LA Clippers

[Money Shot]

As I predicted, now that Sterling has become a complete pariah, all types of things are starting to come out. As is typical in these types of situations, it's only once a rich person or company hits bottom and money stops flowing does the real truth start to emerge.

Today, there was an article in the LA Times (subscription only) that started to dig into the Donald Sterling Foundation. As I had mentioned, Sterling very frequently takes out huge ads in the Times promoting some honor he is to receive or some charity he is helping. They all look very similar with the same picture of him; clearly put together and paid for by Sterling. All of this started after the large settlement he paid over discriminatory housing practices.

The garish ads claim things like $20 million in charitable gifts, but the LA Times reports it's more like $1.4 million. Several big things announced and promoted over and over that never got done at all, like a ranch for underprivileged kids and new shelters on Skid Row.

They also interviewed some of the organizations featured in these ads and all said they did not authorize the advertisements and some not only asked him to stop using their name and logos, they actually sent cease and desist orders. And this all before the recent crapstorm of horrible publicity.


The guy is just a world-class sleazeball. Virtually anyone who has come in contact with him has been saying this for years.

Particularly if he puts up a fight against the NBA, there is going to be an absolute parade of people who will step forward. His only defenders will be his wife and mistress who both still have a big financial interest.

I wonder if those people would come forward out of the goodness of their hearts or for some kind of financial reward/benefit?

[Pete]

Many will come forward just to cover their own arses and disassociate themselves from Sterling.

But even apart from that, he has a huge amount of enemies. I think you could put most the NBA owners in that group long before this incident.

[Snowman]

As I predicted, now that Sterling has become a complete pariah, all types of things are starting to come out. As is typical in these types of situations, it's only once a rich person or company hits bottom and money stops flowing does the real truth start to emerge.

...

It kind of sounded like a chicken and egg problem on the word spreading beyond the local fans though. Stories written about him before were not getting much attention, may not have been the in the most likely spots to be spotted in papers and not many people were searching that out online. One author stated that even ten year old stories they had done about Sterling's racism were getting more page hits the day the recent news spread than in all the time since they had been written.

[Pete]

Yes, and it's why people in the NBA and those living in L.A. were so quick to condemn him and why to others those judgments might appear overly harsh.

[hoya]

Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right. -the Mayor, Ghostbusters 2


I don't think the people "defending" Sterling are really defending anything he has said or done. I think people are understandably cautious about giving a thumbs-up to a media-led cruxifiction.

Donald Sterling may be a grade A scumbag, but I'd never heard of him before this scandal broke. I think he's clearly a racist, but this is not nearly as bad as, say, Mel Gibson's drunken rant. To me this looks motivated purely by money. Sterling clearly had a lot of enemies, and with this tape they found a reason to get rid of him. The punishment here seems well out of proportion to the offense, and I think there's a lot of hypocrisy going around. I'd bet that a good number of the owners (and media people, and players) who are slamming Sterling have had very similar conversations in private. They just weren't caught on tape, or they don't have nearly the number of enemies. I was joking around a bit earlier when I said "but I like Shaq", but there's some truth there. I like Shaq and so I'm going to give him a whole lot of leeway. This is coming from the league that produced Charles Barkley and his mouth.

The lesson here is that you can say whatever you want as long as you're charming.

Donald Sterling is looking at losing perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars on a forced sale of his team. I haven't read the NBA bylaws or any of the ownership agreements or anything like that, so I don't know any legal authority they may possess to force such a sale. But such an event would clearly be the time to low-ball Sterling on the price. The Clippers are really good, the old man is denied control of operations, a new CEO is being appointed by the league, etc. I don't see how he's going to get what the team is really worth out of any sale. And I am not comfortable at all with the idea that someone can take your property because you've voiced a politcally unpopular opinion.

[dankrutka]

Two things: 1. If you didn't know who Sterling was and that he was a terrible scumbag and racist, then you weren't paying attention. This was well known before this incident. 2. Sterling is going to make a massive amount of money when he sells the team. NBA teams are incredibly valuable and selling for high prices. There will be numerous suitors, which will keep the price high enough.

It's laughable to put Sterling, a long known racist who has ruined people's lives because of his discriminatory practices, and Charles Barkley, an entertainer who sometimes says outlandish things. The former has real power to hurt people (and has) and the latter, for right or wrong, incites discussions concerning lots of issues including race. I personally enjoy Barkley even if he says ridiculous and short-sighted things on occasion.

[Urbanized]

He'll probably make well over half a billion dollars in PROFIT on the flip. He paid $12 million for the team. He now has players who make more than that, annually.

[adaniel]

The lesson here is that you can say whatever you want as long as you're charming.

Donald Sterling is looking at losing perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars on a forced sale of his team. I haven't read the NBA bylaws or any of the ownership agreements or anything like that, so I don't know any legal authority they may possess to force such a sale. But such an event would clearly be the time to low-ball Sterling on the price. The Clippers are really good, the old man is denied control of operations, a new CEO is being appointed by the league, etc. I don't see how he's going to get what the team is really worth out of any sale. And I am not comfortable at all with the idea that someone can take your property because you've voiced a politcally unpopular opinion.

