The "Donald Sterling's Latest Bigoted Rant And Fallout" Thread

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

You do describe those people as missing the point, though. I would say they didn't miss the point. They just had a different one.

When I was saying they were missing the point, I was indicating that they were mischaracterizing what people were saying when they mentioned freedom of speech and then were subjected to like 2 or 3 links of the XKCD cartoon and post after post saying freedom of speech was only dealing with government bans.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Edit: Just don't care enough to keep this going

[stevew]

News from The Associated Press


Meetings start on Thursday on how to dismiss Sterling

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think this link also well worth the read:

Donald Sterling’s Personal Foul, Ctd « The Dish

Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. It makes pretty much everything else Kareem said worthless, because he's not even interested in arguing what happened here, but something in some other universe where all Sterling did was complain about an Instagram picture.

[larrymcg421]

He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing.

This example is completely baffling to me. He settled a lawsuit and still denied the claims. Do people really think this would've been enough for the NBA to drop him?

I mean, this is an argument I keep seeing, that the NBA's priorities are screwed up because they care more about this incident than housing discrimination. The difference here seems to be obvious: he was caught on tape! Do people really think if Sterling was caught on tape saying, "I won't rent to black people" that the same shitstorm wouldn't have erupted?

[nol]

Important to note that the money owners are trying to protect is not so much sponsorships (a drop in the bucket compared to TV rights) but future shares of the revenue in collective bargaining agreements.

It's been a pretty good hustle so far for the owners to keep getting larger and larger shares of revenue as television deals and global interest in the NBA have continually increased, but it will be tougher when the guy they are all publicly condemning, the one who is recorded saying things like

I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them? Do I know that I have—Who makes the game? Do I make the game, or do they make the game? Is there 30 owners, that created the league?

is the one who falls in line with the majority when negotiating behind closed doors.

[path12]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When I was saying they were missing the point, I was indicating that they were mischaracterizing what people were saying when they mentioned freedom of speech and then were subjected to like 2 or 3 links of the XKCD cartoon and post after post saying freedom of speech was only dealing with government bans.

I understand your larger point. But based on the Twitter response of "OMG the First Amendment and America are dead you guys!" that we often see these days whenever these issues come up, I think it's fairly clear that there are a significant number of people who do not understand that it speaks strictly to the government and that there are still private/public consequences in play -- and I think you are ignoring that in your argument.

I'm sure there are a portion of those who are speaking to the larger issue of what we do and do not approve of as far as expression goes and want to debate where the line is or should be, but they get drowned out by the more ignorant as well.

[dave731]

I have taken the time to listen to the entire publicized tape and I am convinced this was baiting on her part to get him to say something negative. He is legitimately pissed with her because someone (probably other owners?) is telling him that his g/f is likely having sex with black people. She is nagging the crap out of him the entire time. I've said stuff to my wife in the heat of an argument I wouldn't want broadcast to the world and could easily make me out to be a huge asshole and I think that is where this argument gets to.

The irony that is lost here is that he is making the case throughout the tape that he isn't a racist. He never once used the N word which I found just as shocking.

I don't think he should lose his team or even be banned for life for this recording. Especially when other owners/players have said things I would say are far worse than this. Basically, Sterling is privately asking his g/f to not take pictures with black guys and be seen at his games in public with those guys.

From recent memory...
Isiah Thomas Larry Bird comment?
Marge Schott never lost her team?

I was listening to the Steve Harvey radio show this morning and he nailed it by saying there will be disastrous consequences for the owners who didn't vote to remove Sterling. They need 3/4 of the league to get him out....would you want to be an owner who voted to not remove Sterling at this point?

[chadritt]

I really hate the "sure he was being racist but she MADE him be racist" argument. No...just no no no no no. You can argue about whether the comment was enough to lose a team over, i genuinely think this had been building for a long time and this was just the best chance they think theyll ever get with him, but I dont think you can actually deny this man has problems with race.

ETA: And Marge Schott did lose her team.

