Viewing 45 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • michael89156

      Participant
      Post count: 3229

      Champ Bailey believes Washington should change nicknameControversy continues over Redskins name. Jason Butt    National Football PostJune 11, 2014, 11:16 PM EST.3c5db7f8-2a25-48df-b99e-b0a52d735916_zps83814175.png A former Washington player has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the Redskins nickname. Champ Bailey, now with the New Orleans Saints, told USA Today that it's time for Washington owner Dan Snyder to change the team's name. Bailey believes the term Redskins is a slur and offensive to Native Americans, and therefore stated that Snyder and the organization are making matters worse by prolonging the inevitable. “When you hear a Native American say that ‘Redskins’ is degrading, it’s almost like the N-word for a black person,” Bailey told the newspaper. “If they feel that way, then it’s not right. They are part of this country. It’s degrading to a certain race. Does it make sense to have the name?” Bailey was drafted by Washington in 1999 and spent his first five years there, before being traded to Denver. In his career, he's totaled 699 tackles and 52 tackles. He'll likely be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. And that's what makes his condemnation of Washington's nickname that more meaningful. Here's a current NFL player that once was a member of the organization stating that it's time to make a change. Snyder and general manager Bruce Allen may not like to hear these things but reality in today's times should be sinking in for them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 257

      Thats gonna be a tough switch for the fanbase, but it needs to happen.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1637

      http://www.collegehumor.com/embed/6967595/nobody-cares-about-racism-in-the-nba-sketch

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 372

      Thats gonna be a tough switch for the fanbase, but it needs to happen.

      Nothing NEEDS to happen lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3028

      Its almost like the n-word, only without the rules about who can say it and who cant…which makes it a real slur, not just a partial one.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1385

      I think the name change is inevitable, Dan Synder just needs a way out from his stubborn ‘The name will never change’ position. They don't have to change the logo, the Indian nation has said that the logo is fine, just change the name. I saw one suggestion that makes a lot of sense, 'Washington Warriors'. It will take a few more years, but the topic continues to build momentum. I'm betting that the NFL will force the change within 5 years.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      It really is a ridiculous name for a team if you think about it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 205

      If he’s comparing it to the N word, do you think Indians go around  calling eachother redskins like “what up my  redskin”, or have  songs like “My redskin my redskin”.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      Funny Washington changed the name of the Bullets to the Wizards because it was too inappropriate , but Redskins is ok. Lolz.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3028

      Funny Washington changed the name of the Bullets to the Wizards because it was too inappropriate , but Redskins is ok. Lolz.

      Everyone knows Washington is known for their Indians and Wizardry...def no bullets there.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 11506

      Lolz

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Fuck yo wigwam, redskin.

      Please wait…

    • dzejms

      Participant
      Post count: 981

      Last I checked, Champ Bailery isn’t an American Indian.  He has no right to say anything about that word.  It’s an American Indian Thang.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      ” it’s almost like the N-word for a black person “not sure if serious.Black people use the word all the time.  I don't hear too many native americans saying "Hey Redskin, what up"

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      for those of you who say the name change is inevitable, I offer you the stone cold fact, that while you (right now) feel good and warm and cozy saying that, it will lead to other things in your life one day which you will not like very much.  Like throwing you in jail because you named your child a “restricted name from the Citizen Name Selection List.  And no, I am not kidding.  We’ve seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him because he used the words “black people”, and now they are leaning on Snyder.POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS THE MOST UN AMERICAN THING THERE IS.  It's something right out of the Communist Doctrine, in that it stresses no Freedom of speech and opinion.By it's very definition, it means:  The willful and intentional avoidance of the truth, (lying)  in order to spare the feelings of an individual or group of individuals.The problem, my fellow Bucs fans, is NOT the people who say things, it's this new guard who are "offended".  Let them be offended. it's their right... just like people making fun of Christians.You know what's both sad, and true?  5 years ago, this topic would have been moved to Off Topic.  But here and now, it's now part of the NFL, and relevant.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2603

      It’s not going to change. There is no “NEED” to change it. This is a business who you can choose to ignore. If it offends you then boycott the company that’s your right. There’s no reason to change something to appease the minority.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      It's not going to change. There is no "NEED" to change it. This is a business who you can choose to ignore. If it offends you then boycott the company that's your right. There's no reason to change something to appease the minority.

