*NBA THREAD* Abe will be missed (4 Viewers)

[Ghost Rider]

Well tonight is do or (likely) die for the Pacers.

I'm hopeful but have very low expectations.

The flight home could be very interesting.

Do you see now why nearly everyone considered the Heat the heavy favorite in the East going into the playoffs?

 

[Moe.]

Is Oklahoma City turning on Durant?

No. The article is pretty fair, it's just a terrible headline. The Oklahoman is getting killed on twitter.

It has not been a good series for Durant. Obviously the Grizzlies D and the Thunder's plan offense isn't helping but these last few games have not been his best work. It happens. Hopefully he plays well tonight, but I don't see them pulling out of this funk. Bring on Stan Van Gundy or George Karl.

Yeah it's been quite a ####storm on Twitter. Obviously we've been watching from DC as interested parties with an eye on 2016, but it doesn't look like the fans are anywhere near as negative as the newspaper.

Is the Durant to the Bullets just wishful thinking or is there some tie there?

He's a DC native and his ties to the area are as close as any athlete to any place. He comes back every summer, has a curly W tattoo (Nats logo), recruited DeSean Jackson to the Skins, refers to DC as "home" and uses "we" when he talks about the Skins and the city. And it makes sense from a roster/cap standpoint.

OTOH he's said he'd be hesitant to play in Washington because of the distractions, presumably people he grew up with trying to mooch off him and whatnot. When he was here for the one road game this season he complained about the headache of having to get tickets for everyone and I think mentioned how it'd be even worse if he was here full time. And obviously there's a lot of wishful thinking in play from my perspective.

Speaking of wishful thinking, any way we can sync this up with changing the name back to Bullets? I think my head would explode with joy.

I assume they'd change the name to the Washington Durants if that's what he wanted.

It's a long way off, though- the Thunder are still very much alive this season and there's two more after that before he hits free agency. And you can be sure all the usual suspects will be involved in the beauty contest if he doesn't reup with OKC.

Yeah, who knows. I certainly wouldn't hold it against him if he left, but I can't imagine this dumb little headline will factor into that decision. It's trending on twitter though, so I guess the Oklahoman got what they wanted. Good job idiots. It's a pretty terrible newspaper, always has been, so I'm not surprised. I feel bad for the guy who wrote the article.

 

[Northern Voice]

So, likelihood Lowry/Casey are back in Toronto next year?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

So, likelihood Lowry/Casey are back in Toronto next year?

Lowry = 85% IMO. He has played himself into any contract he wants. No way can Ujiri let him walk now. There'd be a revolt in Toronto and it would be a PR nightmare. If he demands 4/$60, can you say no to that? If he continues to play the way he did this year, he is absolutely worth that money. What other $15M a year player is coming to Toronto? The 15% is him just not wanting to be in Toronto. I have a tough time believing that may be the case but ya never know. That, and he is arguably the best FA this summer, not counting Dirk or Duncan (but they aren't going anywhere). And he is unquestionably the best FA PG. Teams are going to be coming for him.

Not sure with Casey. Wildly speculating; Ujiri likes what is happening and will bring him back on a 4 year deal. Personally, I'm torn on whether I want to see him back.

Vasquez and Patterson are big decisions Ujiri has on his plate as well. I'd love to see them stick around for the right price.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I wonder if Cuban still thinks the Bucks are worth $1 Billion - I imagine that will come up as part of the litigation over the value of the Clippers' franchise...

What Cuban thinks is irrelevant. If it goes to court on the valuation the determination will be based on what experts say.

I imagine Cuban could be treated as an expert in valuations of businesses, such as an NBA franchise, based on his own ownership, his other business acquisitions, and his time on Shark Tank.If I am representing Sterling, that is certainly how I am couching it. If the Bucks are worth $1 Billion, an LA franchise is worth $1.5 billion.

Well, you obviously have no experience with business acquisitions - its not rocket science, and Cuban would probably be one of the top-10 people in the world to be able to place a valuation on an NBA franchise. Its about as simple as placing a multiple on projected future cash flows, and as a current NBA owner, he would have intimate knowledge of what multiple to pay (i.e. how big a premium), and what projected cash flows for an NBA franchise will look like over the next 5-7 years.

