Donald Sterling Is A Democrat

[Adre]

Because he's being "forced" to sell. He's not selling on his own terms (not completely at any rate and possibly not at all). That's such basic economics that I don't even understand why you would doubt it. He'll get a lot of money for it, just not as much money as he would have gotten two weeks ago selling it because he wanted to move on and not because he has to get rid of it and the sponsors will come back, but they aren't all there right now. Which means it's worth less to him and the longer people wait the lower the price will go for him. Again this is basic shit.

They get to sign a new TV deal in 2016, so I am not so sure your logic prevails in this situation. There is a gold mine out there.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Well, first off, today, he is NOT being forced to sell anything. Second, what makes you think its a fire sale? Third, his wife owns 50%, so there are law about that sort of thing. Its complicated and I didnt expect you to fully understand the situation.

Devil is in the details, bro....

Nobody just gives away a billion dollar toy....this thing could be held up in court for years

There's an article in USA Today about how litigious Sterling is and the fact that he could be going through a divorce. I'd be shocked if this is resolved anytime before 2014 ends.

 

[Sean Renaud]

They get to sign a new TV deal in 2016, so I am not so sure your logic prevails in this situation. There is a gold mine out there.

How? The new tv deal in 2016 would be there regardless of the current events. i'm not saying this guy won't get paid and won't get paid well. I'm saying he would have been paid more if this wasn't happening in the manner that it's happening. It's probably only a difference of between ten and one hundred million dollars and without a time machine we can't test it to be sure obviously. But common sense says people who are forced to sell get less money than people who can comfortably wait another year or so.

 

[Beco]

The NBA can't really control that. If Sterling still owns the team next year Chris Paul could say trade me or I go play in Europe or I sit out.

Any player can do that. He's under contract for like $100 million. First off, he may not do that, that's a ton of money, second, you just can't sit out in protest.

 

[Adre]

How? The new tv deal in 2016 would be there regardless of the current events. i'm not saying this guy won't get paid and won't get paid well. I'm saying he would have been paid more if this wasn't happening in the manner that it's happening. It's probably only a difference of between ten and one hundred million dollars and without a time machine we can't test it to be sure obviously. But common sense says people who are forced to sell get less money than people who can comfortably wait another year or so.

Your mind is made up and you even seem to have an idea of the discount you insist on, so have it your way.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, first off, today, he is NOT being forced to sell anything. Second, what makes you think its a fire sale? Third, his wife owns 50%, so there are law about that sort of thing. Its complicated and I didnt expect you to fully understand the situation.

Devil is in the details, bro....

Nobody just gives away a billion dollar toy....this thing could be held up in court for years

You don't know that he's not being forced to sell. Which is why I mentioned the word may. He's certainly being strongly encouraged.

I didn't say fire sale, those are your words. The wife probably doesn't matter in this case.

It's really not complicated, there are a lot of details but economics always works the same way.

I didn't say they'll give away a billion dollar toy. I said his 1.1 billion dollar toy that under normal circumstances he could probably get 1.2 billion for will probably go for 900 million. And the longer he ties it up in court the worse it'll get for him unless he magically manages to weather the storm (which being honest crazier shit has happend.

 

[Beco]

How? The new tv deal in 2016 would be there regardless of the current events. i'm not saying this guy won't get paid and won't get paid well. I'm saying he would have been paid more if this wasn't happening in the manner that it's happening. It's probably only a difference of between ten and one hundred million dollars and without a time machine we can't test it to be sure obviously. But common sense says people who are forced to sell get less money than people who can comfortably wait another year or so.

You're not seeing the trees through the forest....its still a business, the other owners have a stake in the value of his team and what it sells for, it's not a fire sale. Besides, the other owners still have to agree on who the team eventually sells to. Maybe his wife stays in the mix...who knows.

This really isn't, IMO, a home that you can't pay the mortgage on, so yeah, it goes to whoever you can sell it to and fast.... this is a different animal completly.

 

[Beco]

You don't know that he's not being forced to sell. Which is why I mentioned the word may. He's certainly being strongly encouraged.

I didn't say fire sale, those are your words. The wife probably doesn't matter in this case.

It's really not complicated, there are a lot of details but economics always works the same way.

I didn't say they'll give away a billion dollar toy. I said his 1.1 billion dollar toy that under normal circumstances he could probably get 1.2 billion for will probably go for 900 million. And the longer he ties it up in court the worse it'll get for him unless he magically manages to weather the storm (which being honest crazier shit has happend.

The wife DOES matter, they are divorcing, there are laws in California for that sort of thing dealing with property, etc. Right now, a vote has not taken place, that I know of, that makes him sell his team. Also, there are legal issues that may or may not come into effect with regards to the Charter the NBA lives by. Did he really do something wrong, as it pertains to that Charter?

But I'm not an expert, but I do think you are wrong.....thats just my opinon

 

[islandman]

I said his 1.1 billion dollar toy that under normal circumstances he could probably get 1.2 billion for will probably go for 900 million. And the longer he ties it up in court the worse it'll get for him unless he magically manages to weather the storm (which being honest crazier shit has happend.

He's not selling a car in a market full of cars for sale. The NBA has only 30 teams and turnover is infrequent, which means he'll get his asking price and likely more.