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2697

      for those of you who say the name change is inevitable, I offer you the stone cold fact, that while you (right now) feel good and warm and cozy saying that, it will lead to other things in your life one day which you will not like very much.  Like throwing you in jail because you named your child a "restricted name from the Citizen Name Selection List.  And no, I am not kidding.  We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him because he used the words "black people", and now they are leaning on Snyder.POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS THE MOST UN AMERICAN THING THERE IS.  It's something right out of the Communist Doctrine, in that it stresses no Freedom of speech and opinion.By it's very definition, it means:  The willful and intentional avoidance of the truth, (lying)  in order to spare the feelings of an individual or group of individuals.The problem, my fellow Bucs fans, is NOT the people who say things, it's this new guard who are "offended".  Let them be offended. it's their right... just like people making fun of Christians.You know what's both sad, and true?  5 years ago, this topic would have been moved to Off Topic.  But here and now, it's now part of the NFL, and relevant.

      It's not like you had enuff sack to call a black person the N-Word to their  face anyway, so quit your frigging whining...

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      It's not like you had enuff sack to call a black person the N-Word to their  face anyway, so quit your frigging whining...

      you mixed up unrelated points to reach an absurd conclusion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 493

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2697

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".

      He violated the rules of conduct that he agreed to when he bought the team...you azz

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him because he used the words "black people"

      ::)

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      How nice of them to tell him how much they will pay him.  Did he agree?I want to give you $30 for your home. will you agree?

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".

      He violated the rules of conduct that he agreed to when he bought the team...you azz

      then he should be fined accordingly..you gimp

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      He violated the rules of conduct that he agreed to when he bought the team...you azz

      did he violate a defined rule?

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      my guess is he violated a what's called a moral turpitude agreement, which is standard in sports.  those do not however, permit or allow stripping of assets.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 493

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      Yeah compare 2 billion and $30. How nice of them to tell him how much they will pay him.  Did he agree?I want to give you $30 for your home. will you agree?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/11059020/donald-sterling-decides-pursue-1-billion-lawsuit-nba-all

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      Yeah compare 2 billion and $30. How nice of them to tell him how much they will pay him.  Did he agree?I want to give you $30 for your home. will you agree?

      Thank you for understanding my point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      How nice of them to tell him how much they will pay him.  Did he agree?I want to give you $30 for your home. will you agree?

      You are welcome to it for $2Billion

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      He violated the rules of conduct that he agreed to when he bought the team...you azz

      did he violate a defined rule?

