The Great Park the new home of the L.A. Clippers?

[qwerty]

I didn't say there was a violation, I just think someone as litigious as Sterling would say his freedom of speech is protected and can't be used as "misconduct".

Irvinecommuter would probably know better on how Sterling would use Constitutional law as a tool against his ownership contract.

freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. if the CEO of any fortune 500 company made the exact same comments he would not have a job by the end of the day and probably never be a CEO ever again.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I didn't say there was a violation, I just think someone as litigious as Sterling would say his freedom of speech is protected and can't be used as "misconduct".

Irvinecommuter would probably know better on how Sterling would use Constitutional law as a tool against his ownership contract.

freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. if the CEO of any fortune 500 company made the exact same comments he would not have a job by the end of the day and probably never be a CEO ever again.

If the CEO was not the owner, yes. But if the CEO was the owner, it would be much more difficult to force him to sell his company than just give up the CEO title.

The NBA has it in their constitution that "harm" to the NBA is actionable, but Sterling may still try to fight it.

My hope is that he will just sell, but everyone who is familiar with Sterling's history knows he won't go away quietly. To add to this, his wife is saying she should be the new owner. Bleh.

 

[qwerty]

If the CEO was not the owner, yes. But if the CEO was the owner, it would be much more difficult to force him to sell his company than just give up the CEO title.

agreed, a private company owner who said these things and was not part of an joint venture (which is what the NBA is) could not be forced to sell his own company. in a public company, rarely does an individual own more than 50% of the vote. although i think at google the two top guys control the majority of the vote.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Like I said, some lawyer would argue using the Constitution (although it's his wife's lawyer):
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/abc-news-exclusive-donald-sterlings-estranged-wife/story?id=23673962

An NBA spokesman said this evening that league rules would not allow her tol hold on to her share.

"Under the NBA Constitution, if a controlling owner's interest is terminated by a 3/4 vote, all other team owners' interests are automatically terminated as well," NBA spokesman Mike Bass said. "It doesn't matter whether the owners are related as is the case here. These are the rules to which all NBA owners agreed to as a condition of owning their team."

Sherry Sterling's lawyer, Pierce O'Donnell, disputed the league's reading of its constitution.

"We do not agree with the league's self-serving interpretation of its constitution, its application to Shelly Sterling or its validity under these unique circumstances," O'Donnell said in a statement released this evening in reposnse the NBA. "We live in a nation of laws. California law and the United States Constitution trump any such interpretation."

I don't think he's right because private contracts are what govern ownership, not state or federal law but you know he's going to try.

 

[irvinehomeshopper]

A valiant attempt to complete Irvine's diversity dream.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Yep, Sterling is suing the NBA for $1B:
http://nba.si.com/2014/05/30/donald-sterling-suing-nba-1-billion-clippers/

NBC News originally broke the story and Sterling?s attorney, Max Blecher, later confirmed the report to Yahoo! Sports and ESPN.com, adding that the charges of the lawsuit include an invasion of Sterling?s constitutional rights, violation of anti-trust laws and breach of fiduciary duty associated with the NBA?s lifetime ban and termination charges.

Just like I said... dancing because he can.