22
   

Donald Sterling

 
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 11:37 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
An he have rights under property and partnership laws and whether those rights can be taken away due to a private conversation is also a matter of laws.

Owning a league franchise is in a different legal category than owning a wholly private business or property--there are different obligations, and limitations, and constraints, placed on such owners.

There are legal issues involved, but they are nowhere as simplistic as the ones you mentioned.

Try informing yourself.

What's next for NBA in Donald Sterling case from a legal standpoint?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140426/donald-sterling-la-clippers-adam-silver-nba/#ixzz30fvJNhmE

Sterling, NBA set for epic legal fight over Clippers
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/#ixzz30fx25Q17

Michael McCann is a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He is also the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.

I'll trust McCann's legal appraisal over yours any day.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 11:43 am
Re who appears to have passed on the tapes and why:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10869537/los-angeles-clippers-owner-donald-sterling-troubled-reign-approaches-inglorious-end
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 11:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I have a feeling that the commish and the owners are going to end up sorry that that they rolled so easily here.


I love it when someone connected to the player union stated that they would not allow the ownership to be transfer to Sterling divorcing wife.

Seems that the players/employees feel they have some rights to control who is allow to be an owner that go way beyond a racial issue.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 11:49 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I have a feeling that the commish and the owners are going to end up sorry that that they rolled so easily here.


I love it when someone connected to the player union stated that they would not allow the ownership to be transfer to Sterling divorcing wife.

Seems that the players/employees feel they have some rights to control who is allow to be an owner that go way beyond a racial issue.


Silver just guarantied that labor will demand veto rights of new owners. It was a rookie mistake by Silver, and a biggie, he put out an immediate brush fire but in doing so fanned the flames of the owner/labor dispute that was already threatening survival of the league. The pie is getting smaller as Basketball losses its appeal and as major league sports price themselves out of the entertainment market, Silver just made negotiating a solution more difficult.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 11:58 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Silver just guarantied that labor will demand veto rights of new owners. It was a rookie mistake by Silver, and a biggie.


First time in history as far as I am aware of that players would get a say in who are the owners of sport teams.

I do not know if the owners will be able to seized Sterling ownership rights or even if they will wish to do so after the public outcry had die down but one thing they should do is to get rid of Silver as soon as possible.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 12:09 pm
@BillRM,
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/07/07/us/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1/fivethirtyeight-0705-nba1-blog480.jpg

Latest figures I can find fast, and of course in inflation adjusted dollars the situation is even worse re revenues.

Quote:
should do is to get rid of Silver as soon as possible.
I am sure "WTF?!!" conversations are taking place between Silver and the owners. Perhaps he is a man with a plan, but at this point it looks like his problem solving technique is fully hand everything demanded over to the bandits. The owners are going to have a problem with that, as it is their money.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 12:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And no one (that I know of) is suggesting that he be put in jail or executed for his opinion.

His right to his opinion is only relevant as respects how the government might respond.
So, according to u,
if we meet in circumstances wherein no government has jurisdiction,
then I am within my natural n moral rights to steal your property ?

It seems to me that in ordinary daily life
we vindicate our own violated rights very ofen, actively or passively.
This is ofen lawful; not always.





David
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 12:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
if we meet in circumstances wherein no government has jurisdiction,
then I am within my natural n moral rights to steal your property?


How does "stealing" property figure into this discussion? What's being stolen?
Quote:
The Sacramento Kings were sold last year for an amount that equates to $534 million. It stands to reason the Clippers—which Sterling purchased in 1981 for $12.5 million—would be worth well in excess of $700 million.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140426/donald-sterling-la-clippers-adam-silver-nba/#ixzz30g9VFI9S

Trying to pressure Sterling into a sale would not be stealing--he'd receive the proceeds wouldn't he?