 

[Sean Renaud]

He's not selling a car in a market full of cars for sale. The NBA has only 30 teams and turnover is infrequent, which means he'll get his asking price and likely more.

Not sure how that's possible but we'll know when we know I guess. The fact that he's not selling a car and instead selling a nearly unique item doesn't change anything here. People who have you by the balls don't give you the best deal. Period.

 

[islandman]

Not sure how that's possible but we'll know when we know I guess. The fact that he's not selling a car and instead selling a nearly unique item doesn't change anything here. People who have you by the balls don't give you the best deal. Period.

No one has him by the balls as he's not in urgent need to raise cash. In other words, he doesn't have a liquidity issue.

He may be forced to sell, but he'll still have the advantage in an environment in which there are 4 times more billionaires in the U.S. than there are NBA teams. Add to this the fact that NBA teams come up for sale infrequently and you have a recipe for him getting better than market value.

Plus, do you really think the NBA would force him to accept the first - presumably low-ball offer - to walk through the door? Imagine what message that would send to the other 29 owners. Capital destruction isn't part of their business model. Even if a sale takes a year, the NBA has already removed him from any interaction with the team and the NBA, which effectively removes his toxicity from the team and the league.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I don't think he'll be forced to accept the first low ball deal he's offered. This isn't complicated.

I think he'll get less than he potentially could under ideal circumstances. It won't be a bad deal, he will not get raked over the coals, he just will not receive the maximum possible pay out for this.

You lot are free to pretend that that none of this situation is effecting him in anyway though. I guess I should learn to run with the pack.

 

[Bry1313]

The Dodgers were a forced sale. I don't think that price was depressed.

 

[Queersetti]

I think that everyone is looking at the Clippers as a business, and perhaps overlooking that it is also a franchise.

Does anyone know what the NBA's rules regarding franchises are? Is it possible that, if he refused to sell, the league could threaten to cancel the team's franchise and offer it to someone else?

 

[Adre]

If you have several extremely wealthy people bidding against each other on a highly desirable property that has just become available, I don't see how one can reasonably conclude that the price will be discounted just because the owner is being forced to sell.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Queersetti]

Lawyers are saying he cannot be forced to sell, in fact they say he can, if he wishes, frustrate any effort in court for years. His wife also owns part of the team, and his holdings can be legally transferred to others.

Again, that is approaching the issue as his rights as a business owner. What I am asking is, what are his rights as a franchisee?

If I own a McDonald's franchise, for example, and I start flunking health inspections or in some other way violate McDonald's standards, they can pull my franchise. I can still own the property, but I can't call it McDonalds, and I can't use any of their trademarks, etc.

What I'm asking is if anyone knows whether or not the NBA has anything in it's contracts with franchises which allow it to withdraw franchise status in a similar fashion.

I am not suggesting such a thing is likely, even if it's legally possible. I'm just wondering if it's a possibility. It could certainly put a little more weight behind any threats the league made to Sterling if he refuses to sell.

 

[Beco]

I think that everyone is looking at the Clippers as a business, and perhaps overlooking that it is also a franchise.

Does anyone know what the NBA's rules regarding franchises are? Is it possible that, if he refused to sell, the league could threaten to cancel the team's franchise and offer it to someone else?

Thats all in that NBA Charter, which he is a part of and its those rules that he broke or didnt break.

 

[islandman]

I think he'll get less than he potentially could under ideal circumstances. It won't be a bad deal, he will not get raked over the coals, he just will not receive the maximum possible pay out for this.

I get that's an emotional understanding of the situation, but since there's no way to assign a negative valuation to the team from his remarks, he'll get exactly what he would have always gotten, what the market is willing to bear given the economic realities in play.

"ideal", "bad deal" and "maximum possible payout"....that's like trying to argue about who the best pitcher in baseball's history is....namely the purview of people with too much time on their hands.

 

[Fuckette]

Thats all in that NBA Charter, which he is a part of and its those rules that he broke or didnt break.

Adam Silver has final say. Members can't sue the NBA.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Again, that is approaching the issue as his rights as a business owner. What I am asking is, what are his rights as a franchisee?

If I own a McDonald's franchise, for example, and I start flunking health inspections or in some other way violate McDonald's standards, they can pull my franchise. I can still own the property, but I can't call it McDonalds, and I can't use any of their trademarks, etc.

What I'm asking is if anyone knows whether or not the NBA has anything in it's contracts with franchises which allow it to withdraw franchise status in a similar fashion.

I am not suggesting such a thing is likely, even if it's legally possible. I'm just wondering if it's a possibility. It could certainly put a little more weight behind any threats the league made to Sterling if he refuses to sell.

Here's an interesting article that goes over the details. It seems like the answer is that nobody really knows what will happen.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/

 

[Queersetti]

Thats all in that NBA Charter, which he is a part of and its those rules that he broke or didnt break.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking, does anyone know if, or how, it is addressed.

 

[Beco]

Here's an interesting article that goes over the details. It seems like the answer is that nobody really knows what will happen.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/

Sean Renuard does....

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sean Renuard does....

I have a guess based on common sense. And none of us will be surprised when it comes to pass.

 

[Queersetti]

Here's an interesting article that goes over the details. It seems like the answer is that nobody really knows what will happen.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nb...ba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/

Thanks. You are right, every detail that makes you think one outcome is likely, the next detail throws cold water on it.