[nol]

Originally Posted by dave731

He is legitimately pissed with her because someone (probably other owners?) is telling him that his g/f is likely having sex with black people.

LOL so the skin color of the parties involved dictates how mad one should be if he catches his girlfriend sleeping with another person?

edit: also having a good chuckle at the mental image of some 70+ year old billionaire trolling around on Donald Sterling's side chick's Instagram

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by dave731

He is legitimately pissed with her because someone (probably other owners?) is telling him that his g/f is likely having sex with black people.

You wrote this.

Basically, Sterling is privately asking his g/f to not take pictures with black guys and be seen at his games in public with those guys.

Yeah, basically. That's all. No big deal.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This example is completely baffling to me. He settled a lawsuit and still denied the claims. Do people really think this would've been enough for the NBA to drop him?

I mean, this is an argument I keep seeing, that the NBA's priorities are screwed up because they care more about this incident than housing discrimination. The difference here seems to be obvious: he was caught on tape! Do people really think if Sterling was caught on tape saying, "I won't rent to black people" that the same shitstorm wouldn't have erupted?

I don't think anyone expected the NBA to drop him for the housing discrimination lawsuit. Hell, there is still a debate as to whether the league can do what the commissioner handed down yesterday. However, given all of the various incidents that Sterling has been involved in, a legitimate question can be asked where the NBA has been when it comes to investigation and possible discipline if warranted for Sterling's role in any of these incidents. Given all of the things silly that generates fines and suspensions in sports today (despite settlements and such), to go from never being publicly investigated by the NBA to a lifetime ban and being forced to sell to the team is a tremendous change for the league. Sports leagues have lit teams, coaches and players up with less evidence.

[molson]

Now this shit's real

Nevada's Bunny Ranch Brothel Bans Donald Sterling For Life

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I did not hear the show but I assume it is represented in his column.

Whitlock: Removing Donald Sterling as L.A. Clippers owner won't fix our culture - ESPN

Well-intentioned white people should be holding nationally televised panel discussions focusing on ways to lessen the damaging impact of white-supremacy culture. Well-intentioned white people who work within or support the NBA should be demanding that the NBA power structure cede some of its governing power to men and women who look like the overwhelming majority of the league's players.

Instead, the mainstream fanned the flames, enraging the angry black mob looking for a quick solution, a sacrificial lamb -- and now, by the end of the week, we'll be back to business as usual, pretending the stoning of Sterling harmed the culture that created him.

Interesting take. I wonder if he's being ironic. Has "looks like..." become the new code word for acceptable racial bias. Charles Barkley called the NBA a "black league." Larry Johnson openly supports an all-black league. Had Sterling advocated an "all-white" league, we'd probably be more outraged than we are with what he said.

Don't get me wrong. I think sports franchise owners have a responsibility to the public, and Sterling's history indicates he can't fulfill that responsibility. Perception is important. I hope he does the right thing and sells the team quickly.

I don't know what to make of this. We're all stuck in this world together - it makes no sense to maintain that there's any significant difference between black and white skin. Yet we seem obsessed with it. I don't know what a white-supremacy culture is. It's not what I stand for. It's not what my parents taught me. I don't have relatives who make absurd comments or use nasty language about racial groups. I've never worked anywhere where bosses have done anything but pledge full support for affirmative action.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by molson

Now this shit's real

Nevada's Bunny Ranch Brothel Bans Donald Sterling For Life

Maybe now he'll learn his lesson.

[cartman]

[dave731]

Originally Posted by nol

LOL so the skin color of the parties involved dictates how mad one should be if he catches his girlfriend sleeping with another person?

edit: also having a good chuckle at the mental image of some 70+ year old billionaire trolling around on Donald Sterling's side chick's Instagram

I won't even attempt to decipher the level of outrage one should experience if they are told that their mistress is sleeping with other guys regardless of their skin color...lol

And by "legitimately" pissed...I mean that he is actually upset with her in the tape. He isn't just having a normal conversation with her....it is a heated argument stemming from his circle of friends giving him hell for his g/f posting pics with black guys who she may or may not be sleeping with.

