# Banned for Life.



## Hunter922 (Apr 29, 2014)

Billionaire owner not able to play with his NBA toy.. Clippers just got better he was and idiot owner before the comments anyway.


----------



## Randy (Apr 29, 2014)

It's a shame.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 29, 2014)

I haven't been following this story, but where were these comments made?  If in private, how on earth can the NBA ban him for life?


----------



## across the river (Apr 29, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> I haven't been following this story, but where were these comments made?  If in private, how on earth can the NBA ban him for life?



It is a private organization. They have their own rules, so they can do whatever they want within the context of those rules.  The comments were taped, so if they can verify it they have complete authority to have the owners vote him out, fine him, ban him, or whatever else the rules allow.  I'm sure that there will be litigation at some point, but the team (i.e. owner) signed a contract to submit to the NBA's rules, so as long as that act in that framework he doesn't have much of a case IMO.


----------



## Hooked On Quack (Apr 29, 2014)

Really ???  Does it matter ??  Dood has more $$$$ than all of us could spend in 10 lifetimes.


----------



## riprap (Apr 29, 2014)

His girlfriend should get some sort of punishment for taping the phone call without consent. The players union forced the league to get it done. He should be banned, but I'm sure his money will be welcomed in many places.


----------



## RipperIII (Apr 29, 2014)

reckon this new commish will be as harsh on the players?

p.s. I don't condone his behavior, nor do I condone the release of a private conversation under what will prove to be somewhat more convoluted motives. This guy won't go away easy.

Kareem Abdul-Jabar put it best, check out his comments.


----------



## Gadestroyer74 (Apr 29, 2014)

Wander what would happen if it was a black saying white race things ..... NOTHING !


----------



## Outlaw Dawgsey Wales (Apr 30, 2014)

Gadestroyer74 said:


> Wander what would happen if it was a black saying white race things ..... NOTHING !



We have a Winner!!!


----------



## Mako22 (Apr 30, 2014)

I saw a headline where some black player was calling for an all black league in response to the racism........ummmmmmm.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

I wonder if they'll ban rapists and wife beaters, or are harsh punishments reserved for non-moneymakers for the league?


----------



## Gadestroyer74 (Apr 30, 2014)

I certainly am not a racist hater however.. Every time it's a black race thing the whole us has got to he a uproar and get every black powerful person involved... Next time I get called a cracker I'm gonna start a riot lol


----------



## Bitteroot (Apr 30, 2014)

Just another reason for me to never ever watch the over paid thugs....

If those players were soooo offended... they should quit and walk away from their salaries.....


----------



## BrotherBadger (Apr 30, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> I wonder if they'll ban rapists and wife beaters, or are harsh punishments reserved for non-moneymakers for the league?



Owners don't have a CBA(although they do have to agree to the association's constitution). The commissioner can only dole out punishment for violations agreed to in the cba. I'd bet silver would bring out the BAN hammer pretty quick on some of them if he could.



Woodsman69 said:


> I saw a headline where some black player was calling for an all black league in response to the racism........ummmmmmm.



Ex player. Big difference. It's no different than if you or I were to suggest the same thing.



riprap said:


> His girlfriend should get some sort of punishment for taping the phone call without consent. The players union forced the league to get it done. He should be banned, but I'm sure his money will be welcomed in many places.



Depends on where it was taped. Some states have single party consent, where only one person needs to be aware of the recording. If it was taped in CA, then that's different as they are dual party consent iirc.


Bitteroot said:


> Just another reason for me to never ever watch the over paid thugs....
> 
> If those players were soooo offended... they should quit and walk away from their salaries.....



It's about money. Having a racist owner who says this stuff hurts your bottom line when a majority of fans are black. Once sponsors started pulling out they knew they had to make the move.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

Badger, your last comment is complete nonsense.  You act like sponsors wouldn't come back.  The sponsors bailed because it was a pr move.  Those same sponsors would come back once the dust settled, if Sterling would have allowed them.

If the owner had made these comments publicly, then I could see the issue.  As for the AA's making up the majority of the fan base, maybe more minority owned businesses will start advertising with the NBA.


----------



## Gadestroyer74 (Apr 30, 2014)

It's sad that such a uproar was made over ones opinions no act of violence or anything. Yet look at the economy . Do you seem them making a uproar over that or any well being issues of this country ? Nope goes back to feeling like everyone owes them something goes back to past black history of events. What about the blacks that wear NASCAR jackets and camoflague that you know clearly don't give to rats about it just an attempt to mock white people nothing is done about that. I have lots of black friends and they are no different that the average joe. It's nothing more than a power trip move and money..pretty funny he has relations with a mixed woman and is married yet you don't hear his so called wife worried about that.. Whole lot more going on In this mess than a man making racist comments of which I could care less about


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

Mark Cuban, owner of the NBA's Mavericks, was among the few.

