I'm chalking it up to slightly stupid, slightly trolling but mostly immature naivete. "But what about the ownership laws?!?" LOL. Although I agree, it's kind of entertaining. Like those memes with school kids' really bad artwork. _
Reports this am are that his estranged wife is just as much of a bigot as he is. From depositions and court documentation on some of their slum lord litigation. There is no way the NBA is going to let him transfer it to anyone in his family. Chestnuts not falling very far from the tree, as it were. _
The idea of deathstar saying not to feed the troll is just priceless. But yeah, you're a textbook troll, soxxx.
Well in the world where WE come from, taking another mans property that he owns is called theft. I hope charges are pressed in California over this, here is the California statute: 211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. Now you tell me that this isnt a felony, and someones going to have to pay for it.
Ok, I'm going 100% trolling because someone can't be THIS stupid. Well done, Soxx, you got me. I took the bait. _
Not sure about that in a court of law. It could be a point of contention. Since he might not have broken any of the league by-laws. He made no public statements or were any of his actions detrimental to the league. Maybe he should be suing TMZ. For invasion of privacy. Again as far as the Commish this is all economics and political. Not ethical even though it's what he's saying.
There is no court of law. He voluntarily gave up his right to seek redress in court. This is not a civil litigation where the rules of civil procedure will apply. This is a private association who have set their own rules on how they will govern themselves and how they will punish themselves. Whether he made those statements publically or privately is irrelevant. He's admitted to making the statements--there is no longer any evidentiary issue. He has damaged the other 29 owners and they will punish him as THEY see fit, not how some jury or civil judge is going to decide. He''l try to fight it in court but his case will be dismissed because he contracted that right away. And BTW, just because a case is really really really big and sexy, that doesn't mean he can just 'go to the Supreme Court'--that's not how the federal court system works. _
I'm not a legal expert on this but look at Bountygate. The union had agreed to give the Commish decision making powers but individual players took them to court and were basically successful. I think he can sue even if he agreed to whatever the by-laws of the NBA are. I'm not sure he ceded all of his rights to sue. And this is a special situation. And deals with his personal rights. He could sue as an individual.
No--I lived it!! Practical Law or PLI may have a case study (but you need a subsription) or LexisNexis or Bridger would have the full docket. Really pretty interesting how Selig manuevered that team away from McCourt, although he made a fortune on the sale. I still can't wrap my head around the BCourts decision to terminate the interim financing provided by Highbridge. Still can't find that MLB priming section in the bankruptcy code. _
Again, the concept of "personal rights" and him being an "individual" is irrelavant. But there will be many attempts by Stirling to avoid his contractual obligations, however at the end of the day, he'll lose in court and he'll decide to sell the team to preserve value. He may sue the league afterward for damages, but I still don't think he'll win that either. _
If the players refuse to play and the sponsors refuse to advertise then everyone's up shit's creek. The question is how stubborn are all of the parties involved. Esp when billions are involved. If it did go to a higher court or even the Supreme Court it could be on a very specific aspect of the case. And his personal rights as an individual could come into play. He has them in spite of his agreement with the NBA. I doubt the contract he signed as an owner gives them carte blanche. And if it did he could claim it was an illegal contract.