Just a bizarro situation all around....

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Interesting take. I wonder if he's being ironic. Has "looks like..." become the new code word for acceptable racial bias. Charles Barkley called the NBA a "black league." Larry Johnson openly supports an all-black league. Had Sterling advocated an "all-white" league, we'd probably be more outraged than we are with what he said.

Don't get me wrong. I think sports franchise owners have a responsibility to the public, and Sterling's history indicates he can't fulfill that responsibility. Perception is important. I hope he does the right thing and sells the team quickly.

I don't know what to make of this. We're all stuck in this world together - it makes no sense to maintain that there's any significant difference between black and white skin. Yet we seem obsessed with it. I don't know what a white-supremacy culture is. It's not what I stand for. It's not what my parents taught me. I don't have relatives who make absurd comments or use nasty language about racial groups. I've never worked anywhere where bosses have done anything but pledge full support for affirmative action.

He's not being ironic. He is a race baiter, everything is about race to him. I actually like him lately on PTI but he was unbearable when he worked in Kansas City.

[Groundhog]

I think Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in Time was spot-on. Sterling is a racist scumbag, has been for years. It's appalling that it took something like this to get people to take notice, but the whole situation around HOW it happened is also appalling.

[RainMaker]

I don't get Whitlock's column. Is he insinuating that the NBA has been bad for blacks in this country? That it has caused an increase in racism?

Outside of the Sterling thing, the NBA is about as diverse and welcoming as any league in professional sports. Half the head coaches are black and I believe the same can be said for assistants. Race hustlers like Whitlock should be focusing on real issues.

[nol]

He's insinuating that people shouldn't pat themselves on the back too much just because of what happened to Sterling since there are clearly more people in power who share (or at least pretend to share for the sake of making more money) his "You're nothing without us.. you're lucky we pay for your fancy cars and houses" view of the players (while the NBA definitely has a better track record than most other sports leagues, there's a big difference between representation at the coaching and the executive level) but are just not as publicly buffoonish about it as Sterling was.

In terms of the "realness" of that issue, it seems like something that extends pretty naturally past a black/white or sports-only thing to all of the stuff that normally comes up when people discuss where to draw the line for what "job creators" should be able to do in the name of turning a profit.

If your confusion was due to Jason Whitlock not being the greatest writer out there, here's a more well-written version of his sentiments: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...Racist/361443/

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

He's not being ironic. He is a race baiter, everything is about race to him. I actually like him lately on PTI but he was unbearable when he worked in Kansas City.

He's a worthless piece of shit that ought to be an embarrassment for ESPN to associate with.

Instead the double standards continue as we trot merrily along the road of political correctness where all the wrongs in the world are the fault of white males & the only people who can be criticized are white folks & anyone who dares to agree with them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

He's a worthless piece of shit that ought to be an embarrassment for ESPN to associate with.

Instead the double standards continue as we trot merrily along the road of political correctness where all the wrongs in the world are the fault of white males & the only people who can be criticized are white folks & anyone who dares to agree with them.

You will certainly have your critics about what you just said here but I can tell you that anyone who actually read this guy when he worked in Kansas City will nod their head in agreement. Everything was racial...

The Royals beat the Indians last night 2-0 in front of 30,000 fans. Where were those 30,000 when Chris Smith was gunned down last night in downtown Kansas City?

So the Chiefs will play another season with a white quarterback. Tell me what credentials does Joe Montana have to lead a football team?

Norm Stewert's entire basketball team is black but I will still find a way to blast him about some racial issue...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You will certainly have your critics about what you just said here

Golly, that'll be a new experience around here

[RainMaker]

I actually agree with Jon on this one.

Sterling has been a piece of shit for decades and that extends beyond just minorities. The league is much better off without him.