''In this country, people are allowed to be morons,'' Cuban said before the ban was announced. ''They're allowed to be stupid. They're allowed to think idiotic thoughts.''

''But regardless of your background, regardless of the history they have, if we're taking something somebody said in their home and we're trying to turn it into something that leads to you being forced to divest property in any way, shape or form, that's not the United States of America. I don't want to be part of that,'' he said.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Apr 30, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Badger, your last comment is complete nonsense.  You act like sponsors wouldn't come back.  The sponsors bailed because it was a pr move.  Those same sponsors would come back once the dust settled, if Sterling would have allowed them.



Maybe they would, maybe not. One thing is for certain, they definitely would NOT have come back at the same rate they were before this happened. All the leverage would be on the company's side, and would only come back at a much lower rate. Either way, it cost the league money.



> If the owner had made these comments publicly, then I could see the issue.  As for the AA's making up the majority of the fan base, maybe more minority owned businesses will start advertising with the NBA.



There is no such thing as privacy in today's day and age. If you are a public figure, everything you say can come back to hurt you.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

BrotherBadger said:


> Maybe they would, maybe not. One thing is for certain, they definitely would NOT have come back at the same rate they were before this happened. All the leverage would be on the company's side, and would only come back at a much lower rate. Either way, it cost the league money.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as privacy in today's day and age. If you are a public figure, everything you say can come back to hurt you.



There would be another group ready to step up in the departed sponsor's place, though probably at a discounted cost.

As for comment 2, as Cuban said, people are entitled to their thoughts, idiotic or not...especially in private.  I think it's absolute garbage that a comment, illegally recorded in private, can be used to ban an owner and or force a sale of his team.  Maybe the NSA now will be hired by Silver to listen to, and expose other private, personal thoughts and discussions.


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 30, 2014)

The guy is an idiot and this isn't the first racist thing he has done. If I own a company and one of the franchise owners made these same comments I'd give him the boot too. And badger is right, the sponsors were dropping like flies. Sure, the guy can have whatever opinion he wants and can speak it but that doesn't mean it comes with no repercussions. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> The guy is an idiot and this isn't the first racist thing he has done. If I own a company and one of the franchise owners made these same comments I'd give him the boot too. And badger is right, the sponsors were dropping like flies. Sure, the guy can have whatever opinion he wants and can speak it but that doesn't mean it comes with no repercussions. Just ask the Dixie Chicks.



Let the sponsors leave and if the team loses so much money because of it, or if the fans stop coming, then Sterling would have to sell the team.  

I hope Goodell doesn't force Daniel Snyder to sell his team, due to the fact that the team name is the Redskins...

Did anyone stop the Dixie Chicks from continuing to make awful music?


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 30, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Let the sponsors leave and if the team loses so much money because of it, or if the fans stop coming, then Sterling would have to sell the team.
> 
> I hope Goodell doesn't force Daniel Snyder to sell his team, due to the fact that the team name is the Redskins...
> 
> Did anyone stop the Dixie Chicks from continuing to make awful music?



First comment I get... what about the guys (practically all black) who play for him? Who line his pocketbook? Should they be forced to keep playing for him?

Second comment is apples/oranges man. If Snyder was busted saying the same things you can bet your bottom dollar he would find himself in a similar situation.

And no one stopped them from playing music but they were banned from practically EVERY SINGLE country music radio station in the country. No one is saying he can't own a team, just the NBA says not here just as Y106 or Kicks says the Dixie Chicks can make music but they can't play it here.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> First comment I get... what about the guys (practically all black) who play for him? Who line his pocketbook? Should they be forced to keep playing for him?
> 
> Second comment is apples/oranges man. If Snyder was busted saying the same things you can bet your bottom dollar he would find himself in a similar situation.
> 
> And no one stopped them from playing music but they were banned from practically EVERY SINGLE country music radio station in the country. No one is saying he can't own a team, just the NBA says not here just as Y106 or Kicks says the Dixie Chicks can make music but they can't play it here.



Yes, he is paying their salary.  His personal views, outed from a private conversation, should not justify a player from not having to honor his contract.  If Sterling wanted to ban Sterling for a year, fine.  But a lifetime ban for something said in private is an absolute joke.  

Sterling is paying his black head coach over $7 million a year, and I'm pretty certain he opened the checkbook for Paul and Griffin, who happen to be black. 

Remind me of what kind of punishment Cooper Riley received for his remarks...

Huge difference in a station banning an artist, who has zero ownership and a person who paid a huge sum of their money for ownership.  If I recall, the Dixie Chicks chose to make their opinions public.