When he said that the Bucks should be worth $1 billion, it wasn't just a random number he pulled out of his ###. He obviously sees growth in the league revenues, and with the LA market being much bigger than Milwaukee, and with a team on the rise, if I am representing Sterling, I am holding out for a valuation in the $1.5 billion range before selling, using Cuban's valuation as a starting point. And when Cuban is a co-defendant in the lawsuit Sterling files, I fully expect the lawyers to explore that valuation and use it to show the league is forcing Sterling to sell below market value, by forcing the sale.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I wonder if Cuban still thinks the Bucks are worth $1 Billion - I imagine that will come up as part of the litigation over the value of the Clippers' franchise...

What Cuban thinks is irrelevant. If it goes to court on the valuation the determination will be based on what experts say.

I imagine Cuban could be treated as an expert in valuations of businesses, such as an NBA franchise, based on his own ownership, his other business acquisitions, and his time on Shark Tank.If I am representing Sterling, that is certainly how I am couching it. If the Bucks are worth $1 Billion, an LA franchise is worth $1.5 billion.

Well, you obviously have no experience with business acquisitions - its not rocket science, and Cuban would probably be one of the top-10 people in the world to be able to place a valuation on an NBA franchise. Its about as simple as placing a multiple on projected future cash flows, and as a current NBA owner, he would have intimate knowledge of what multiple to pay (i.e. how big a premium), and what projected cash flows for an NBA franchise will look like over the next 5-7 years.

When he said that the Bucks should be worth $1 billion, it wasn't just a random number he pulled out of his ###. He obviously sees growth in the league revenues, and with the LA market being much bigger than Milwaukee, and with a team on the rise, if I am representing Sterling, I am holding out for a valuation in the $1.5 billion range before selling, using Cuban's valuation as a starting point. And when Cuban is a co-defendant in the lawsuit Sterling files, I fully expect the lawyers to explore that valuation and use it to show the league is forcing Sterling to sell below market value, by forcing the sale.

I guess I just don't understand why you think Sterling would get the valuation in front of a court in the first place.

I also don't see how Cuban's opinion is particularly compelling as evidence. Any transfer is going to be approved by the Board of Governors, which is essentially 29 people with as much expertise in the valuation of NBA franchises as Mark Cuban has.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I wonder if Cuban still thinks the Bucks are worth $1 Billion - I imagine that will come up as part of the litigation over the value of the Clippers' franchise...

What Cuban thinks is irrelevant. If it goes to court on the valuation the determination will be based on what experts say.

I imagine Cuban could be treated as an expert in valuations of businesses, such as an NBA franchise, based on his own ownership, his other business acquisitions, and his time on Shark Tank.If I am representing Sterling, that is certainly how I am couching it. If the Bucks are worth $1 Billion, an LA franchise is worth $1.5 billion.

Well, you obviously have no experience with business acquisitions - its not rocket science, and Cuban would probably be one of the top-10 people in the world to be able to place a valuation on an NBA franchise. Its about as simple as placing a multiple on projected future cash flows, and as a current NBA owner, he would have intimate knowledge of what multiple to pay (i.e. how big a premium), and what projected cash flows for an NBA franchise will look like over the next 5-7 years.

When he said that the Bucks should be worth $1 billion, it wasn't just a random number he pulled out of his ###. He obviously sees growth in the league revenues, and with the LA market being much bigger than Milwaukee, and with a team on the rise, if I am representing Sterling, I am holding out for a valuation in the $1.5 billion range before selling, using Cuban's valuation as a starting point. And when Cuban is a co-defendant in the lawsuit Sterling files, I fully expect the lawyers to explore that valuation and use it to show the league is forcing Sterling to sell below market value, by forcing the sale.

I guess I just don't understand why you think Sterling would get the valuation in front of a court in the first place.

I also don't see how Cuban's opinion is particularly compelling as evidence. Any transfer is going to be approved by the Board of Governors, which is essentially 29 people with as much expertise in the valuation of NBA franchises as Mark Cuban has.

I am saying Sterling is going to use the statement from Cuban as evidence that his franchise is worth more than what ever offers he gets.

