It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The most relevant rule to what the commissioner was able to do in the Sterling situation is found in Article 24(l), which is the "Best Interest of the Association" clause. The commissioner is able to give any punishment he sees fit when it's not clearly covered by the constitution and by-laws. (Via Deadspin)
The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner's judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: schuyler
The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...
This right here, "without limitation". This allows them to make him SELL the team, he is not being asked to forfeit the team.
The penalty that may be assessed under the preceding two sentences may include, without limitation, a fine, suspension, and/or the forfeiture or assignment of draft choices. No monetary penalty fixed under this provision shall exceed $2,500,000.
I heard yes but he could still use the draft to get more "hired hands". So now corporations are considered to be people until it comes to ownership of said people. Is this really just about getting a black person as the owner now?
originally posted by: aboutface
Can anyone tell me if the league has the power to make the players free agents if they request it? If so, that would make for rather interesting times imo.
originally posted by: g146541
Must be an election year.
While Silver said he had not polled the owners, he expressed confidence there will be sufficient support to oust Sterlin. Silver's bold prediction suggests he has the necessary votes. That said, expect there to be some debate among owners. No owner will defend Sterling's racism, but some might question whether article 13 and potentially other authorizing language was intended for this type of transgression. Expect some owners to raise the following four concerns:
1. Neither the Clippers nor Sterling is in financial trouble. Article 13 was designed as an extraordinary remedy for such a problem -- not other problems. While sponsors have dropped their deals with the Clippers and players have contemplated boycotts, the team appears to be in strong financial shape with a deep-pocketed, if reviled, owner. There is no reason to believe that Sterling has committed financial fraud, and while he has been sued over allegations of race, those cases were either settled or unsuccessful.
2. The Clippers are not run in a racist way. Sterling may be extremely bigoted and hold reprehensible views, but there is no reason to suspect that the team itself operates in a racist way. The current Clippers workplace appears to be a productive setting, devoid of allegations by players or other employees that they have experienced racism. Similarly, there are no reports that the Clippers have directed ticket sales and marketing efforts away from minority fans. As a franchise, the Clippers appear to be well-run, which would make it an unusual candidate for termination.
3. Lack of 'morals clause'. Article 13 lists a series of enumerated wrongs, some of which are specific but none of which seem directly relevant to an owner whose racism expressed in a private conversation sparks national outrage. Some owners might argue that if the NBA wanted ouster as a remedy for a situation like this one, the constitution and bylaws' drafters would have included it. Along those lines, there is no "morals clause" in these documents that empowers the ousting an NBA owner. The absence of a morals clause, in contrast to the inclusion of other provisions, could suggest that such a clause was intentionally omitted.
4. Precedent. While Sterling's actions seem unlikely to be replicated by another owner, some owners could worry that if they agree to oust Sterling, different situations might give rise to the same consequence for other owners. Once one owner is ousted, there is precedent to do it again. Mark Cuban recently voiced those exact concerns, calling the situation "a slippery slope."
Read More: sportsillustrated.cnn.com...
originally posted by: thesmokingman
a reply to: schuyler
Lets put it this way...If the MLB can ban George Stienbrenner from baseball,(he was banned for life several years ago, but ended up getting back in somehow) I am sure the NBA has the same rights.
“It was a sweeping ruling that went beyond what many expected,” says Michael McCann, law professor, and director, at the University of New Hampshire’s Sports and Entertainment Law institute. “It was a move that many of us thought the NBA wouldn’t do because of litigation.”
McCann said there are still legal issues that need to be sorted out. Silver, a trained and experience lawyer, believes he has the legal right to punish Sterling, based on league bylaws and regulations. But Sterling may be reluctant to give up so easily.
“His much stronger claim could be in the forfeiture of the team, and there he could have a case,” said McCann. “There are some antitrust lawyers, who believe that if the NBA and its teams conspire to kick him out and force him to sell his team, he would lose money as a result.”
McCann, who serves as a legal analyst for Sports Illustrated and NBA TV, also said the financial penalties could also prompt Sterling to fight.
“He has an incentive to fight because of capital gains tax, and specifically, if he sells the team, he’ll have to pay an enormous tax because he bought the team for 12 and half million and it would likely sell for seven, eight, 900 million dollars. He would pay a 33 percent tax on the difference,” said McCann, who notes that if Sterling were to hang onto the franchise, his family could inherit the team, and not have to pay capital gains taxes.