----------



## biggdogg (Apr 30, 2014)

The Dixie Chicks were BOYCOTTED by country radio, not banned. There is a difference. 

Let him keep his team. If the players he has move elsewhere at the end of their contracts, so be it. If the fans decide to boycott and not show up to games, so be it. And if future free agents decide to sign elsewhere, fine. That is the sentence he earned. But for the NBA and it's owners to FORCE him to sell, no. That is no different than you being forced to sell your home because the community you live in doesn't like your religious views. That kind of hostile takeover is nothing more than the NBA preserving it's own interests by way of it's profit sharing.

Either way, he sells the team for anywhere in the neighborhood of $750 mil to $1.5 bil, I'm sure he'll be crying over that ban and $2.5 mil fine...


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

biggdogg said:


> The Dixie Chicks were BOYCOTTED by country radio, not banned. There is a difference.
> 
> Let him keep his team. If the players he has move elsewhere at the end of their contracts, so be it. If the fans decide to boycott and not show up to games, so be it. And if future free agents decide to sign elsewhere, fine. That is the sentence he earned. But for the NBA and it's owners to FORCE him to sell, no. That is no different than you being forced to sell your home because the community you live in doesn't like your religious views. That kind of hostile takeover is nothing more than the NBA preserving it's own interests by way of it's profit sharing.



Bingo


----------



## carver (Apr 30, 2014)

Girlfriend is a scank,she's the only way that"private"comments could have reached the press.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Apr 30, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> As for comment 2, as Cuban said, people are entitled to their thoughts, idiotic or not...especially in private.  .



You are entitled to say whatever moronic thing you want, that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences that occur because of those comments.

I fully agree that what is said in private, SHOULD stay private. Unfortunately that's not the way it works anymore.



> Let him keep his team. If the players he has move elsewhere at the end of their contracts, so be it. If the fans decide to boycott and not show up to games, so be it. And if future free agents decide to sign elsewhere, fine. That is the sentence he earned. But for the NBA and it's owners to FORCE him to sell, no. That is no different than you being forced to sell your home because the community you live in doesn't like your religious views. That kind of hostile takeover is nothing more than the NBA preserving it's own interests by way of it's profit sharing.



They have the right to force him to sell because he violated the terms he agreed to when he bought the team. It's pretty cut and dry. He agreed to the association's rules when he bought the team. He agreed to allow the commissioner to be able to levee these punishments.


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 30, 2014)

biggdogg said:


> Let him keep his team. If the players he has move elsewhere at the end of their contracts, so be it. If the fans decide to boycott and not show up to games, so be it. And if future free agents decide to sign elsewhere, fine. That is the sentence he earned. But for the NBA and it's owners to FORCE him to sell, no. That is no different than you being forced to sell your home because the community you live in doesn't like your religious views. That kind of hostile takeover is nothing more than the NBA preserving it's own interests by way of it's profit sharing.



What I think you and Rex are totally overlooking is that this isn't just about the Clippers. He is merely a franchisee. According to Webster "someone who has been given the right to sell a company's goods or services in a particular area"... The business is the NBA and if they let him keep running the Clippers then the larger business would suffer. Any business owner who cared a thing about his business would do exactly as the NBA has done.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> What I think you and Rex are totally overlooking is that this isn't just about the Clippers. He is merely a franchisee. According to Webster "someone who has been given the right to sell a company's goods or services in a particular area"... The business is the NBA and if they let him keep running the Clippers then the larger business would suffer. Any business owner who cared a thing about his business would do exactly as the NBA has done.



Ban him for a year, but don't force the sale, which is exactly what Silver is doing.  The NBA isn't going to suffer because an 80 year old owner said he didn't want his skank (black) girlfriend posting pics of herself with black athletes.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

http://t.foxsports.msn.com/nfl/onei...-redskins-owner-dan-snyder-after-sterling-ban


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 30, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> The NBA isn't going to suffer because an 80 year old owner said he didn't want his skank (black) girlfriend posting pics of herself with black athletes.



I think you are bad wrong about that. There would be boycotts, walkouts, former players speaking out, and so on. The bottom line of the NBA would suffer without a doubt.


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> I think you are bad wrong about that. There would be boycotts, walkouts, former players speaking out, and so on. The bottom line of the NBA would suffer without a doubt.



For what, a week?  You know how it goes, these things wash over quickly.


----------



## Bitteroot (Apr 30, 2014)

Remember the oil spill in the gulf.....

This is over in a few weeks.....Thugs win...

Raise the goal to 15 feet... see if the NBA can find a player that tall....


----------



## tcward (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> I think you are bad wrong about that. There would be boycotts, walkouts, former players speaking out, and so on. The bottom line of the NBA would suffer without a doubt.



