A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

If you say something stupid, what should happen is that the other owners put you on a leave of absence and then when one of them impulsively invites you back, they all hand you a list of stipulations that they know you won’t possibly accept but then you say “Okay.”

Sort of like the ending of this week's Mad Men.

[ferrets_bueller]

The best analysis I've heard concerning Sterling's legal situation is this: The league apparently has a very robust arbitration clause. He doesn't get to court, and if he tries it, he'll just be bounced back to an arbitrator. Thus, there will be no issue about whether the tape is admissible; the only question is whether he identifies his own voice, which he has apparently already done. He has contracted away his right to sue, and cannot win in an arbitration forum.

A good lawyer might tell Sterling to save his money and just sell the team. Of course, if Sterling tries a scorched earth policy, that same lawyer will make a lot more money.

In the scheme of things, this makes the cost of getting rid of him far lower for the other owners, and should expedite the sale of the team.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

The best analysis I've heard concerning Sterling's legal situation is this: The league apparently has a very robust arbitration clause. He doesn't get to court, and if he tries it, he'll just be bounced back to an arbitrator. Thus, there will be no issue about whether the tape is admissible; the only question is whether he identifies his own voice, which he has apparently already done. He has contracted away his right to sue, and cannot win in an arbitration forum.

A good lawyer might tell Sterling to save his money and just sell the team. Of course, if Sterling tries a scorched earth policy, that same lawyer will make a lot more money.

In the scheme of things, this makes the cost of getting rid of him far lower for the other owners, and should expedite the sale of the team.

Maybe, maybe not. California law makes recording a private conversation without consent a crime. Under the statute, the recording is not admissible in any action (other than in prosecution of the person who recorded it).

Would an arbitrator enforce that evidentiary rule? The answer is, maybe, maybe not. Some arbitrators enforce the rules of evidence, some do not (by this, I mean what the arbitrators actually intend to do; like judges, some intend to enforce the rules but do a crappy job. But many acknowledge expressly that they aren't bound by the rules of evidence and won't sustain evidentiary objections unless they go to the reliability of the evidence -- which means, they would let the recording in.)

If I'm representing Sterling, I argue that the league is using the fruits of a criminal act to take action against me, and that the arbitrator cannot and should not consider the evidence that is central to the league's defense -- the recording. If I'm the NBA, I argue that the arbitrator isn't bound by those rules, but more centrally I argue that it wasn't the recording per se, but the shit-storm (I would probably use lawyer-words for that term) that erupted from that recording -- tied to past conduct -- that was damaging the league.

Overall, I like the league's chances on this . Even if the arbitrator enforces the evidentiary rule, the lifetime ban should stick as within the league's discretion to protect itself and its members, the compelled sale should stick for the same reason and because the owners (presumably) will vote that way. The fine is more questionable but far less important.

I say all this without knowing what the league's by-laws actually say, which is obviously important. AKA talking out of my ass, for which I usually charge.

Overall, it's a big risk, because if the arb goes Sterling's way his damage includes the decrease in value to the franchise that a compelled sale entails. Definitely not a slam-dunk (npi) for the NBA, and risk is what causes cases to settle.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Maybe, maybe not. California law makes recording a private conversation without consent a crime. Under the statute, the recording is not admissible in any action (other than in prosecution of the person who recorded it).

Would an arbitrator enforce that evidentiary rule? The answer is, maybe, maybe not. Some arbitrators enforce the rules of evidence, some do not (by this, I mean what the arbitrators actually intend to do; like judges, some intend to enforce the rules but do a crappy job. But many acknowledge expressly that they aren't bound by the rules of evidence and won't sustain evidentiary objections unless they go to the reliability of the evidence -- which means, they would let the recording in.)

If I'm representing Sterling, I argue that the league is using the fruits of a criminal act to take action against me, and that the arbitrator cannot and should not consider the evidence that is central to the league's defense -- the recording. If I'm the NBA, I argue that the arbitrator isn't bound by those rules, but more centrally I argue that it wasn't the recording per se, but the shit-storm (I would probably use lawyer-words for that term) that erupted from that recording -- tied to past conduct -- that was damaging the league.

Overall, I like the league's chances on this . Even if the arbitrator enforces the evidentiary rule, the lifetime ban should stick as within the league's discretion to protect itself and its members, the compelled sale should stick for the same reason and because the owners (presumably) will vote that way. The fine is more questionable but far less important.

I say all this without knowing what the league's by-laws actually say, which is obviously important. AKA talking out of my ass, for which I usually charge.

Overall, it's a big risk, because if the arb goes Sterling's way his damage includes the decrease in value to the franchise that a compelled sale entails. Definitely not a slam-dunk (npi) for the NBA, and risk is what causes cases to settle.