But people like Whitlock and other race baiters use guys like Sterling as a scapegoat for all the problems in the black community. In their eyes it's racism that causes all the problems. Until these "leaders" in the community start looking inward and targeting the real problems, nothing will change.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But people like Whitlock and other race baiters use guys like Sterling as a scapegoat for all the problems in the black community]Until these "leaders" in the community start looking inward and targeting the real problems, nothing will change..

I must be lucky they never tested me on this in any history classes, but who were these great leaders in the Irish/Italian/Jewish/etc. immigrant communities that enabled those groups to overcome their problems and assimilate into American culture on a much shorter timescale?

edit: this is an obvious rhetorical question where the type of persecution they faced was not something that required a massive community-wide effort to overcome; otherwise we would have heard about these leaders in the same breath as W.E.B. DuBois, Booker T. Washington, MLK and so on. Overcoming persecution was often the result of enough time passing that people moved on to another group they felt more strongly about persecuting, see: the rise and fall of the Know Nothing movement.

[Noop]

Last few posts are concerning but considering the people involved I am not surprised.

[Lathum]

I didn't read the Whitlock article, but heard his interview. Maybe I misinterpreted him, but it seemed to me he was almost defending Sterling, not in his views, but in the way this incident unfolded. His basic premis was we all have evel thoughts and express them at times in the privacy of our homes, safe places, etc...He even went as far as to use his father as an example, saying if his father was a billinonaire some of the stuff he said in private certainly would be able to be used against him to paint him in a bad light.

Just found it interesting.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Noop

Last few posts are concerning but considering the people involved I am not surprised.

Why?

Because people are discussing a reporter who has been proven to have an agenda? Because race is being discussed? Because someone question how other ethnic/ persecuted groups managed to rise above? Or is it because it's white guys discussing it?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why?

Because people are discussing a reporter who has been proven to have an agenda? Because race is being discussed? Because someone question how other ethnic/ persecuted groups managed to rise above? Or is it because it's white guys discussing it?

Most likely because it's easier to make an ad hominem attack than actually dispute what people are saying about Whitlock? I found his post to be ironic more than anything.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by cartman

So? Dan Snyder has a free pass...

[mrtourette]

He's a hateful shitbag, but an interesting point has been raised whether people should be punished for their own personal opinions that they intend to keep to themselves but are only leaked via secret recordings. In this case it's vindicated (because of his past transgressions) but it's dangerous territory to set a precedent for, especially with the NBA saying that his past wasn't considered when deciding on the punishment. Ultimately though he shouldn't be in the league (and shouldn't have been prior to this incident) so the result is a good one.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by mrtourette

He's a hateful shitbag, but an interesting point has been raised whether people should be punished for their own personal opinions that they intend to keep to themselves but are only leaked via secret recordings.

I don't even understand the debate here. The man said something in the privacy of his own home. Not to a reporter, not to a media outlet. Condemning is one thing, punishing is something else entirely. The man is being punished severely for his private thoughts. How that doesn't scare the shit of people has left me perplexed.

To make matters worse, he's being punished and vilified by people, who I'd bet a lot of money, knew firsthand exactly what those thoughts were for years, but did nothing on an individual level. From the players to the coaches, to the other owners, to people in the media. They took his money, they took his charity, they socialized with him.

It's gutless and cowardly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I didn't read the Whitlock article, but heard his interview. Maybe I misinterpreted him, but it seemed to me he was almost defending Sterling, not in his views, but in the way this incident unfolded. His basic premis was we all have evel thoughts and express them at times in the privacy of our homes, safe places, etc...He even went as far as to use his father as an example, saying if his father was a billinonaire some of the stuff he said in private certainly would be able to be used against him to paint him in a bad light.

Just found it interesting.

Just listened to his interview and actually agree with a lot of what he said. His article I thought was tough to follow and was a bit harsh.

One thing I'll add is I do think Whitlock looks at the bigger picture more than most writers on the race topic and isn't as bad as I implied.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

The man is being punished severely for his private thoughts.

Not exactly. He's being punished severely for the extremely bad P.R. that the publicizing of his private thoughts has created. That's just the reality of our world.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Not exactly. He's being punished severely for the extremely bad P.R. that the publicizing of his private thoughts has created. That's just the reality of our world.