So when Sterling gets various offers for $1 billion, he is going to court to say the NBA, and the owners, are essentially "devaluing" the club by forcing the sale. Cuban's "valuation" will be used in an effort to pain the owners into a corner when one of the defendants has already given his opinion about the value.

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

I am not saying he wins, mind you, only that if he is going to be litigious, he will uses the owners own words against them, when ever he can.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I think Sterling's making a mistake -- from a business perspective -- if he ties this thing up in courts. Not getting rid of the team immediately could devalue the team (to the extent that any NBA team could be devalued): Rivers could leave, Griffin and Paul and Co. might all hand in trade requests, there could be fan boycotts, sponsors are going to continue to flee in droves, I just don't see the upside to a battle he's not going to win.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

So it'll be Cuban's word vs the word of 28 other owners which makes it pretty much irrelevant (not that it isn't already but I'm playing along).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I wonder if Cuban still thinks the Bucks are worth $1 Billion - I imagine that will come up as part of the litigation over the value of the Clippers' franchise...

What Cuban thinks is irrelevant. If it goes to court on the valuation the determination will be based on what experts say.

I imagine Cuban could be treated as an expert in valuations of businesses, such as an NBA franchise, based on his own ownership, his other business acquisitions, and his time on Shark Tank.If I am representing Sterling, that is certainly how I am couching it. If the Bucks are worth $1 Billion, an LA franchise is worth $1.5 billion.

Well, you obviously have no experience with business acquisitions - its not rocket science, and Cuban would probably be one of the top-10 people in the world to be able to place a valuation on an NBA franchise. Its about as simple as placing a multiple on projected future cash flows, and as a current NBA owner, he would have intimate knowledge of what multiple to pay (i.e. how big a premium), and what projected cash flows for an NBA franchise will look like over the next 5-7 years.

When he said that the Bucks should be worth $1 billion, it wasn't just a random number he pulled out of his ###. He obviously sees growth in the league revenues, and with the LA market being much bigger than Milwaukee, and with a team on the rise, if I am representing Sterling, I am holding out for a valuation in the $1.5 billion range before selling, using Cuban's valuation as a starting point. And when Cuban is a co-defendant in the lawsuit Sterling files, I fully expect the lawyers to explore that valuation and use it to show the league is forcing Sterling to sell below market value, by forcing the sale.

I guess I just don't understand why you think Sterling would get the valuation in front of a court in the first place.

I also don't see how Cuban's opinion is particularly compelling as evidence. Any transfer is going to be approved by the Board of Governors, which is essentially 29 people with as much expertise in the valuation of NBA franchises as Mark Cuban has.

I am saying Sterling is going to use the statement from Cuban as evidence that his franchise is worth more than what ever offers he gets.

So when Sterling gets various offers for $1 billion, he is going to court to say the NBA, and the owners, are essentially "devaluing" the club by forcing the sale. Cuban's "valuation" will be used in an effort to pain the owners into a corner when one of the defendants has already given his opinion about the value.

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

I am not saying he wins, mind you, only that if he is going to be litigious, he will uses the owners own words against them, when ever he can.

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

 

[Short Corner]

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

So it'll be Cuban's word vs the word of 28 other owners which makes it pretty much irrelevant (not that it isn't already but I'm playing along).

I think Cuban's valuation being made before any of this went down will carry more weight than guys who doing so after the fact when their own self interests enter the equation.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I wonder if Cuban still thinks the Bucks are worth $1 Billion - I imagine that will come up as part of the litigation over the value of the Clippers' franchise...

What Cuban thinks is irrelevant. If it goes to court on the valuation the determination will be based on what experts say.

I imagine Cuban could be treated as an expert in valuations of businesses, such as an NBA franchise, based on his own ownership, his other business acquisitions, and his time on Shark Tank.If I am representing Sterling, that is certainly how I am couching it. If the Bucks are worth $1 Billion, an LA franchise is worth $1.5 billion.

Well, you obviously have no experience with business acquisitions - its not rocket science, and Cuban would probably be one of the top-10 people in the world to be able to place a valuation on an NBA franchise. Its about as simple as placing a multiple on projected future cash flows, and as a current NBA owner, he would have intimate knowledge of what multiple to pay (i.e. how big a premium), and what projected cash flows for an NBA franchise will look like over the next 5-7 years.

When he said that the Bucks should be worth $1 billion, it wasn't just a random number he pulled out of his ###. He obviously sees growth in the league revenues, and with the LA market being much bigger than Milwaukee, and with a team on the rise, if I am representing Sterling, I am holding out for a valuation in the $1.5 billion range before selling, using Cuban's valuation as a starting point. And when Cuban is a co-defendant in the lawsuit Sterling files, I fully expect the lawyers to explore that valuation and use it to show the league is forcing Sterling to sell below market value, by forcing the sale.

I guess I just don't understand why you think Sterling would get the valuation in front of a court in the first place.

I also don't see how Cuban's opinion is particularly compelling as evidence. Any transfer is going to be approved by the Board of Governors, which is essentially 29 people with as much expertise in the valuation of NBA franchises as Mark Cuban has.

I am saying Sterling is going to use the statement from Cuban as evidence that his franchise is worth more than what ever offers he gets.

So when Sterling gets various offers for $1 billion, he is going to court to say the NBA, and the owners, are essentially "devaluing" the club by forcing the sale. Cuban's "valuation" will be used in an effort to pain the owners into a corner when one of the defendants has already given his opinion about the value.

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

I am not saying he wins, mind you, only that if he is going to be litigious, he will uses the owners own words against them, when ever he can.

I understand all of that. But he has to get in the courthouse door.

The NBA is going to say that he contractually waived his right to contest the Board of Governor's decision to terminate in the courts through Article 14(j). They're going to say that once Sterling's ownership was terminated, that Article 14A vests the sole discretion to transfer Sterling's Membership with the Commissioner, at such terms and prices as the Commissioner deems reasonable and appropriate.

All of this will likely be raised as the first responsive pleading by the NBA. Sterling's lawyers will need to find a way around that language before the court even looks at a valuation.

 

[AAABatteries]

Hey Pop, what's the key for the 4th quarter: "I'm passing a picture of Vince Carter around to the team so I'm sure they know who he is"

Is that really what he said? If so, that's awesome - love Pop.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

So it'll be Cuban's word vs the word of 28 other owners which makes it pretty much irrelevant (not that it isn't already but I'm playing along).

I think Cuban's valuation being made before any of this went down will carry more weight than guys who doing so after the fact when their own self interests enter the equation.

This whole thing is ridiculous. What Cuban said will have zero effect on the sale price of the Clippers.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hey Pop, what's the key for the 4th quarter: "I'm passing a picture of Vince Carter around to the team so I'm sure they know who he is"

Is that really what he said? If so, that's awesome - love Pop.

https://vine.co/v/MrquKQPvPzJ/embed

He's the best.

 

[thecatch]

I think Sterling's making a mistake -- from a business perspective -- if he ties this thing up in courts. Not getting rid of the team immediately could devalue the team (to the extent that any NBA team could be devalued): Rivers could leave, Griffin and Paul and Co. might all hand in trade requests, there could be fan boycotts, sponsors are going to continue to flee in droves, I just don't see the upside to a battle he's not going to win.

I'm not sure all those guys are going to be motivated to demand trades if the ban from his involvement with the team is still in effect. And despite's Scooby's confidence, I'm not convinced a team of top lawyers can't put together a single claim capable of surviving a motion dismiss, or that the league would even want to run the risk of an unfavorable ruling on such a motion. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit forces the NBA to make some sort of compromise that allows Sterling to transfer the team under more favorable circumstances.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Hey Pop, what's the key for the 4th quarter: "I'm passing a picture of Vince Carter around to the team so I'm sure they know who he is"

Is that really what he said? If so, that's awesome - love Pop.

https://vine.co/v/MrquKQPvPzJ/embed

He's the best.

In more than one respect.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I think Sterling's making a mistake -- from a business perspective -- if he ties this thing up in courts. Not getting rid of the team immediately could devalue the team (to the extent that any NBA team could be devalued): Rivers could leave, Griffin and Paul and Co. might all hand in trade requests, there could be fan boycotts, sponsors are going to continue to flee in droves, I just don't see the upside to a battle he's not going to win.

