LA Clippers to be sold to crazier, whiter, owner.
- Thread starter BornRuff
- Start date
I am basically on the same page as you on this, although I will draw a point on the above comment.
Sterling had the ownership (as per the league) of the team. The Google CEO did not.
Being fired and having an asset confiscated, oops, for the benefit of the Usual Suspects, maybe that should read: the forced, voluntary sale - are (in my eyes) quite different
True being fired and having an asset confiscated are very different. But at the same time ownership under a franchise is different than ownership outside of one. Franchise ownership, whether a sports team or a fast food restaurant, comes with sometimes very onerous rules.
No doubt on that.
Mind you, I believe that the big game here relates to optics more than anything else... Team is selling at a 60+% premium... This has all the signs of a bought-deal wherein the league was concerned that they'd get their asses handed to them if it ever went to court.
All the same - don't really care that much, more of a point of interest
It always comes down to optics. Generally I find that, in any business, even the hint of a threat of potential loss is enough to jump scare everyone in the room. And fear is a great motivator....although not always the best decision maker.
On the specifics I don't care either. As a point of interest though, as much as I do support the most unpopular speech (although to be honest sometimes I'm gritting my teeth while I do it!), the more 'practical' side of me wants to slap someone upside the head because of the stupidity. Yes everyone has the right to free speech but buy into a franchise, don't be so damned stupid and keep your trap shut.
Because expecting racist billionaires to abide by contracts they freely agreed to is racist. #yesallracistbillionaires
Obviously owners play a role, but also obviously there are more than a few people willing and capable of filling that role. People don't watch the game for the owners.
Correction. Without people willing to be owners. The fortunes of the league do not depend on keeping a specific owner in place.
Remember, it is the owners that are kicking him out. Adam Silver works for the owners. The owners are the board of governors. It appears that the owners as a group are very much in support of the idea that they are better off without Donald Sterling as a member of their organization.
You shouldn't lose any sleep over the prospect of owners not getting the respect they deserve in this case. Owners always have the last word on everything.
Nobody is saying owners don't have a role. It is just that specific owners don't necessarily matter as much as players do. A well known player is more valuable to the league than most owners, in that they can replace the owner with less impact on the overall business.
Tell that to the NHL relative to the Phoenix Coyotes... They can't give that team away despite the player roster
That is a very different situation. Lots of people wanted to own the franchise, but very few wanted to own it in Glendale Arizona. The NHL's attempts to make good on an idea that really was pretty stupid from day one has made it a very very tough sell.
They did somehow manage to sell it though.
Fin.
Capt. He's a retard... he wants someone to get on the merry go round with him again.
What exactly do you think we are discussing?
The general idea that owners serve a purpose?
