Can Someone Explain This to Me?

[O Really]

The NBA is a consumer-dependent business concerned with its reputation and revenues. Forcing Sterling to sell is no different than a chain firing a vocally racist and misogynist store manager. Would you oppose that, too?

And the fact that he's an "owner" doesn't give him unlimited rights to participate in the NBA. Each owner is subject to the NBA contract/constitution and rules, and to decisions made by the league and its other owners. Consider - if an "owner" wants to move his team, it's subject to league approval. If he wants to change the team's name, it's subject to league approval.

[homerfobe]

Oh my gawd! A white man said something disparaging about a black man! Call the po-leese! call the president! call for a truck of clean bloomers! What a crock of horsey crap. You'd think that was the first time anything was ever said by a person of note. I can tell you enough stories about us niggers that would really give you something to scream about. By the way, who uses the word nigger more than anybody? Blacks, of course. Yet if a white man calls a black a nigger the media and the lamebrains go apeshit. Let's reverse the roles. Suppose Sterling was black and he told his silicone pumped half-breed girlfriend not to bring a white man to any games. Do you think there would be a public uproar with a lifetime suspension? Why hell no. He'd only be laughed at until everything died down and things would go on as usual. Nice show though. Gave ya'll something to get all pumped up and outraged over. Carry on.

[Boatrocker]

The NBA is a consumer-dependent business concerned with its reputation and revenues. Forcing Sterling to sell is no different than a chain firing a vocally racist and misogynist store manager. Would you oppose that, too?

There's a difference between a manager and owner. And I can certainly grasp the concept of franchise. But while the NBA has rights to ban him and possibly strip him of the name "Clippers" (i.e. revoke his franchise), I fail to see where they should have any right to assault his ownership. LA can ban him and his team from the Coliseum, etc., but why should anyone have the right to confiscate his ownership of a team and whatever facilities he has paid for? I don't know the legal details of the contractual crapola between him and the players and the NBA, though.

I had no problem with folks boycotting Maurice Bessinger's BBQ empire a few years ago, or stores refusing to carry his products. But I would never agree to someone just coming and "taking" his property. Except a mortgage holder.

[Boatrocker]

Yes, I think there would be the same public uproar, just as if he'd banned Christians, Jews, Asians, the disabled, etc. . . .

Or retired, double-dipping moochers, hanging on the govt tit?

[Boatrocker]

Like I said: don't know the contractual particulars.

[Boatrocker]

Fair enough, that sentence wasn't part of your post when I quoted it and started replying, Boatrocker.

Yes, I edited for just such a circumstance. I still don't think it's right, but like all that nazi shit in HOA agreements, it falls back on the folks who signed the contracts to begin with, giving the nazi bastards free reign to be nazi bastards.

[Wneglia]

Sounds as if the Donald has been pretty apolitical (much like me) when it comes to contributing to either party. It is interesting however that he is registered as a Republican. Would be even more interesting to know how he has voted over the past 30 years.

[Boatrocker]

Defending your reputation and revenues with the tools available to you, ones that the billionaire perp had 33 years to learn and affect, is hardly being "nazi bastards".

Suppose that the NBA has no ethics at all and that each of the owners is just as racist as Sterling. It would still be justified given that he's the one that got caught. Can you imagine how ugly things will get thanks to players, coaches, fans and sponsors if he continues to own the Clippers?

Worded badly- the "nazi bastards" are the assholes who come up with HOAs. Whole point was: I think it's wrong, but you can't complain if you signed ze paperz.

[rstrong]

GQ Magazine: "...As for Sterling, we wish him success with whatever show he ends up hosting on Fox News, probably."

First he has to visit the Paula Deen Rehab Center in Georgia for a few minutes to get an "All Cured!"

If Sterling has a problem with black people, maybe he should think about owning a hockey team. Or managing an Olympic team. The Winter Olympics is the sporting event designed to answer the question "How many ways can white people injure themselves on ice?"

[homerfobe]

Yes, I think there would be the same public uproar, just as if he'd banned Christians, Jews, Asians, the disabled, etc. Most of us, by far, are not as selectively and laughably bigoted as you, homerfobe.

