Author Topic: Sterling loses preliminary ruling  (Read 6205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2014, 09:07:35 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
The sale has to go through by August 15th because the NBA Board of Governors is going to meet on that day -- and they'd be able to approve Ballmer as a new owner. Its all part of the process to get Sterling out ASAP, and Shelly Sterling's legal argument in the new proceedings is that Donald is trying to delay the case in order to screw with that deadline.


Also your second post is terrifyingly bizarre (and possibly contradictory).

Steve Balmer set AUG 15 as a deadline to complete the deal. He did this back when he submitted the offer.

How did I contradict myself and what is wrong with my post .

Ballmer set the deadline for the sale with Shelly Sterling around the Board Of Governors' schedule -- since they have to approve of him joining the ownership group.

It just happened a few moments ago. Some of the legal eagles may understand this better. I guess Balmer said the sale has to go through by Aug 15th, so lets hope this gets held up or something for another few weeks.

I hope time runs out for the Sterlings and Balmer takes back the offer. Then Doc would leave. Then we get a better pick. Also Sterling is prob too old to enjoy this money and I don't want his wife to get any cash from this. I think Cali law is if you get married then after ten years your spouse gets half of everything, even if you have a prenup.

You've edited this post since I posted, so its more clear now, but the bolded makes it seem like you see this as a cash grab on the part of Shelly Sterling, which is really not the important part of the whole case.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2014, 09:22:47 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Not a lawyer, but I understand the intricacies of the case about as well as anyone else who's reporting on it.  ;)

Why do you think the law is on Sterling's side, and why do you think that will in any way impede the sale of the team, beyond the paperwork?

I believe that an arguably illegal recording of a private conversation in a man's living room will be difficult to use against him in court.  I also know that whether a person is suffering dementia is an inexact science that is difficult to prove in court and thus would favor Sterling
.

This superior court judge seemed to use opinion when talking about what is best for the team and ownership when talking about value and the dollar amount it was sold for.  I don't see how that is relevant.

I also understand that LA superior court would gladly pass a case like this on based on smarter/more knowledgeable minds than my own... which has effectively happened assuming Sterling appeals which he has said he will do.

Right, so the two bolded sentences have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Which is fine, its complicated, and there's a lot of noise going on around the issue but essentially: the NBA is kicking Sterling out/forcing him to sell the team because he violated the NBA's bylaws, which is something that happens in corporate America all the time. Sterling's lost his right to an NBA franchise by virtue of being so damaging to the league's brand that the greater NBA had to force him out, whether that damage originated in private conversation or not is largely/entirely irrelevant. The league is well within its rights to remove owners from participation in the NBA, all that's left is the kicking and screaming.

Sterling v. Sterling is about whether or not Shelly Sterling had the right to sell the team to Steve Ballmer at the time of the sale, and whether or not Donald Sterling was of sound mind when he gave her the authority to make the sale. Which is something that he did, by the way -- and by all accounts he did it because he thought that somehow the lifetime ban would be rescinded pending the sale of the team. Not exactly the best thing to have out in the open when trying to exploit every loophole to stop the sale which he had previously agreed to.

This is all source-able information. You can check the NBA Constitution (which the league released as a PDF) for their laws about removing an owner, and a relevant article about Sterling's abandonment of the original sale can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-clippers-sterling-sale-20140607-story.html

And now I need to sleep.

I don't see how anything you wrote refutes the two bolded sentences which I understand will be the two points he argues in appeals... as far as I have read in numerous articles.

You are right that it is very complicated and I do hope he loses.

Actually, Sterling's latest argument is that his wife couldn't have sold the team because LAC  Basketball Club Inc., of which D. Sterling is the sole shareholder, owned the Clippers, not the Sterling Family Trust. Which would mean that his wife couldn't have sold the team. The twist there is that he transferred the ownership to the LAC BB Club Inc. more than two weeks after being declared mentally unfit, as well as allowing his wife to proceed with the sale.


Basically, a week ago, Sterling met with Ballmer -- ostensibly to talk about a sale -- and last Wednesday he opened up this latest suit. Inconsistent behavior has been the name of the game when it comes to his actions during this whole debacle.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/clippers/la-sp-sterling-clippers-sale-20140723-story.html#page=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/22/us-nba-clippers-idUSKBN0FQ22N20140722
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2014, 11:34:09 AM »

Offline fandrew

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 180
  • Tommy Points: 25
" I think Cali law is if you get married then after ten years your spouse gets half of everything, even if you have a prenup."

That's scary

No wonder she hasn't divorced him.   

Had they lived in any other state, she would've been long gone.

They got married in 1955.  It's been said they became estranged in 2012, so maybe she's just been waiting for him to die so that she gets more than half.

They probably figured they would lose more than they would gain in a divorce. I bet they had a Bill and Hillary relationship for at least the last couple of years. Keep in mind that while his name may be at the forefront of their businesses, she was very active in the accumulation of their wealth. She was never some trophy wife who married some guy 20 years older than her, and stuck it out for him to die, or to be married for just long enough to be set for life.

That being said, in most cases, of marriages where either there are children involved or it was a long term marriage (say 10 years), the assets should be split; after that amount of time together, it is more than likely that they supported each other enough in some form that they each contributed to each others success.
"It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care." - Peter Gibbons

Re: Sterling loses preliminary ruling
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2014, 10:35:34 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
Sterling lost. Ballmer bought the team. Someone please tell me why Sterling obviously had the upper hand in the court proceedings again?


http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/11343259/steve-ballmer-officially-new-owner-los-angeles-clippers
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.