      The NBA believes that Sterling violated Article 13(d), which centers on failure to meet contractual obligations. Sterling allegedly failed to avoid unethical conduct and taking positions that damage the NBA. This failure violated covenants contained in several contracts between Sterling and the NBA, including the franchise agreement and joint venture agreements. Sterling may be accused of violating other provisions contained in Article 13, but 13(d) is considered the leading rationale for his ouster.     Step 2: Under Article 14(a), Board of Governors charges Donald Sterling with violating Article 13   Article 14(a) of the constitution empowers either commissioner Adam Silver or any "member" (which refers to each team, as represented by its respective "governor") to charge an owner or a member with violating Article 13. It is nearly certain that Sterling will be charged as an owner, since it allegedly was Sterling himself and not the team that violated Article 13.   Step 3: Under Article 14(g), at least three-quarters of the Board of Governors votes to sustain the charge   After Sterling has been charged, the 29 governors will vote on whether to sustain or overrule the charge. Three-quarters of them—22—will need to vote to sustain the charge. If fewer than 22 vote in favor of the charge, Sterling would technically remain owner of the Clippers. Sterling's lifetime ban, however, would remain even if the board of governors does not oust him as owner. He would remain banned from the NBA—and the Clippers—and retention of ownership would likely be akin to silent ownership, without any control of the team. The logistics of a banned, but not ousted, owner sound daunting, to say the least.   Step 4: Also under Article 14(g), if charges sustained, Clippers' membership in NBA is terminated   Assuming at least 22 owners vote out Sterling, the Clippers' "membership" would then be terminated. "Membership" in this context refers to the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA. "Membership" assigns rights, privileges and benefits granted to the Clippers by the NBA, including, without limitation, the right to organize and operate a professional basketball team to play in the league. This termination of membership is a crucial point for purposes of removing Shelly Sterling from Clippers' ownership.   MCCANN: How Sterling's CNN interview could hurt him in court   There is an alternative scenario under 14(g), whereby after 22 owners vote out Donald Sterling, two-thirds (19) then vote to only terminate Donald Sterling's ownership interest in the Clippers. This step would be designed to not trigger termination of the membership. Don't expect this alternative scenario to happen: without terminating the Clippers' membership, Shelly Sterling would remain an owner of the Clippers.   Step 5: Per Article 14A(a), Silver takes over the Clippers and can sell the team   The "termination" of the Clippers' membership may sound like a dire and disruptive outcome. It might trigger concerns that the Clippers would exist without a pro basketball league, or that it might lead to a dispersal draft of Clippers players. Those concerns are misplaced because of other constitutional language that prevents the Clippers from losing its relationship with the NBA and makes Silver the team's de facto owner.   According to 14A(a), when the membership of an NBA team is terminated, the commissioner automatically takes over the team. Silver would thus take over the Clippers immediately following a vote to sustain the charge against Donald Sterling and terminate the Clippers' membership. The team would continue to play its games and conduct business. The Board of Governors would be empowered to instruct Silver to sell the team or liquidate its assets. Silver presumably would then be instructed to begin a process to sell the team, and proceeds of the sale would be paid to the Sterlings.   Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/nba-ownership-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-shelly-sterling/#ixzz34RZugpQd

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      The NBA  will be paying dearly for their over-reaction.  I’m projecting another 3-5B in a settlement 2 years from now.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3028

      Would the “Washington Casino Owners” be more or less offensive?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2697

      It's not like you had enuff sack to call a black person the N-Word to their  face anyway, so quit your frigging whining...

      you mixed up unrelated points to reach an absurd conclusion.

      It's amazing how klowns like yourself always feel that stuff is being taking away from you when you have already given up your mind and free will to Rich Media Moguls, compromised Politicians, and Billionaires who want to control you and the government You're just a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders....

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Would the "Washington Casino Owners" be more or less offensive?

      personally........I like the Washington Reservations.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      We've seen one guy in the NBA have his property taken away from him

      Ummm no

      "Pfff.... Yeah, right".AP_donald_sterling_2_jt_140510_16x9_992.jpg

      Taken away? He got paid 2 billion.

      How nice of them to tell him how much they will pay him.  Did he agree?I want to give you $30 for your home. will you agree?

      You are welcome to it for $2Billion

      The $2 Billion was a negotiated sale that Sterling initially agreed to.  His current threat of suit suggests $1 Billion in damages.  In any event, it appears to have been a negotiated sale to avoid the process described in my response to GT's question

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      It's not like you had enuff sack to call a black person the N-Word to their  face anyway, so quit your frigging whining...

      you mixed up unrelated points to reach an absurd conclusion.

      It's amazing how klowns like yourself always feel that stuff is being taking away from you when you have already given up your mind and free will to Rich Media Moguls, compromised Politicians, and Billionaires who want to control you and the government You're just a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders....

