LA Clippers to be sold to crazier, whiter, owner.

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
The league could just as easily have mandated that he transfer title to his wife or offspring. This way the family legacy could have remained intact. It is sad that a lifelong legacy of public beneficence should be destroyed by unwise words made by someone who lacked the mental capacity to understand the harm he was causing. Well, whatever. The league has made its choice and we will all have to live with it.

The simple fact is that the league never approved his family as owners. They approved him. If he can't function as owner, his family doesn't have any more right to take over than anyone else.

His legacy of "public beneficence" is pretty questionable as is though.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Based on the unilateral and heavy-handed reprisals against buddy as compared to the slew of player mistakes that don't realize a comparable reaction?... Then, no, I don't think so

Please don't mistake this as my taking one side or the other here because NBA, the LA Clippers....it is amazing how much I truly don't give a sh!t.

However, seeing as how the players are the draw, the investment in them is higher, so I can see why they (the NBA) would be willing to put some effort into a spin when confronted with less than desirable behaviour. Owners aren't household names, so there's less incentive to put in an effort. That's my take on it anyway.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
So your assertion is that organization is corrupt?

Seems more like they were willing to look the other way in order to keep getting cheques.

Based on the unilateral and heavy-handed reprisals against buddy as compared to the slew of player mistakes that don't realize a comparable reaction?... Then, no, I don't think so

His actions showed contempt for the majority of the players in the league and a huge chunk of their audience all at once. Few people have managed to do that so quickly and effectively before.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Please don't mistake this as my taking one side or the other here because NBA, the LA Clippers....it is amazing how much I truly don't give a sh!t.

However, seeing as how the players are the draw, the investment in them is higher, so I can see why they (the NBA) would be willing to put some effort into a spin when confronted with less than desirable behaviour. Owners aren't household names, so there's less incentive to put in an effort. That's my take on it anyway.

Don't care so much for basketball either.. Never really developed an interest in the game.

The players are definitely the draw, but someone has to put up the cash and also guarantee the capital (salaries, rent, etc)... Can't have one without the other.

regardless, my initial reaction to this was more in line with the Freedom of Speech issue... Buddy may be a bigot, but that isn't against the law.

I suspect that the Clippers were 'sold' at such a premium because of the threat of long and expensive legal action.. It's the league and fan base that will be shouldering that burden
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Your argument with the NBA.


No, stupid fans are the loser. Smart fans will take their custom elsewhere.

No, wait. . . smart fans did that long ago.

 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
5
36
London, Ontario
Don't care so much for basketball either.. Never really developed an interest in the game.

The players are definitely the draw, but someone has to put up the cash and also guarantee the capital (salaries, rent, etc)... Can't have one without the other.

regardless, my initial reaction to this was more in line with the Freedom of Speech issue... Buddy may be a bigot, but that isn't against the law.

I suspect that the Clippers were 'sold' at such a premium because of the threat of long and expensive legal action.. It's the league and fan base that will be shouldering that burden

No it's not against the law but then the league isn't really concerned with things like integrity either, not really. They'll say it's for that reason but the reality is given the option between someone putting up the cash that makes negative headlines or someone putting up the cash that makes no headlines, they're going to go with the second option.

It's no different than when the CEO of Mozilla was "resigned". It's a bottom line thing. Whether it's right or wrong on a matter of principle is another matter entirely. I don't disagree that it was/is a free speech issue and I do think the most unpopular speech needs to be the most protected but it's hard to argue with other people's right to associate how they wish too. Where it gets murky, I think, is when revenue is involved. For instance, should a representative of a company espouse his personal views and were I not to agree with them, and if I felt that his views did actually represent the company, then I have every right in the world not to do business with that company. In no way am I silencing an individual's right to free speech. But from the company's point of view, their revenue potential becomes threatened.

Now speaking personally, I do look at things like whether or not what has been expressed is so egregious as to completely negate any useful purpose of a company's product or service. And I don't like making mountains out of molehills, so there are many occasions where this has happened and I will continue to patronize as a customer.

And I do think that there are very polarized individuals out there though that will whip up a frenzy over things that probably don't need to be so worked up over. But again, that's the reality of today's world which is not aided by the most used method of conveying information being a medium that's restricted to 140 characters or less. Makes it difficult to ascertain any context that way.