, scheduled for June 3 at 1 PM EDT.
So what he does instead is, in violation of his banishment from the league on April 29 (and probably to set up a court battle to overturn it), he gives up his share of control over the Clippers to Rochelle Sterling and allows Rochelle to begin the process to sell the team.
What he's probably done is forced the league to contract the Clippers.
It is now believed that an agreement-in-principle will be reached on Monday (after a second round of bidding this weekend), and the Sterlings believe that will be enough to placate the NBA and the like.
Too bad the NBA has to approve any sale.
I would have to believe that the result of this will be a protracted ownership fight in court with the NBA vs. the Sterlings and whoever wins this bidding war, and that will force the league to attempt to contract the Clippers (because this sale is, as of April 29, a complete illegality to the fact that Sterling cannot associate with or make any business decisions regarding the Clippers).
As much of a shithead slimeball this idiot Donald Sterling is, I think it's clear he has a solid strategy here:
a) Simultaneous with this effort, challenge the removal under the By-Laws and Constitution -- I'll get to that in a bit.
b) Have a buyer in place before the June 3 vote.
c) Once he loses the vote, the league would then have to approve the new buyer.
d) But since that buyer came from an illegal action by Sterling (only the new NBA-installed CEO has the power that the Sterlings assert), the NBA would probably be forced to reject this buyer.
e) At which point Sterling sues for his property rights (the actual property of the Clippers), since he believes that, by the banishment, he is deprived of his property rights without due process of the law.
f) This probably forces the league to contract the Clippers, or conduct next season with 29 teams and basically put Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, etc. on the free-agent market immediately.
Which brings us to the second piece of Sterling news...
2) The official Sterling written challenge to the charges has been filed and made public.
A sizeable .PDF file from ESPN (the NBA did not provide a copy of the response -- it actually was found by the Associated press) is linked here.
The NBA did, however, through the Associated Press, highlight five main legal challenges that the Sterlings have:
Point One: The Living Room Defense
It starts right off the top with the Introduction to the response:
"On the basis of remarks made in a living room during a “lovers’ quarrel,” which were illegally recorded and then disclosed months later in retaliation for a lawsuit by Mr. Sterling’s wife, the NBA seeks to forcibly strip Mr. Sterling and his wife of their ownership interest in the Los Angeles Clippers. The NBA’s use of this illegal recording constitutes a clear and blatant violation of Mr. Sterling’s California constitutional rights. The authors of the charge did not have the courage, decency, or honesty to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding Mr. Sterling’s jealous rant or even that the source of their information was borne from the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
It basically brings into the fore that this is actually an action against who Donald Sterling is as a person, not what he is as an owner (which, of course, should immediately be countered with his team's winning percentage over this tenure, the worst in the history of North American pro sports with 15+ years as owner) or a businessman.
I think it's time the courts really take a look at -- especially in the day and age of social media and how people are routinely getting fired for stupid statements they make on social media about their jobs or supervisors -- the freedom of speech as it relates to a person's job, especially when it does (as in Sterling's case) play into criminally-illegal acts he is known and stipulated to have committed with respect to racism in housing practices and probably employment practices with the Clippers as well.
No secret can be made that this is an action out of convenience -- a failure to expel Sterling probably terminates play, possibly permanently with such an extended litigious situation. He's gone, or the bulk of the NBA players are gone.
Because of his racism, revealed here, the NBA cannot continue play with him involved with the league in any capacity.
So regardless of where Silver and the other Owners/Governors got this information, they either act or fold their cards.
Point Two: How Many Parties Must Consent -- Which State's Laws Decide?
There's another problem with the previous (and subsequent) claims: Sterling asserts his rights under the California Constitution, where the NBA's actions take place under the New York Constitution.
I do believe the NBA has been extremely sloppy over Donald Sterling (in fact, the continued questions of how Sterling's racism could've been allowed under the David Stern investigation probably should've been brought up by Sterling's lawyers here, in saying that most of the charges relate to the tapes they believe to be illegal).
But this almost forces the situation into an open court battle, since the NBA will state that, since Sterling agreed to the NBA Constitution, he agreed to all challenges being done under New York law (where only one party needs to consent to a recorded conversation), so his claims of California protection (in which both parties need to consent) are void.
Point Three: Consistency of Punishments
Here, Sterling may have a point.
Whether it's worth anything is another question.
Why is Mark Cuban allowed to remain in the league after $1.6 million in fines for comments against the integrity of the league and it's officiating?
(Side comment: I could easily see that particular case being addressed shortly after the June 3 meeting. I can't think that Cuban's comments to that one conference are not going to be investigated by the league.)
How about Kobe Bryant and his homophobic slur against the official?
(Side comment: I do agree that I believe that Bryant should've been banned for the playoffs and perhaps a significant portion of the following season, but I also believe it clear that the NBA ensured that Bryant's Lakers (and, later, Joachim Noah's similar slur against a fan ensuring for the Bulls) were eliminated quickly in the playoffs -- leaving basically Cuban's Mavericks as a no-choice.)
That's just two examples, but there is no precedent for such a removal under the NBA's rules. The closest precedent is the removal of Marge Schott from ownership of the Cincinnati Reds, but is that going to fly with the NBA?
And so he then asks why, for similar offenses (and, in this way, he is correct -- the NBA's policy of inclusion especially), Bryant and Noah are still in the league and they are trying to get rid of him.
Point Four: The Time Frame
This one, he will lose, because he does not have the rights, as he would as a criminal defendant, to waive a speedy trial.
The NBA sets forth a strict timetable for this purpose: Charge -- Five Days -- Response -- Ten Days -- Hearing.
He won't be able to challenge that, again, through that he agreed to the NBA Constitution in the first place.
Part Five: See Above. Who Would the New Owners Be?
I think Sterling's best cases here are on the consistency question and on the question of who is next?
The more I read information on this subject, the more I believe the simplest/best/only non-players-strike solution to the issue (because an injunction against the league to keep the Clippers and the Sterlings in will almost certainly result in a league-wide work stoppage) might be The Nuclear Option of Zot -- fold the Clippers, create a new expansion franchise, wave your hands and take your chances.
Between this and the O'Bannon lawsuit, we are going to be in court a lot over the summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment