Donald Sterling UNCHAINED - Page 9 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

grunching

lifetime ban is fine. taking his team away from him would be a travesty. he shouldn't lose a billion dollar asset for something he said in a private conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seattlelou

He gets the proceeds of the sale.He is exchanging assets not losing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

Ok then being forced to exchange assets because of something he said in a private conversation, is a travesty.

I don't know what is going on that well and I don't really want to I just know it's a travesty and I'm super mad about it.

05-03-2014 , 07:03 PM

#202

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

I obviously know he was getting paid when the team is sold. If some nit wants to point that out to me then I'll placate them and phrase it how they want.

How'd you like to be forced to sell your house for something you said in a PM on 2+2? It's the same thing happening to Sterling. Banning him for life was more than enough punishment.

05-03-2014 , 07:33 PM

#203

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

He is part of an agreement that allows him to be forced to sell.

05-03-2014 , 07:33 PM

#204

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver_Man2

Dude is 80, has prostate cancer, is already a billionaire, will probably be lucky to make it to 2020.

Do you really think his life is going to be any different or better financial-wise than it already has been?

If he is forced to sell and gets his proceeds, do you think he is going to wake up the next morning with an extra spring in his step because instead of 2 billion he has 2.75 billion? (or whatever his net worth is, just making a point)

I bet he would take a 50/50 coin flip on getting to keep the franchise versus losing it completely with zero proceeds from a sale. Than to have a 100% chance of losing the franchise but get to keep proceeds from the sale.

What ****ing difference does any of this make?

05-03-2014 , 07:34 PM

#205

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie

He is part of an agreement that allows him to be forced to sell.

That it's allowed doesn't make it any less of a travesty. They would be within their rights to vote out an owner if they didn't like the shirt he wore to a home game. That doesn't mean that owner wouldn't be getting it in the ass.

05-03-2014 , 07:41 PM

#206

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

An owner wearing a shirt they don't like doesn't threaten the value of the other owners' investments, brainiac.

05-03-2014 , 07:42 PM

#207

BluffMyNuts

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,211

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

You're really bad at arguing.

05-03-2014 , 07:43 PM

#208

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

An owner wearing a shirt they don't like doesn't threaten the value of the other owners' investments, brainiac.

Mark Cuban does things that could threaten the other owners investments all the time. Dude is a loose cannon. You think they'd be justified in voting him out for it?

05-03-2014 , 07:43 PM

#209

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Forchar, man, you want to take up the cross for rich white people, right? Well you're picking 1 rich white guy when you could be picking 28 rich white guys plus Michael Jordan.

05-03-2014 , 07:43 PM

#210

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

Mark Cuban does things that could threaten the other owners investments all the time. Dude is a loose cannon. You think they'd be justified in voting him out for it?

Such as?

05-03-2014 , 07:49 PM

#211

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

Well having a contract that allows it makes it certainly just. I'm not sure why a fashion choice analogy is relevant.

Free association is not a travesty, but it is a multi-way street in some instances. I have zero qualms about rejecting an obvious racist from my organizations, with no quarter. It's about real moral principle and is also a good business decision. Anyone who is perceived as a net harm to an organization would be at risk of disassociation. It's not a travesty, it's how organizations and free association work.

05-03-2014 , 07:53 PM

#212

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Forchar, man, you want to take up the cross for rich white people, right? Well you're picking 1 rich white guy when you could be picking 28 rich white guys plus Michael Jordan.

No I want to take up the cross for people who have unpopular viewpoints and their right to express them in private (Sterling) or people who are unpopular in general (Cuban/any random owner).

05-03-2014 , 08:01 PM

#213

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Sterling will be able to express all the viewpoints he wants in private or public with the billion dollars he's going to clear after taxes.

05-03-2014 , 08:04 PM

#214

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Forchar:

How mad would you be if sterling didn't own the team but was in negotiations to buy the team when this became known, and the other owners (but not the current owner of the clippers) decided to veto the deal because of it?

05-03-2014 , 08:13 PM

#215

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Less mad, but still mad.

05-03-2014 , 08:24 PM

#216

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

What's the difference?

05-03-2014 , 08:29 PM

#217

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,428

First they came for the racists

05-03-2014 , 09:10 PM

#218

TheDuker

old hand

Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,388

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

I want to take up the cross for people who have unpopular viewpoints and their right to express them in private (Sterling)

[x] right to express unpopular viewpoints
[ ] right to express unpopular viewpoints without consequences

05-03-2014 , 09:23 PM

#219

forchar

banned

Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,121

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

What's the difference?

It's all about enforcing contracts amirite

05-03-2014 , 09:39 PM

#220

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,198

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

No I want to take up the cross for people who have unpopular viewpoints and their right to express them in private (Sterling) or people who are unpopular in general (Cuban/any random owner).

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...ibute-1436068/

05-03-2014 , 10:15 PM

#221

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver_Man2

Nobody gives a **** about his life and how springy his step is. He is a huge liability for the value of the league and must go. It is that simple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by forchar

Ok then being forced to exchange assets because of something he said in a private conversation, is a travesty.

Much different than losing a billion or so. That would be extreme.

05-03-2014 , 11:30 PM

#222

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

Life is not actually a popularity contest and sometimes it is for a reason. Who knew?

05-04-2014 , 04:57 AM

#223

Silver_Man2

banned

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 3,329

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

What ****ing difference does any of this make?

Seattle Lou is like well he gets the proceeds as if he cares about the proceeds.

The proceeds don't matter to sterling.

This makes a difference because Seattle Lou and others are coming at this from the perspective that they aren't billionaires, and bringing up the fact that he still gets the proceeds is an irrelevant point to bring up.

05-04-2014 , 05:10 AM

#224

BluffMyNuts

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 13,211

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver_Man2

You are literally too dumb to make fun of.

05-04-2014 , 07:09 AM

#225

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver_Man2

Eh, everybody cares about 50 percent of their net worth. He is a cheapskate who caress a lot about much smaller amounts. I understand he would prefer to have the team but how sorry am I supposed to feel? An 81 year old billionaire? Even if he was not a POS (which I am trying to ignore for argument purposes) this wasn't exactly a bad draw in life.
If the recording was illegal or improper he has remedies. Keeping the team doesn't seem like one of them.

Page 9 of 13

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last

...

Page 9 of 13

First

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Last