      I'm self made, and retired at 45.  I can also spot a failure a mile away. Someone who acquired excuses all his life rather than dollars.  Best of luck to you going forward.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      One thing I have not seen mentioned specifically, is the potential for sterling to still own the rights to an NBA franchise within the borders of greater Los Angeles, meaning he can petition an applicable court to restrain the new team owner from doing business in Los Angeles.  He has the resources to tie up the NBA for a decade in court with such an attack.  The man owns more real estate in Beverly Hills than any other human, and he has NEVER sold a single property he has purchased there.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      One thing I have not seen mentioned specifically, is the potential for sterling to still own the rights to an NBA franchise within the borders of greater Los Angeles, meaning he can petition an applicable court to restrain the new team owner from doing business in Los Angeles.

      There would be no new team. The NBA team would continue to exist with Silver in control and what Sterling would lose is his "membership" so he wouldn't own any rights"Assuming at least 22 owners vote out Sterling, the Clippers' "membership" would then be terminated. "Membership" in this context refers to the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA. "Membership" assigns rights, privileges and benefits granted to the Clippers by the NBA, including, without limitation, the right to organize and operate a professional basketball team to play in the league. This termination of membership is a crucial point for purposes of removing Shelly Sterling from Clippers' ownership."

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      One thing I have not seen mentioned specifically, is the potential for sterling to still own the rights to an NBA franchise within the borders of greater Los Angeles, meaning he can petition an applicable court to restrain the new team owner from doing business in Los Angeles.

      There would be no new team. The NBA team would continue to exist with Silver in control and what Sterling would lose is his "membership" so he wouldn't own any rights"Assuming at least 22 owners vote out Sterling, the Clippers' "membership" would then be terminated. "Membership" in this context refers to the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA. "Membership" assigns rights, privileges and benefits granted to the Clippers by the NBA, including, without limitation, the right to organize and operate a professional basketball team to play in the league. This termination of membership is a crucial point for purposes of removing Shelly Sterling from Clippers' ownership."

      I don't think you understand what I was saying.  Of course there will be no new team.  I'm saying, Sterling might be able to petition a court for injunctive relief that prevents his (ex) team from playing in Los Angeles.  As an example, in another industry, franchisee stores have in the past been revoked, but the franchisee still was permitted by law to retain his territorial exclusivity by the court. I think it was a Burger King dispute, but I'm not sure.  At any rate, the store was taken back by the company, but the court awarded the exclusivity to the ex franchisee, as an asset.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      One thing I have not seen mentioned specifically, is the potential for sterling to still own the rights to an NBA franchise within the borders of greater Los Angeles, meaning he can petition an applicable court to restrain the new team owner from doing business in Los Angeles.

      There would be no new team. The NBA team would continue to exist with Silver in control and what Sterling would lose is his "membership" so he wouldn't own any rights"Assuming at least 22 owners vote out Sterling, the Clippers' "membership" would then be terminated. "Membership" in this context refers to the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA. "Membership" assigns rights, privileges and benefits granted to the Clippers by the NBA, including, without limitation, the right to organize and operate a professional basketball team to play in the league. This termination of membership is a crucial point for purposes of removing Shelly Sterling from Clippers' ownership."

      I don't think you understand what I was saying.  Of course there will be no new team.  I'm saying, Sterling might be able to petition a court for injunctive relief that prevents his (ex) team from playing in Los Angeles.  As an example, in another industry, franchisee stores have in the past been revoked, but the franchisee still was permitted by law to retain his territorial exclusivity by the court. I think it was a Burger King dispute, but I'm not sure.  At any rate, the store was taken back by the company, but the court awarded the exclusivity to the ex franchisee, as an asset.