I'm not sure all those guys are going to be motivated to demand trades if the ban from his involvement with the team is still in effect. And despite's Scooby's confidence, I'm not convinced a team of top lawyers can't put together a single claim capable of surviving a motion dismiss, or that the league would even want to run the risk of an unfavorable ruling on such a motion. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit forces the NBA to make some sort of compromise that allows Sterling to transfer the team under more favorable circumstances.

I have no doubt that the NBA will welcome Sterling's input into the sale of the team. That only makes sense. But, I would expect the time to try to involve Sterling in a sale would be before any termination procedures under Article 14 are started, and if he won't cooperate, he won't cooperate.

And Sterling doesn't just need to survive a MtD, he has to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the sale. I just don't see that happening. Even if some claim survived, I don't see how he could prove irreparable harm so that he could hold up the sale.

Sterling may very well want to be the NBA's Al Davis, but the leagues have learned a lot from the NFL's experience with Al Davis. I may be wrong, but SIlver took a very strong position. A stronger position that I think he'd take if he didn't have complete confidence in his rights.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

If the market operates properly and there are a number of interested buyers it doesn't matter whether the seller wanted to sell or not, the asset will be properly valued by the prospective purchasers.

But I'm not really sure what general point you're trying to make anyway. If your point is that Sterling will litigate, I think everyone assumes that. If you're trying to argue that he will win, that seems unlikely but I don't think any of us are remotely qualified to project beyond that educated guess at this point.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

14A doesn't require a standard of objective reasonableness, it vests the sole discretion of determining that a price is reasonable with the Commissioner.

When the Membership of a Member is terminated,

such Member and its assets, properties and operations shall be placed

under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall

have the following powers: to cause the Member’s Team to continue to

play its Exhibition, Regular Season, and Playoff Games; to collect all

revenues from every source payable to the Member and apply such

revenues, to the extent available, to the payment of such Member’s

debts and obligations; and, as directed by a majority of the Board of

Governors (the Member whose Membership was terminated not being

considered a Member of the Board of Governors for the purposes of

this Article), either to transfer such Member’s Membership (including

its Player Contracts and other assets) in accordance with and subject to

Article 5 or to liquidate the Player Contracts and other assets of the

Member in an orderly manner in the best interests of the Member and

its creditors, and the Association, in each case at such prices and on

such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I think Sterling's making a mistake -- from a business perspective -- if he ties this thing up in courts. Not getting rid of the team immediately could devalue the team (to the extent that any NBA team could be devalued): Rivers could leave, Griffin and Paul and Co. might all hand in trade requests, there could be fan boycotts, sponsors are going to continue to flee in droves, I just don't see the upside to a battle he's not going to win.

I'm not sure all those guys are going to be motivated to demand trades if the ban from his involvement with the team is still in effect. And despite's Scooby's confidence, I'm not convinced a team of top lawyers can't put together a single claim capable of surviving a motion dismiss, or that the league would even want to run the risk of an unfavorable ruling on such a motion. I wouldn't be surprised if a lawsuit or the threat of a lawsuit forces the NBA to make some sort of compromise that allows Sterling to transfer the team under more favorable circumstances.

I have no doubt that the NBA will welcome Sterling's input into the sale of the team. That only makes sense. But, I would expect the time to try to involve Sterling in a sale would be before any termination procedures under Article 14 are started, and if he won't cooperate, he won't cooperate.

And Sterling doesn't just need to survive a MtD, he has to prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction in order to stop the sale. I just don't see that happening. Even if some claim survived, I don't see how he could prove irreparable harm so that he could hold up the sale.

Sterling may very well want to be the NBA's Al Davis, but the leagues have learned a lot from the NFL's experience with Al Davis. I may be wrong, but SIlver took a very strong position. A stronger position that I think he'd take if he didn't have complete confidence in his rights.

I do agree about the preliminary injunction - the valuation argument will not play at that stage - after all he can be compensated by money damages if he can prove them.

If he fights the sale altogether, I think he is going to need a bunch of dirt on a bunch of owners to show his conduct was not unreasonable for an NBA owner, and thus the owners are acting capriciously in forcing the sale. I don't think he'll have to worry about an injunction for several months at the earliest.