Bull. Who are you kidding. My question was What if Sterling was Black and he said not to bring any Whites. Jews, Christians, Asians, etc. isn't even figured in the statement. That's your silly ploy. You're the only one who responded, if you call that a response, to my question and you give some half assed answer, which goes to show I'm right that no one would give it a second thought. You're laughably ignorant. Did you get your clean bloomers, or did you miss the truck?

Or retired, double-dipping moochers, hanging on the govt tit?

Seems I recall your saying you were in the Navy, and you have been a boatrocker for a long time. Now we know where you got your screen name Boatrocker. Good thing your rack didn't have springs isn't it? You would have woke up the whole crew with your boat rocking. Were you upper rack or lower rack? As far as my mooching the gov't tit, too bad you didn't/don't have the sense to get on the gravy train yourself. Of course there aren't many specialized jobs after leaving the USN for Bosun's Mates, are there? By the way, I withdrew some of that gov't green the other day, you know, your tax money? I found a $100 bill with your name on it where you had paid your taxes to support my double dipping.
Eat your heart out loser. Your crying is pathetic.

[Boatrocker]

See whut I mean? An unrepentant- even proud- hypocrite.
Of course, the whole USN thing is probably bullshit. I doubt he could pass the physical, nor muster the minimum GCT/ARI.

[billy.pilgrim]

See whut I mean? An unrepentant- even proud- hypocrite.
Of course, the whole USN thing is probably bullshit. I doubt he could pass the physical, nor muster the minimum GCT/ARI.

in spite of his claims, he makes it easy to believe that he loved being forced to suck that dic in high school and thought he could force himself on some kids in the navy

[homerfobe]

But while the NBA has rights to ban him and possibly strip him of the name "Clippers" (i.e. revoke his franchise), I fail to see where they should have any right to assault his ownership. LA can ban him and his team from the Coliseum, etc., but why should anyone have the right to confiscate his ownership of a team and whatever facilities he has paid for?

I agree with you for once.

[homerfobe]

...We all know what will happen now - You will never, ever admit that you've screwed up, again, because you have no spine, honor, or balls. You befoul the uniform you once wore and your current bloomers every time you post here. This is why we pity you even more than because of your obsession with gaysex.

At least I was man enough to wear a uniform that in your faggot fogged mind I befouled and I am not obsessed with your lifestyle.
Time to change your bloomers Brucie-poo.

[Wneglia]

Not really. He could have sold anytime and or passed the team on to his heirs for them to sell at some point. Being forced to sell now, assuming that's what happens, doesn't increase that a penny. Plus, one might guess that the sale price could drop a bit given that, "I've decided not to sell," is removed from the bidding and prospective owners may be less inclined to reward him by overbidding. Meanwhile, he's losing money from the sponsorship withdrawals every day until he does sell, and he's still paying the players that demonstrated against him.

He may not sell (or his wife, who owns part of the team may not sell), but with Oprah, et. al. interested in purchasing the franchise, word on the street is that it may be a billion dollar team

Maybe a 2 billion dollar team

[JTA]

More slackers that think they own what belongs to all of us and they haven't paid for:

BLM protest challenges off-limits ATV trail on public land in Utah

I don't get it. It seems like the alternative is to sell the land off to private individuals, which would limit public use even more, wouldn't it? When I was out in there it seemed like there was shittons of BLM land the public had access to for camping and off-roading.

The canyon is open to hikers and horseback riders.

Boo-f'ing-who. You can't ride your stupid ATV on the land, but you can still hike/horeseback-it in so what's the problem?

The BLM says that more than 2,800 miles of trails are open to ATVs on public lands within a short drive of Blanding.

[Mr.B]

Maybe a 2 billion dollar team

It appears that Mickysoft may have won out.

[rstrong]

Donald Sterling paid only $12 million to buy the Clippers. He sold it for $2 billion.

The deal is very uncomfortable for him because it puts him far into the black.

(Oops, I don't want to get homerfobe excited.)

[homerfobe]

Donald Sterling paid only $12 million to buy the Clippers. He sold it for $2 billion.

The deal is very uncomfortable for him because it puts him far into the black.

(Oops, I don't want to get homerfobe excited.)

Get your mind out of the gutter.

[rstrong]

Get your mind out of the gutter.

Sorry if I'm blocking your periscope.