      If you read the article that I quoted (the link is above), one of the things mentioned in the full article (I didnt cut and paste everything) is that this is NOT a typical franchise situation, but more directly to your point note the part in bold above.  Sterling cant have any right territorial exclusivity for an NBA franchise if the legal relationship between the Los Angeles Clippers Basketball Club (owned by the Sterling family trust) and the NBA is severed.  That is the point of taking away his "membership"The article is not, obviously, the "be all end all" of the issues, its a sport lawyer analyzing the contract for SI . . .but its hard to read it as allowing Sterling to retain "territorial exclusivity" because its not a "franchise" in the traditional sense, its a club really.  THis is from the SI article:This illustrates how franchise rules work very differently in the NBA than they typically do in the business world. Normally when a franchise owner is disenfranchised, the owner keeps the underlying business. For example, if an owner of a Chevron gas station violated his franchise agreement with Chevron, he might lose his affiliation with Chevron, but he would not lose his gas station. The CEO of Chevron would not also take over this gas station. Unfortunately for the Sterlings, they own in the NBA, not Chevron. If Donald Sterling is disenfranchised, he and his wife lose the Clippers and Silver would take over the teamRead More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20140515/nba-ownership-los-angeles-clippers-donald-sterling-shelly-sterling/#ixzz34Rk7hCQN

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      But that’s according to the NBA, thus my point for protracted litigation.He's a pariah anyway, so he may as well blow up the NBA for fun.  "you can take my team, but keep them out of my city, where I put in the sweat equity to nurture it"  or, give me 5B more and I go away."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      But that's according to the NBA, thus my point for protracted litigation.

      No, not according t the NBA, according to the plain language of the agreement (you can read it for yourself), in this instance as analyzed by Michael McCann (Michael McCann is a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He is also the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.).  I am not sure how anyone could read the issue any differently, but I guess anything is possible, but even the threanted suit does not turn on the issue you are describing:" The lawsuit alleges the league violated Sterling's constitutional rights by relying on information from an "illegal" recording that publicized racist remarks he made to a girlfriend. It also said the league committed a breach of contract by fining Sterling and that it violated antitrust laws by trying to force a sale."In other words:  (1) I said what I said, but it was recorded illegally so you cannot rely on it (the league will say its not the recording its all that followed, including the CNN interview)(2) no legal basis in the contract for the fine(3) violating anti-trust -- always raise din these kinds of suits. essentially "yes, I agree that the contract I signed says what it says but NO business should be allowed to have such contracts on anti-trust grounds"  (good luck with that).  Here's more on the anti-trust portion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/04/29/cheering-the-end-of-donald-sterling-fearing-the-end-of-sports-antitrust/In sum, he must think he can force a better deal than the $2 billion sale he agreed to by essentially calling he other NBA owners hypocrites. Your issue could arguably come to the front as part of the anti-trust case, I guess, but that seems unlikely given the language quoted above

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      But that's according to the NBA, thus my point for protracted litigation.

      No, not according t the NBA, according to the plain language of the agreement (you can read it for yourself), in this instance as analyzed by Michael McCann (Michael McCann is a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. He is also the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law.).  I am not sure how anyone could read the issue any differently, but I guess anything is possible, but even the threanted suit does not turn on the issue you are describing:" The lawsuit alleges the league violated Sterling's constitutional rights by relying on information from an "illegal" recording that publicized racist remarks he made to a girlfriend. It also said the league committed a breach of contract by fining Sterling and that it violated antitrust laws by trying to force a sale."In other words:  (1) I said what I said, but it was recorded illegally so you cannot rely on it (the league will say its not the recording its all that followed, including the CNN interview)(2) no legal basis in the contract for the fine(3) violating anti-trust -- always raise din these kinds of suits. essentially "yes, I agree that the contract I signed says what it says but NO business should be allowed to have such contracts on anti-trust grounds"  (good luck with that).  Here's more on the anti-trust portion:http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelman/2014/04/29/cheering-the-end-of-donald-sterling-fearing-the-end-of-sports-antitrust/In sum, he must think he can force a better deal than the $2 billion sale he agreed to by essentially calling he other NBA owners hypocrites. Your issue could arguably come to the front as part of the anti-trust case, I guess, but that seems unlikely given the language quoted above

      illegal recording or not, it's "out there".  The NBA can substantiate that their brand would have been irrevocably harmed with his continued ownership, and a jury would concur.He'll get more cash, quicker locking up los angeles from seeing NBA games at home.  So much so, that after this dies down, the public could start swinging at the NBA for not taking care of it.

      Please wait…

Viewing 45 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.