Couple of points of clarification.

Sterling will not lose anything if forced to sell and will likely see his net worth surge. He bought the team in 1981 for $12.5 million. At last valuation Forbes put the value of the team at somewhere around $600 million [EDIT: urbanized beat me to it], but a lot of people think he could possibly get north of $1 billion. Not a bad return. I am pretty stunned that a man in the twilight of his life who may possibly be fighting cancer would plan to drag out a legal battle he will almost certainly lose and refuse $1 billion to make a point. But whatever.

Also, the NBA is a private business and can do whatever it wants. The Clippers at the end of the day are a franchise, operating under laws and guidelines that are not that different than any other franchise. If I owned a franchise of a fast food restaraunt and did bombastic, outlandish things that offended 75% of my employees and more importantly, a good chunk of my customers, you better believe my franchise license would be yanked in a New York minute. Losing one's property because they voice unpopular opinions is a legitamite concern if you are talking about a person and the government. Between 2 private entities, thats between them.

[hoya]

He'll probably make well over half a billion dollars in PROFIT on the flip. He paid $12 million for the team. He now has players who make more than that, annually.

Couple of points of clarification.

Sterling will not lose anything if forced to sell and will likely see his net worth surge. He bought the team in 1981 for $12.5 million. At last valuation Forbes put the value of the team at somewhere around $600 million [EDIT: urbanized beat me to it], but a lot of people think he could possibly get north of $1 billion. Not a bad return. I am pretty stunned that a man in the twilight of his life who may possibly be fighting cancer would plan to drag out a legal battle he will almost certainly lose and refuse $1 billion to make a point. But whatever.

Also, the NBA is a private business and can do whatever it wants. The Clippers at the end of the day are a franchise, operating under laws and guidelines that are not that different than any other franchise. If I owned a franchise of a fast food restaraunt and did bombastic, outlandish things that offended 75% of my employees and more importantly, a good chunk of my customers, you better believe my franchise license would be yanked in a New York minute. Losing one's property because they voice unpopular opinions is a legitamite concern if you are talking about a person and the government. Between 2 private entities, thats between them.

I don't think they are set up like a franchise. I'm almost certain they are not. I wonder what the ownership structure was back in 1980 when he bought the team.

Yes, he'll gain money over what he spent originally, to be sure. He still may not get what the team is actually worth. Sterling has owned that team for a very long time. Selling your copy of Spider-Man #1 for $5 may have earned you a profit (since it was a dime back in 1962), but it doesn't mean you didn't get screwed.

[Urbanized]

He'll get fair market value. That's not a screwing.

[adaniel]

They'll pay the premium if it means getting rid of him.

[Jim Kyle]

Also, the NBA is a private business and can do whatever it wants.

Not quite. Back around 1960 the courts ruled that any private business that did business across a state line was engaged in "interstate commerce" (even if that business consisted only of purchasing supplies from out-of-state vendors). That formed the foundation on which the entire Civil Rights Act of 1960 was built!

Since the NBA broadcasts games across the entire nation, it's obviously subject to federal regulation and or course to all the requirements thereof -- no entity, business or individual, can do "whatever it wants" since that decision. Only history will tell us whether that's a good thing or bad, but it certainly restricts freedom of action in either event.

[Pete]

I really think these recent events are going to completely ruin the Clippers.

There was an article in the LA Times today that most of the 20 sponsors that withdrew over the Sterling mess have yet to return after his ban.

Sterling will fight to the death to keep the team and now his wife is saying she won't sell under any circumstances. Doc Rivers has indicated that he doesn't necessarily want to stay if Mrs. Sterling is still an owner and I'm sure the players feel the same way.

I bet this lingers for years and in the meantime, the team will lose sponsors, coaches and players.

Remember that for decades the Clippers were the worst team in the NBA. So much so, even with their current success they have the worst NBA winning percentage all-time (apart from the Bobcats who have only been around 10 years).

And they were atrocious up until recently because Sterling didn't care if they were in last place, which is one of the many reasons the man is so despised.

I bet both the Sterlings fight this out in court for a very long time and the club descends back to the bottom of the NBA.

[Dennis Heaton]

I bet both the Sterlings fight this out in court for a very long time and the club descends back to the bottom of the NBA.

2 Billion Dollars can pay a lot of attorney fees for a long, long, long time. I suspect I'll be just a memory before this "CF" is ever resolved.

[Pete]

For Sterling, he has all the money in the world and loves to sue (he's an attorney himself), plus he has a somewhat reasonable case.

He doesn't care about the money, he cares about fighting and "winning" and he'll never just sell the team until every legal avenue and appeal is exhausted.

And beyond that, the NBA probably can't do anything about Mrs. Sterling's share, which is half.


In the end, there really wasn't anything the NBA could do... If they didn't try to force Sterling to sell the result would be the same (sponsors and players leaving). At least this way, they can say they took a stand.