Best case scenario for all involved here is to reach a settlement - perhaps letting him transfer ownership to his children, while maintaining the life-time ban. I have no idea what kind of estate planning he has done or how transfer of the team fits into those plans. Kids might have to sell the team just to afford the tax bill.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

If the market operates properly and there are a number of interested buyers it doesn't matter whether the seller wanted to sell or not, the asset will be properly valued by the prospective purchasers.

But I'm not really sure what general point you're trying to make anyway. If your point is that Sterling will litigate, I think everyone assumes that. If you're trying to argue that he will win, that seems unlikely but I don't think any of us are remotely qualified to project beyond that educated guess at this point.

First part is not really true - just look at sales of foreclosed homes - they sell for under market value for a reason.

As to the second - my only point was originally that Cuban may regret his comments that the Bucks were worth $1 billion. That sets the stage for Sterling to claim his franchise is worth more, and that he will sue to recover the difference between what he gets and what he thinks the franchise is worth - and use Cuban's words against the owners. Nothing more than that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

If the market operates properly and there are a number of interested buyers it doesn't matter whether the seller wanted to sell or not, the asset will be properly valued by the prospective purchasers.

But I'm not really sure what general point you're trying to make anyway. If your point is that Sterling will litigate, I think everyone assumes that. If you're trying to argue that he will win, that seems unlikely but I don't think any of us are remotely qualified to project beyond that educated guess at this point.

First part is not really true - just look at sales of foreclosed homes - they sell for under market value for a reason.

As to the second - my only point was originally that Cuban may regret his comments that the Bucks were worth $1 billion. That sets the stage for Sterling to claim his franchise is worth more, and that he will sue to recover the difference between what he gets and what he thinks the franchise is worth - and use Cuban's words against the owners. Nothing more than that.

Ah, OK.

Back to basketball, thank God.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Huh? Market value is market value. The prospective owners aren't in cahoots with the current owners and the league, they'll bid what they think is the right price. I don't see how one owner's offhand comments on valuation could possibly have any significance in that context. Great, so Sterling might want to use it. So what? He can use the Dodgers' sale price if he wants. Doesn't make it relevant.

Market value - in an arms length transaction - assumes a willing buyer and a willing seller. Sterling is not a willing seller. So if he is forced to sell the franchise for what he perceives is less than market value, he will sue the NBA and owners, for depriving him of the market value of his franchise.

If the NBA approves the sale at $1billion, and Sterling believes the franchise was worth $1.5 billion, he will sue to recover the difference in value. He may not win, but lots of litigants file suits they don't/can't win.

As to Scooby's point, seems to me he only has to allege that the Commssioner's approval was not reasonable - not a particularly high standard to have to avoid a MSJ.

the owners will take the position above - that the prospective buyers were competing against each other, and thus any offer is reasonable and representative of market value - but it is by no means the only side to the argument.

14A doesn't require a standard of objective reasonableness, it vests the sole discretion of determining that a price is reasonable with the Commissioner.

When the Membership of a Member is terminated,

such Member and its assets, properties and operations shall be placed

under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall

have the following powers: to cause the Member’s Team to continue to

play its Exhibition, Regular Season, and Playoff Games; to collect all

revenues from every source payable to the Member and apply such

revenues, to the extent available, to the payment of such Member’s

debts and obligations; and, as directed by a majority of the Board of

Governors (the Member whose Membership was terminated not being

considered a Member of the Board of Governors for the purposes of

this Article), either to transfer such Member’s Membership (including

its Player Contracts and other assets) in accordance with and subject to

Article 5 or to liquidate the Player Contracts and other assets of the

Member in an orderly manner in the best interests of the Member and

its creditors, and the Association, in each case at such prices and on

such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

Sure, but even you can see that if you take that position to its extreme, the commissioner could deem a sale @ $1 to be reasonable and appropriate. No court would uphold the sale at that price - or more specifically, Sterling would almost certainly be able to recover the difference in valuation from the NBA and owners. So, once you see that the commissioners judgment can be attacked at some level, it then becomes a matter of whether the sale price was reasonable and appropriate, presumably with heavy deference to the Commissioners judgment.

ETA - the commissioner in this case undoubtedly has a duty to act in good faith in approving the transaction. Whether he acts in good faith is almost always going to be a question of fact.

