If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
No. While the man may be a total douchebag, forcing one to sell a team is the ultimate punishment and should be reserved for legal issues... after conviction.
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
No. He said what he did in the privacy of his own home. If he had said something publically I'd be on the fence. As is he shouldn't have even gotten punished to begin with.
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
I've thought long and hard about this.
I ended up voting "no," and here's why. First of all, what he said, in my opinion, was just awful. It was a terrible thing to say, and just proves that racism is alive and well. That being said, he said it in the privacy of his home, and was illegally taped doing so. You shouldn't be forcibly punished for something you say. That being said, I don't think he deserves to own the team. He should lose the team, but he should lose it the hard way - by losing sponsers, by losing players, etc. There are worse ways to hurt somebody than to force them to sell their team for hundreds of millions of dollars. That's not going to hurt him at all. He still has his money.
Hit him where it hurts - in the wallet - and that will be the best punishment.
Originally Posted by ChomskyOriginally Posted by OrphanSlug
Just as an aside, I'd like to know when the current "ownership" agreement language came into effect. Was it before or after Sterling purchased his team? If it had been in place prior to his gaining ownership, then I'm more receptive to the position that he breached his agreement with the league. If, however, the agreement language came into effect after his purchase of the team - if new language was voted on by the ownership group without unanimous consent - then I'm less receptive to the league position. If he was an owner and he was forced to sign off on new ownership language he disagreed with that seems like coercion to me.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
(d) Fail or refuse to fulfill its contractual obligations to the Association, its Members, Players, or any other third party in such a way as to affect the Association or its Members adversely.
Paying a hefty price for inappropriate comments/conduct is certainly not without precedent. Think Dog The Bounty Hunter; Alec Baldwin; professional sports players who've lost their endorsements because of their conduct.
How can you expect to stay as owner of a basketball team when you've as much as said you're racist? Was he tricked into it? Absolutely. And she even covered herself from a charge of illegal recording by saying he'd asked her to keep recordings of his conversations. The man's an idiot.
I do think it should be a fair sale and not a fire sale, though. With him putting the team into his wife's sole name, perhaps he's bought some time...
Heya Apache. I was just thinking about some of the stuff Rodman has said.....still think if someone like Lebron is caught on a Cellphone in some rant and they catch him using racial language.....my my my, just think how things are going to get ugly about Forcing one such as him out......in shame.