If anything, Sterling has reason not to sell, simply to avoid capital gains taxes.
Quote:

Sterling, who is 80 or 81 years old (his exact birthdate remains a mystery), has a key financial reason to fight the sale of the Clippers: to avoid capital gain taxes. This insight is from Robert Raiola senior manager in the Sports & Entertainment Group of the Accounting Firm O'Connor Davies, LLP. Sterling reportedly purchased the Clippers for $12.5 million in 1981. If he sold the team today, it would be worth at least $600 million, perhaps closer to $1 billion. Between federal and state capital gains taxes, Sterling would pay an approximately 33 percent tax rate on the difference between what he paid for the team and what he sold it for. For instance, if he sold the Clippers today for $1 billion, Sterling would pay capital gain taxes of 33 percent on a gain of $987.5 million. As a result, Sterling would owe Federal & state capital gain taxes of approximately $329 million.

If instead Sterling holds onto the Clippers and some time from now passes away, his family would inherit the team. The family would inherit the team with a value pegged to its fair market value. As Raiola stresses, the new value of the team would be crucial for purposes of capital gains tax. Here's why: if the family inherited the Clippers and then sold it, they would only pay a capitals gain tax on the difference between the value of the team when they inherited it and the value of it when sold. For instance, if the family inherited the team and it was worth $700 million and then they sold it for $800 million, they would only pay capital gain taxes on a gain of $100 million. In that instance, there would be a comparatively modest tax bill of $33 million.

If the Sterling family inherited the Clippers and simultaneously sold it, Raiola tells SI.com, they would pay no capital gains tax, but still have estate tax issues. However, a transaction could be structured whereby the employees of the Clippers organization could own a percentage of the team. In such case, the capital gain taxes on a sale could be partially or fully avoided.

These tax considerations make it more likely that Sterling will fight the NBA to hold onto the Clippers. Even if he ultimately loses a legal battle, the process of losing could take years to play out in court. At the risk of sounding macabre, Sterling may be motivated to wage a protracted legal battle in order to keep the team for as long as he lives.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140429/donald-sterling-nba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/#ixzz30gBoGXD3


A lot of things may be going on with this situation, but "stealing" doesn't seem to be among them.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 12:51 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
If anything, Sterling has reason not to sell, simply to avoid capital gains taxes.
I was reading an opinion the other day that the only way the NBA gets its plan to work is by paying a huge part of the capital gains cost, IE by pushing money at Sterling to get him to go away in peace. THe team will not sell for anything close to $1 billion, but this tax is still going to cost the NBA a significant amount. The next problem is if Sterling were to demand a min price, as if he was not selling diminished goods in a panic, that would cost the NBA a few hundred million dollars more than what he will get today on the open market.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 01:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
What a mess all due to a new commissioner who decided he was going to made a name for himself by being SUPER hard on an owner that the media was crying out for his blood.

Did the fool run any of this pass the owners or even the league lawyer?

A three year suspense with a big fine and no attempts to take the team from him for example would had likely been consider fair before he decided to go Rambo on the man.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 02:27 pm
@BillRM,
Reports were that he had only talked to a few owners before he decided, and the fear of course is that he talked to the few who were most likely to tell him what he wanted to hear. We shall see over the next few years, but I have a feeling that almost every other owner is pissed that they were not consulted before they got sold down the river. This move massively depowered owners, and historically this is not a bunch who would take well to that. I am trying to think of an instance where any commissioner went so strongly against the owners, and I can not come up with an example.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 02:39 pm
Gotta hand it to Barbara Walters for a big "get" just before she retires in two weeks. She apparently hot-footed it out to California anticipating an exclusive interview with Sterling, and she might have gotten it, but he bailed on her when it came to going on the record. Instead, the "get" turned out to be an interview with his girlfriend/assistant/companion/right arm (she described her relationship in many ways), but it's kept BW in the news all day. Not a bad way for this octogenarian (she's 84) to wind down her career.

But I can't help but wonder whether the "get" will turn up as a parody skit on tonight's Saturday Night Live. It really cries out for that sort of satirical treatment.

And Stiviano's fashion style ("To conceal the pain") is apparently doing a lot to promote the sale of visors. Maybe she'll bring out her own line of them.
http://galleries.gothamistllc.com/asset/5363fbeae0fbc04931482188/square/v-stiviano-pcn5.jpg
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 03:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
The whole thing is sad as the whole situation is completely unneeded as by overdoing the punishment they are turning an old bigot into a victim in fact a dying victim it look like.

Likely tying up the ownership of the team in the courts even after his death had long pass.