I totally agree.

This is all about business and money. After what Sterling said become public, whether it was initially private or not, he became a huge negative for the NBA. Sponsors were dropping out, players were going to protest/not play games, it became a PR nightmare for the NBA that would impact their bottom line.

The NBA decided that it was in its best interests to sever ties with Sterling.

It's all very cut and dry to me.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't get Whitlock's column. Is he insinuating that the NBA has been bad for blacks in this country? That it has caused an increase in racism?

Outside of the Sterling thing, the NBA is about as diverse and welcoming as any league in professional sports. Half the head coaches are black and I believe the same can be said for assistants. Race hustlers like Whitlock should be focusing on real issues.

What would be the real issues?

[Buccaneer]

Not only a PR nightmare but an economic nightmare as well, at least for one franchise (and extending to other franchises). There have been countless changes made over the past few decades solely from sponsors pulling out.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I totally agree.

This is all about business and money. After what Sterling said become public, whether it was initially private or not, he became a huge negative for the NBA. Sponsors were dropping out, players were going to protest/not play games, it became a PR nightmare for the NBA that would impact their bottom line.

The NBA decided that it was in its best interests to sever ties with Sterling.

It's all very cut and dry to me.

And Silver addressed this in his press conference, I believe when he was asked about issuing punishment based on a private conversation. His response was simple and to the point: "It's public now."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Logan

And Silver addressed this in his press conference, I believe when he was asked about issuing punishment based on a private conversation. His response was simple and to the point: "It's public now."

I am not sure if it would be all that different for anyone else really.

I am on the legal staff of a pretty large company. By no means am I the public face of the company. But, let's say, for example, I threw a private party for just close friends at my house to celebrate MLK Day and the party was like the one thrown by that ASU frat (ASU fraternity expelled over Martin Luther King Day party | Fox News. Then some friend takes pictures of me at the party, posts them on Facebook or some other social media site and the news picks up on it and all of a sudden there is some headline: "Company Attorney Throws 'Racist' Party for MLK Day." [Note, this is a wild hypothetical.]

My ass would be fired the next day. I wouldn't expect anything else. Why would the company want to deal with the hassle, negative PR, or any other potential economic detriments for keeping me on as an employee? I wouldn't imagine it'd be too different for anyone else.

Here, the stakes are just all the bigger.

[Buccaneer]

HB, in addition, I am not allowed to speak to any media or to post anything about my company -unless previously approved. There are official spokespersons and we do not get into the game of unauthorized spokespersons. Doing so would have significant consequences.

[molson]

Originally Posted by digamma

The claim in a legal action is fairly simple: the NBA didn't follow the letter of the league constitution. Essentially breach of contract. You may see other claims thrown in as well, but that is the core.

That's why Silver was so careful with his words in distinguishing between his actions in the ban and encouraging the BoG to take action with regard to a sale.

It's way too early to say whether a claim would succeed or fail. Munson's way out on a limb in stating that so definitively. I'm pretty certain Sterling could tie this up for years if he wanted.

Yup, there may be issues that look like "slam dunks" from a legal perspective, but that doesn't mean that there aren't angles that expensive lawyers can find (or at least spend a ton of time and money trying to find), or that litigation isn't used just to make an action you don't like more expensive for the other side.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.1774769

But, this is why the NBA has lawyers. They'll settle eventually and he'll be gone.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

Yup, there may be issues that look like "slam dunks" from a legal perspective, but that doesn't mean that there aren't angles that expensive lawyers can find (or at least spend a ton of time and money trying to find), or that litigation isn't used just to make an action you don't like more expensive for the other side.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...icle-1.1774769

But, this is why the NBA has lawyers. They'll settle eventually and he'll be gone.

Or he'll die. He is 80+. I imagine any court case will take a very long time. I think Blacky has it right that Sterling will get a backdoor payoff from the league and sell the team. That will be the only way this ends quickly.