Of course, there's nothing like a protracted dispute to keep the press well-fed on this. Arbitration is going to be a lot less public than a court case, but there is a premium on this going away fast. That premium may be Sterling's leverage. After all, what he really seems to want is a forum for trolling for young celebrity-obsessed women in LA, and there has to be some alternative they can find for him. Maybe let him get together with Mel Gibson and open a nightclub across the street from the stadium?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Sort of like the ending of this week's Mad Men.

Original recipe whiff.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Overall, it's a big risk, because if the arb goes Sterling's way his damage includes the decrease in value to the franchise that a compelled sale entails. Definitely not a slam-dunk (npi) for the NBA, and risk is what causes cases to settle.

Except that any sale, even a compelled one, would likely net Sterling more than the franchise's current value because he's such a lousy owner (putting aside this stuff). The league probably could buy it from him and flip it to Magic, Diddy, Oprah, Larry Ellison, David Geffen or any number of rich folks in LA who would love to have their own plaything for a tidy profit.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Dumb fucking argument anyway. The guy didn't say something idiotic. He said something disturbing, indicating he has no business owning a team in prominent professional league. There's no first amendment privilege in the NBA owners' agreement. Do something fucked up that imperils the league's brand and the league gets to throw you out. I don't understand why this Sterling thing is even being discussed. The controversy about the penalty levied is...?

Oh, that's right-- Cuban has to say something controversial to inject his forty pound head into the story. Someone send this guy a retrospective on the life of Donald Trump. Scare him straight.

Should Mikhail Prokhorov be nervous? I know he ran against Putin, but siding with the Kremlin if Russia does more crazy shit could really piss some people off.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Except that any sale, even a compelled one, would likely net Sterling more than the franchise's current value because he's such a lousy owner (putting aside this stuff). The league probably could buy it from him and flip it to Magic, Diddy, Oprah, Larry Ellison, David Geffen or any number of rich folks in LA who would love to have their own plaything for a tidy profit.

We should buy it- let Thurgreed run it for 5 years then let me. See who does better. I'll finally get to call bullshit that he knows so much about the game.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Except that any sale, even a compelled one, would likely net Sterling more than the franchise's current value because he's such a lousy owner (putting aside this stuff). The league probably could buy it from him and flip it to Magic, Diddy, Oprah, Larry Ellison, David Geffen or any number of rich folks in LA who would love to have their own plaything for a tidy profit.

That'd be a hotly-contested issue that valuation experts would battle out. On this one, though, I like Sterling's chances. Anyone saying that "the current value is only $x, and the value automatically rises if Sterling is out" is saying that "value" is something other than what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller when neither is being compelled to buy or sell.

That Sterling would not be involved post-sale is a constant of any sale. The only variable introduced here is the compulsion to sell.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Except that any sale, even a compelled one, would likely net Sterling more than the franchise's current value because he's such a lousy owner (putting aside this stuff). The league probably could buy it from him and flip it to Magic, Diddy, Oprah, Larry Ellison, David Geffen or any number of rich folks in LA who would love to have their own plaything for a tidy profit.

Would Sterling be forced to sell it to the highest bidder?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

That'd be a hotly-contested issue that valuation experts would battle out. On this one, though, I like Sterling's chances. Anyone saying that "the current value is only $x, and the value automatically rises if Sterling is out" is saying that "value" is something other than what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller when neither is being compelled to buy or sell.

That Sterling would not be involved post-sale is a constant of any sale. The only variable introduced here is the compulsion to sell.

Having watched the protracted media day that was the recent sale of the Dodgers and the ongoing protracted media day that is the potential return to LA of the NFL, my guess is this turns into some sort of protracted media day.Unless the Clippers are sold quickly and painlessly to someone in Seattle.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Would Sterling be forced to sell it to the highest bidder?

Aren't the NBA bylaws subject to an NDA? I thought I’d heard they were super-secret, but now there are a billion Internet articles talking about how this might play out. Like, how do we know the arbitration clause applies here, or even exists?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Parts I and II:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/quest...k-america.html

http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/quest...ca-part-2.html

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Aren't the NBA bylaws subject to an NDA? I thought I’d heard they were super-secret, but now there are a billion Internet articles talking about how this might play out. Like, how do we know the arbitration clause applies here, or even exists?

I think you're thinking of their Constitution. I'm not sure the bylaws were confidential. In either case:

http://deadspin.com/that-secret-nba-...ine-1569509012

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Aren't the NBA bylaws subject to an NDA? I thought I’d heard they were super-secret, but now there are a billion Internet articles talking about how this might play out. Like, how do we know the arbitration clause applies here, or even exists?

I don't "know" that an arbitration clause exists, but I expect it does and would be happy to place a bet. If there is a clause, I expect it's very broad and will cover a claim that the league imposed an improper penalty.

Seriously, do you think there is even a remote possibility that the owners didn't include an arbitration provision? There are innumerable reasons why they'd want one.