And the NBA suffering would be a problem how?


----------



## rex upshaw (Apr 30, 2014)

tcward said:


> And the NBA suffering would be a problem how?


----------



## biggdogg (Apr 30, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> I think you are bad wrong about that. There would be boycotts, walkouts, former players speaking out, and so on. The bottom line of the NBA would suffer without a doubt.



Ol' Tiger seems to be doing ok on the sponsor and fan support front...


----------



## greene_dawg (Apr 30, 2014)

Tiger lost 24 million in endorsements in 2010 alone by sponsors such as Gillette, Accenture, AT&T, GM, and Gatorade. Who knows what it cost him log term. So, yes, while he is still a multimillionaire, his bottom line suffered.


----------



## Barry Duggan (Apr 30, 2014)

Since the invention of political correctness, life has been a one way street.


----------



## Flash (Apr 30, 2014)

NFL player helps cover up a murder, gets a sports network gig when retired.
  NBA owner makes a racist statement, fined and banned for life.


----------



## biggdogg (May 1, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Tiger lost 24 million in endorsements in 2010 alone by sponsors such as Gillette, Accenture, AT&T, GM, and Gatorade. Who knows what it cost him log term. So, yes, while he is still a multimillionaire, his bottom line suffered.



His bottom line took a temporary hit. He has since picked up other endorsements.


----------



## rex upshaw (May 1, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> . The business is the NBA and if they let him keep running the Clippers then the larger business would suffer. Any business owner who cared a thing about his business would do exactly as the NBA has done.



Then why hasn't previous commissioners forced the sale of grossly underperforming teams?  There have been a number of teams that were awful, for a long time.  Poor attendance, poor product etc.


----------



## greene_dawg (May 1, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Then why hasn't previous commissioners forced the sale of grossly underperforming teams?  There have been a number of teams that were awful, for a long time.  Poor attendance, poor product etc.



A poor performing team is one thing. A scandal that could effect the whole league is another...


----------



## rex upshaw (May 1, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> A poor performing team is one thing. A scandal that could effect the whole league is another...



If the concern in the NBA is about the bottom line, as you said, then both should be viewed the same.  One, the scandal, will go away quickly.  A crappy team/organization, can last for over a decade or more.


----------



## rex upshaw (May 1, 2014)

http://t.foxsports.msn.com/nba/does-nba-lack-authority-to-force-clippers-sale


----------



## emusmacker (May 2, 2014)

I seriously doubt that the NBA would really be hurt over this one man's opinion.  The Lakers and fans hate the Clippers and most other rival teams do too.  Do you really believe that fans would stop coming to games to watch Griffin dunk all over everybody?  Really?  It's just a PR move.  

Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment?


----------



## rex upshaw (May 2, 2014)

emusmacker said:


> I seriously doubt that the NBA would really be hurt over this one man's opinion.  The Lakers and fans hate the Clippers and most other rival teams do too.  Do you really believe that fans would stop coming to games to watch Griffin dunk all over everybody?  Really?  It's just a PR move.
> 
> Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment?



This.


----------



## greene_dawg (May 2, 2014)

emusmacker said:


> I seriously doubt that the NBA would really be hurt over this one man's opinion.  The Lakers and fans hate the Clippers and most other rival teams do too.  Do you really believe that fans would stop coming to games to watch Griffin dunk all over everybody?  Really?  It's just a PR move.
> 
> Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment?



Yes I do think that the NBA as a whole would've suffered. Please explain what the 1st amendment has to do with a private organization forcing someone out because he said something stupid. Absolutely nothing...


----------



## Seth carter (May 2, 2014)

Well I  wouldent be sad if the nba disapered off the map I hate bsketball


----------



## rex upshaw (May 2, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Yes I do think that the NBA as a whole would've suffered. Please explain what the 1st amendment has to do with a private organization forcing someone out because he said something stupid. Absolutely nothing...



You left out "in the privacy of his own home".


----------



## emusmacker (May 2, 2014)

greene_dawg said:


> Yes I do think that the NBA as a whole would've suffered. Please explain what the 1st amendment has to do with a private organization forcing someone out because he said something stupid. Absolutely nothing...



Well sir, then I guess you and I disagree.  I don't think that 1 team like the Clippers will destroy all the NBA.  Really? 

Like i said the fans come to see their favorite PLAYERS, and the sponsors also like the PLAYERS.  So I don't think the NBA would suffer.


----------



## Marlin_444 (May 2, 2014)

Someone much smarter than me once said... "You are what you say"... I believe it was a setup between wanna be owners and the girl friend... You know, help us move him out and you get a big payday... We all know how that works...  


ROLL TIDE!!!


----------