[stevew]

Capital gains on selling the team will be like 300m. I'd imagine that should inflate the price by a ton. I can't wait until the team is sold for a "fair price." It will be staggering.

[nol]

Yeah, what Sterling will try to do is fight it until he dies so the team's passed on to his family. The capital gains tax when they sell it would just be based on the difference between the sale price and the Clippers' value at his time of death. That plus estate taxes would come out to less than $300m.

[Grammaticus]

Donald Sterling, NBA set for epic legal fight over Clippers - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

This is a pretty good article from SI that covers some of the factors that make the forced sale, not so much of a slam dunk. Everything from the fear of what will come out about the other owners to the article 13 language to what happens if Sterling sues and wins.

Here are some excerpts:

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."

The prospect of Sterling suing could be a source of worry to NBA owners for at least three reasons:

1. Sterling suing over franchise ouster could undermine the lifetime ban. The ban is intended to separate Sterling from the Clippers and the NBA, and as discussed above, Sterling likely has no viable case against it. If, however, Sterling sues over franchise ouster, it would be a high-profile lawsuit and he would remain in the news. Whatever distancing of Sterling is achieved through a ban could be lost in a high-profile case. It is also a case that could last years, as antitrust cases often do.

2. Sterling suing may lead to pretrial discovery, which could be designed in part to embarrass other owners and NBA officials of any bigoted remarks or beliefs on their part. Keep in mind, if Sterling is ousted because of racism, he would likely demand that evidence showing that other owners and officials are also racist be shared. He would use such information to portray his penalty as unwarranted and contradicted by the conduct of those who ousted him. Sterling might request emails and other records from owners and officials that depict them in a negative light. Sterling has owned the Clippers for 33 years, which suggests that he has had many interactions -- including private conversations with league officials and owners. If there are other owners who are racist or bigoted, it stands to reason Sterling knows who they are.

3. If Sterling wins or extracts a settlement, not only could NBA owners be on the hook for an expensive fee, but Sterling would seem victorious. The appearance of him winning in court would greatly detract from the important social message accomplished by the lifetime ban.

Important tax law considerations: avoiding capital gain taxes

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.

It also discusses that Mrs. Sterling could file for divorce and hold up a sale in a long drawn out divorce proceeding. Basically a wait out the clock on his 81 year old life strategy, to avoid the massive tax difference in a forced sale vs transfer to family. Or just to be the difficult guy he is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

What would be the real issues?

In Chicago where I live, there will be a couple dozen young black men shot this weekend. Some will die, some will just be injured. There will probably be a couple innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire and we'll hope it's not a kid. This will continue to take place all year like clockwork. It has gotten so bad that Chicago had to create designated paths where kids could walk to school surrounded by officers so they wouldn't get shot.

Now I consider this a real issue. I don't consider what some old bigot told his gold digger GF in his home a real issue that requires the world's undivided attention. When Donald Sterling is removed absolutely nothing will change.

[chadritt]

My old boss keeps making that "there are bigger issues, why do we care?" argument and I dont get it. Am I not allowed to be unhappy with more than one thing? Are we not allowed to go "Hang on...this is bad AND we can do something about it quickly."?

[stevew]

It is being reported that Sterling has cancer. The team going to his piece of shit wife will probably happen before any legal action is concluded

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

In Chicago where I live, there will be a couple dozen young black men shot this weekend. Some will die, some will just be injured. There will probably be a couple innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire and we'll hope it's not a kid. This will continue to take place all year like clockwork. It has gotten so bad that Chicago had to create designated paths where kids could walk to school surrounded by officers so they wouldn't get shot.

And thanks to the legacy upheld to this day by people like Donald Sterling, you could draw on a map almost exactly where those homicides are going to happen while knowing full well it won't be affecting the Chicago "where you live."

http://www.radicalcartography.net/ch...race_lines.jpg

Like it or not, this is a story that touches on many issues much bigger than some creepy old guy's pillow talk and whether or not the Clippers will win Game 7.