 

[thecatch]

Sterling doesn't necessarily need a preliminary injunction to have any leverage. The nba won't want to get into discovery, and like I said, the league won't want any judicial opinions out there that curtail their currently (apparently) unbridled discretion under the league's governing documents. There may be enough pressure on both sides to force a settlement (maybe a transfer to his kids, if that can be structured in a way to ease the tax implications - not my area of expertise).

 

[Don Quixote]

Ah, OK.

Back to basketball, thank God.

To turn it back to basketball (and harken back to your comments on Wisconsin), where would you rank Kaminsky calling the NBA "boring" on an irony scale?

 

[CurlyNight]

NY Post reports a source close to Sterling says he will NOT sell the team, and will sue the NBA, and he doesnt care if the court case takes years.

The problem for Sterling is that the no-recourse language in the Constitution probably means the case wouldn't take years (IMO). I doubt the NBA would even have to answer the complaint. They'd file a motion to dismiss with prejudice (and presumably an opposition to Sterling's motion for a preliminary injunction) and I think they'd probably win. Once that happens, Sterling can appeal all he wants, but he can't really stop the sale. He can just claim damages afterwards if he wins.

Yeah I heard he can't sue the NBA. The commissioner's judgement is it. He could try but it won't go and can't see this going long at all when bottom line is he can't sue the NBA. NBA is a private club in which owners need to be accepted. It's not a right to be or remain an owner. Same goes with the wife, kids, whatever. They have to be accepted into the club which the owners voting sound like that's a no way too.

 

[CurlyNight]

Anyone know if the owners really did meet today? There was something scheduled for today regarding this matter... didn't catch exactly what.

 

[Gr00vus]

NY Post reports a source close to Sterling says he will NOT sell the team, and will sue the NBA, and he doesnt care if the court case takes years.

The problem for Sterling is that the no-recourse language in the Constitution probably means the case wouldn't take years (IMO). I doubt the NBA would even have to answer the complaint. They'd file a motion to dismiss with prejudice (and presumably an opposition to Sterling's motion for a preliminary injunction) and I think they'd probably win. Once that happens, Sterling can appeal all he wants, but he can't really stop the sale. He can just claim damages afterwards if he wins.

Yeah I heard he can't sue the NBA. The commissioner's judgement is it. He could try but it won't go and can't see this going long at all when bottom line is he can't sue the NBA. NBA is a private club in which owners need to be accepted. It's not a right to be or remain an owner. Same goes with the wife, kids, whatever. They have to be accepted into the club which the owners voting sound like that's a no way too.

He could bring some sort of antitrust suit and try to blow the whole thing up. He very well might since he'll have nothing to lose at that point. The legal heads please correct me if that's somehow not possible. The guy loves being in litigation. This isn't going to go away quietly or quickly regardless of what's in the NBA bylaws.

 

[Shawnky]

Grizz are closing it out at the Grindhouse tonight!

:whoopdattrick:

 

[Abraham]

Anyone know if the owners really did meet today? There was something scheduled for today regarding this matter... didn't catch exactly what.

Voting on a motion to add multi-team jerseys to the nba fan store I think.

 

[CurlyNight]

NY Post reports a source close to Sterling says he will NOT sell the team, and will sue the NBA, and he doesnt care if the court case takes years.

The problem for Sterling is that the no-recourse language in the Constitution probably means the case wouldn't take years (IMO). I doubt the NBA would even have to answer the complaint. They'd file a motion to dismiss with prejudice (and presumably an opposition to Sterling's motion for a preliminary injunction) and I think they'd probably win. Once that happens, Sterling can appeal all he wants, but he can't really stop the sale. He can just claim damages afterwards if he wins.

Yeah I heard he can't sue the NBA. The commissioner's judgement is it. He could try but it won't go and can't see this going long at all when bottom line is he can't sue the NBA. NBA is a private club in which owners need to be accepted. It's not a right to be or remain an owner. Same goes with the wife, kids, whatever. They have to be accepted into the club which the owners voting sound like that's a no way too.

He could bring some sort of antitrust suit and try to blow the whole thing up. He very well might since he'll have nothing to lose at that point. The legal heads please correct me if that's somehow not possible. The guy loves being in litigation. This isn't going to go away quietly or quickly regardless of what's in the NBA bylaws.