But I really can't see another outcome other than the team completely falling apart until this is all cleared up, which could take many, many years.

[Urbanized]

Pete, your posts are music to my ears. Talent-wise it is the team I fear most going forward. The sooner they are irrelevant again, the better.

[Pete]

I bet by next year they will be a very different team and it will be downhill from there.

It's hard to imagine anyone with a choice staying with them.

[Snowman]

I bet by next year they will be a very different team and it will be downhill from there.

It's hard to imagine anyone with a choice staying with them.

Unless they can break their contracts, most of the core players have multi year deals, getting quality role players should now be much more difficult.

Though from all the rumors they seem more likely to fight than sell, losing serious money in operations for a few years may change that but even the the roster will probably be decimated (which will no doubt not help PR), which could cut hundreds of millions off what they could get now.

[Teo9969]

That's all nice to say in theory…

But Rivers is under contract for 2 more seasons and Chris Paul and Blake Griffin are locked one year longer until mid-2017. They will have no legal recourse to get out of those contracts. So it's either boycott and lose millions or "play for a racist owner". And it's not like the Clippers organization wants to fold. There are a bunch of real people there with real jobs. Free-agency is going to be tricky…but at some point, these players are going to have to make grown-up, multi-million dollar decisions that will likely result in a bunch of people gritting their teeth and bearing. The question is what will players like Deandre Jordan do after next season? Go somewhere else and leave Paul and Griffin, and a chance to win championships behind?

[Pete]

But they can't force the players to play. Magic Johnson was just quoted yesterday saying none of the players would play even if it was just Shelly Sterling in the ownership role.

They could go play in Europe, or file their own lawsuits trying to gain free agency. Might not get very far but this is an unprecedented situation.


At this point, both the Sterlings are likely to fight to the bitter end regardless of what it does to their asset. They are both 80 and have more money than they could ever spend. They will fight because they want to be proven right and show up the NBA, and because that's the type of people they are.

[Snowman]

At this point, both the Sterlings are likely to fight to the bitter end regardless of what it does to their asset. They are both 80 and have more money than they could ever spend. They will fight because they want to be proven right and show up the NBA, and because that's the type of people they are.

While they might be able to get some personal satisfaction against the NBA in court, I do not see them ever winning public opinion, I would not be shocked if it only goes lower from here.

[Teo9969]

But they can't force the players to play. Magic Johnson was just quoted yesterday saying none of the players would play even if it was just Shelly Sterling in the ownership role.

They could go play in Europe, or file their own lawsuits trying to gain free agency. Might not get very far but this is an unprecedented situation.


At this point, both the Sterlings are likely to fight to the bitter end regardless of what it does to their asset. They are both 80 and have more money than they could ever spend. They will fight because they want to be proven right and show up the NBA, and because that's the type of people they are.

We'll see if that happens. For some reason it's really hard for me to imagine CP3, Griffin, and Rivers all saying "we'll forego such a great opportunity to compete for championships to oust a racist owner". If they do, more power to them…it's their choice.

And if it does, then at that point it's very possible that the NBA will have all they need for a successful case against the Sterlings.

[Pete]

Keep in mind the Clippers players almost boycotted the playoffs this year.

They won't be competing for championships after this season.

[Easy180]

But they can't force the players to play. Magic Johnson was just quoted yesterday saying none of the players would play even if it was just Shelly Sterling in the ownership role.

They could go play in Europe, or file their own lawsuits trying to gain free agency. Might not get very far but this is an unprecedented situation.


At this point, both the Sterlings are likely to fight to the bitter end regardless of what it does to their asset. They are both 80 and have more money than they could ever spend. They will fight because they want to be proven right and show up the NBA, and because that's the type of people they are.

I hear N Korea will pay top dollar for elite NBA players

[Laramie]

This debacle developed from Shelly Sterling's dislike toward Vanessa Stiviano. Shelly Sterling alleges that Donald Sterling met V. Stiviano at the 2010 Super Bowl in Miami, and has since given her a Ferrari, two Bentleys, a Range Rover, and a $1.8 million duplex, not to mention more than $250,000 cash (all because of Stiviano's fraudulent ways, of course). These were gifts--is there any 'legal recourse for intercourse' to force her to return those gifts or give Donald Sterling restitution? That's a lot to pay out--probably chicken feed to Sterling; however it's a lot to give up for a 'piece' of young flesh.

This is a tug-of-war between two women in which Mr. Sterling is getting his feathers plucked. D. Sterling is fighting for his potential lost of power to control, degrade and manipulate his subjects. It's true that they are probably other owners out there who have crossed the racists and bigotry lines; however they haven't gotten caught.

Systemic or institutionalized racism has gone on for decades and centuries throughout the United States. Whether it's the slave owner's mentality or the rich manipulator with that urge to control those around him or her doesn't make it right. Sooner or later these 'control freak monguls' are exposed and brought down by their own weight.

"Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.