My bet is the very idea that anyone property rights can be taken from them for expressing an unpopular opinion in private is not going to fly with any court in the land
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 05:17 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Quote:
I understand that on tv there are programs that show Black and White friends hanging out together.

A ridiculous opening to an ignorant post.
Just because you're too bigoted to have black friends you assume the rest of us don't either.
Here in Florida where I live we all have black friends and black people here (this'll be news to you!) have white friends.



Well, that's nice. However, society in some regions have a different orientation, especially amongst older age groups. No bigotry; just not making waves.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 05:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
A realistic posting, in my opinion. Sociology does impact on to whom one might make as friends, in my opinion. Also, NYC is quite segregated by different neighborhoods. When one is above school age, having friends of a different race, if one is white, might just amount to having an Asian friend. It really is all about socio-economic class in NYC, especially in the outer four boroughs.

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 05:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Blacks have certainly perfected the move of taking offense, but learning how to succeed has been a problem. This is always whiteys fault, natch. I am one white man who has become fed up with being blamed (with no evidence) for other people failing to thrive. And dont whine about me not being sensitive to black feelings, blacks have been so incredibly insensitive to whites feelings for so long that they have lost the right to complain when they get returned what they offer.


Well, they do succeed; however, the underclass remains. In my opinion, other groups/demographics off-loaded those in their repective underclass on the way up into the middle class and beyond. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, NYC Jews represented the criminal class, with 80% of NYC jails filled with Jewish males. Only by Jews (collectively) allowing that underclass to die off did Jews succeed as a group. Same with some other white ethnics.

However, Black folk seem to want to lift their underclass up with those that succeed. With seven out of ten Black women not married, and many are single parents, I am not sure if that uphill climb can be accomplished in the relative future?

If one remembers that Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who originally was a sociology professor, got a lot of heat by positing that American Blacks are changing their culture by abandoning marriage as a way to have the next generation. That was decades ago. Now it might be the entire society is becoming balkanized into those that are raised in a two parent home, and those that are not, regardless of race.

Tune in in 100 years to see where the U.S. is with this differential.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 06:22 pm
@Foofie,
Abondoning family structure, celebrating gang culture, dismissing education as a tool towards the good life, always looking for the next hand out, self identifying as helpless victims, the blacks that get ahead abondoning the black underclass and the black church, rarely being interested in work after the easy factory jobs vanished.....blacks defined there own outcomes by doing all this. Dont blame me, I had nothing to do with their choices.

I was reading awhile back that we set ourselves up for this disaster back during the early and mid seventies when enormous political pressure was placed on corporations to suck up blacks into their payrolls even when they were rarely qualified for the job or once there produced enough to earn their keep, it was born out a fear that if the blacks were not occupied and paid off then they would burn down the nation. This distroyed black culture, before this blacks were good workers who wanted to earn the american dream like everbody else. Why earn when you can get by threatening violence and by playing the victim,?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 06:29 pm
Sterling apparently had V. on the books of one of his companies as an employee. I wonder whether this will give Sterling some tax problems. Further, if V. treated the money and property given to her as nontaxable gifts, she may face problems if it is found that there was a quid pro quo in-kind payment by her.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 07:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
You are seriously simplistic. In LA, for example, there was a lot of work at one point, work that disappeared, ka boom, not sure of the dates of the vaporization, but the work was heavily in the aircraft industrial businesses; there were once a lot of those businesses and jobs for which people migrated; if I remember, a lot from Texas. And then what? Few jobs, very poor (I mean extremely poor) transportation to even apply for jobs.

When I was around south LA (my husband raised there), and went to pick him up, there were close to no grocery stores, maybe not even one, just corner stores.
Your assumptions are full of baloney.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 07:07 pm
@Advocate,
I just do not see the IRS wishing to become a combination of the sex police/relationship police.

Talk about a can of worm no one would likely wish to open.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Should cheerleading be a sport? - Discussion by joefromchicago
Are You Ready For Fantasy Baseball - 2009? - Discussion by realjohnboy
tennis grip - Question by madalina
How much faster could Usain Bolt have gone? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sochi Olympics a Resounding Success - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Donald Sterling
  3. » Page 14
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:49:32