Yeah I found this article..

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-clippers-sale-antitrust-lawsuit-20140429,0,4286200.story#axzz30Vbl9IfC

 

[CurlyNight]

Anyone know if the owners really did meet today? There was something scheduled for today regarding this matter... didn't catch exactly what.

Voting on a motion to add multi-team jerseys to the nba fan store I think.

funny guy....

 

[Abraham]

All in good fun.

 

[CurlyNight]

 

[Jayrod]

that was funny by pop i also thought he was awesome about craig the crazy zoot suit saeger the other night to it was really classy take that to the bank brohans

This is the trifecta! A post about Popovich & Craig Saeger by SWC.

Now I can die in peace.

 

[Tusken Raider]

Grizz are closing it out at the Grindhouse tonight!

:whoopdattrick:

Grit & Grind. Let's do this, Grizz!

<---------- growltowel

 

[Jayrod]

Personally, I think the Thunder are pissed and finally get their stuff together tonight and get this thing back home to break Memphis' heart. The Pacers may do the same thing, but they have deeper issues than the Thunder....I have much less confidence in them.

 

[SWC]

that was funny by pop i also thought he was awesome about craig the crazy zoot suit saeger the other night to it was really classy take that to the bank brohans

This is the trifecta! A post about Popovich & Craig Saeger by SWC.

Now I can die in peace.

hey brohan when you have a peace of your bucketlist puzzle that you need filled in bam the old swcers is there for you bromigo take that to the bank

 

[Sammy3469]

Zero chance the players won't boycott if the owners settle and let him transfer to his kids. That's a non-starter for the players.

 

[CurlyNight]

How long would they boycott though. This is their livlihood and income. I can see for awhile but not too long unless the players would still get paid during the boycott.

 

[pollardsvision]

Zero chance the players won't boycott if the owners settle and let him transfer to his kids. That's a non-starter for the players.

That seems odd. Is there any reason to believe his kids are racist?

The players probably need the support of the other owners to boycott for any length of time, and there's no way they'd support a boycott of an owner in good standing, as young Sterling would be.

Transferring to the kid with Donald's ban keeping him away from the team and games seems like a fine enough solution to me.

 

[CurlyNight]

I think if Hawks don't close tonight, they are toast in Indy...

 

[AAABatteries]

Trust me on this as a lifelong Hawks fan - the Pacers are in the drivers seat in this series.

:shamelessreversejinxattempt:

 

[Sammy3469]

Zero chance the players won't boycott if the owners settle and let him transfer to his kids. That's a non-starter for the players.

That seems odd. Is there any reason to believe his kids are racist?

The players probably need the support of the other owners to boycott for any length of time, and there's no way they'd support a boycott of an owner in good standing, as young Sterling would be.

Transferring to the kid with Donald's ban keeping him away from the team and games seems like a fine enough solution to me.

Well the wife's racist, so she's out.

From Lebron to Kevin Johnson to you name him, the players have made crystal clear they want ownership in new hands. Heck Stephen A Smith is reporting they may reconsider boycotting games next week if the owners start to drag their feet.

For the first time in a long while, the players actually have more than a little sway on how this will turn out and it won't take much for guys like Baron Davis to threaten that they will file for a hostile workplace and potentially blow up the franchise that way.

 

[Fariq]

Tremendous dunk by Mike Scott

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Why does Kenny have to climb three stairs to get to the big screen? Goofy having him negotiate these stairs as he tries to analyze the play.

i find it more curious as to why he has to jog across the studio just to get to that stupid big screen. is it really helping anyone?

 

[Short Corner]

Its not dispositive by any stretch - but Sterling will want to use Cuban's valuation as a floor.

So it'll be Cuban's word vs the word of 28 other owners which makes it pretty much irrelevant (not that it isn't already but I'm playing along).

I think Cuban's valuation being made before any of this went down will carry more weight than guys who doing so after the fact when their own self interests enter the equation.

This whole thing is ridiculous. What Cuban said will have zero effect on the sale price of the Clippers.

Nobody is saying it is.

 

[fantasycurse42]

You can't stop Teague, you can only hope to contain him.