Sarvers future as owner

[Cheesebeef]

I can’t get over the co-owner telling ESPN that “The level of misogyny and racism is beyond the pale.”

 

[Hoop Head]

I was thinking that if Server's partnership agreement is really bulletproof as far as not being able to replace him as the managing general partner then a possible way to push him out is if the other 70% votes to sell. The league could then approve them as buyers as well, just buying up Sarver's shares. That could be a way this plays out.

NBA sales are a bit strange because it's not as simple as someone having the capital to purchase the team, there is a bunch of red tape involved. Of course that would require all the investors to pony up the money to buy out Sarver. 30% of roughly $2 billion is $600 million. It all depends on how much the others want him out and what the valuation of the team is. The team is worth roughly 5 times what it was purchased for in 2004. I'd imagine the other investors have the money to buy him out.

 

[Evil Ash]

A guy like him never sees writing on the wall he doesn’t agree with.

See: dan Snyder

This is a tricky situation in several instances. There appears to be no smoking gun. No hard evidence makes this something very difficult for the league to make a move on.

However since he is in an ownership group, those that are within that group may make a move themselves (buying his portion of the team).

Ultimately this feels like a big nothing that will go away after a fairly short time

 

[Hoop Head]

I can’t get over the co-owner telling ESPN that “The level of misogyny and racism is beyond the pale.”

Maybe I missed a lot but it seemed the misogyny is a real problem but the racism allegations seemed a bit tenuous. Like the Corliss Williamson stuff and Earl Watson.

Also the Lindsey Hunter stuff was weird. I thought it was strange they tried claiming it was racist that Sarver said the players needed a black coach. You hear that on ESPN all the time with head coaching vacancies in sports. An owner says it, not in any derogatory way, and he's racist? I don't know. Having things like that seemed to pad out the article to make it look like more is there but to me it only distracted from the more serious and legitimate allegations.

The only racial thing that was really bad was the idea players need to impregnate strippers in Phoenix. Like WTF was that.

 

[TJ]

It has to come from the owners. He’s a terrible team owner, which isn’t enough. But now that he sucks and is proven to be a reprehensible human being, there’s literally no reason to keep him

 

[Evil Ash]

It has to come from the owners. He’s a terrible team owner, which isn’t enough. But now that he sucks and is proven to be a reprehensible human being, there’s literally no reason to keep him

Although I'm not a fan of the guy and want him gone, this article proves very little

 

[TJ]

Although I'm not a fan of the guy and want him gone, this article proves very little

70+ accounts of racism, misogyny, etc. if it doesn’t prove much, it at least shines a light on him publicly that he’s awful and needs to be ousted. The optics of the situation are really bad.

 

[Hoop Head]

70+ accounts of racism, misogyny, etc. if it doesn’t prove much, it at least shines a light on him publicly that he’s awful and needs to be ousted. The optics of the situation are really bad.

But there aren't 70+ accounts of those things. 70+ people spoke to the reporter, that's it. That doesn't mean anything. A few had claims of wrongdoing and misconduct. There weren't that many accusations made.

 

[Raindog]

How would they do that? Given that other Suns owners have tried to oust him in the past and failed due to an ironclad agreement, I don't see how the NBA can force anything here unless Sarver has broken the law. They can make it tough on the franchise and hope that drives him out but I'm not sure anything more is feasible.

Like all of professional sports, it's a closed market. If the league and the other owners want him gone, it's not like he can take his team and go somewhere else with it. And if his co-owners collectively and unanimously want him gone, they have 70% ownership of the team compared to his 30%. If all those forces align, they will force him out one way or another.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I was referring to just knowing that the Suns entered into the agreements not that actual people will testify. However, NDAs can be broken on the grounds of them being unconscionable contracts. Meaning that you entered into them under duress, coercion or you felt like there was an inequality in bargaining power. If it was well known that the atmosphere there was one where you could not really get a fair result from HR and that settling was your only option?

That could change everything. The universal feeling is the organization was toxic and intimidating. That might do it.

That’s true, but it’s not easy to find a contract unconscionable. Those tend to be extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

A guy like him never sees writing on the wall he doesn’t agree with.

Exactly. He lives in his own egotistical world. If he saw the writing we wouldn’t see the Suns organization coming to his defense sabre rattling about defamation lawyers. Things would be much quieter.

 

[1tinsoldier]

this is how i'd summarize the situation:
1. some accusations are weak. Others are strong enough, if there was concrete evidence.
2. there's not enough evidence for the owners to force Sarver out, given his contract protections.
3. the NBA's investigation is likely to turn up more evidence.
4. the player's are not, as an analyst suggests, going to force him out by "not playing for him"
5. this is very damaging to player morale and to the Sun's future in regards to signing players.
6. Sarver is a smart businessman. He should sell high (but he likely won't because he's also a power hungry hole)

i'm pulling for 6, which would be quick and clean. but i don't count out the NBA getting it done after investigating.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Like all of professional sports, it's a closed market. If the league and the other owners want him gone, it's not like he can take his team and go somewhere else with it. And if his co-owners collectively and unanimously want him gone, they have 70% ownership of the team compared to his 30%. If all those forces align, they will force him out one way or another.

It's not that simple. There's a reason they couldn't get rid of Sterling for so many years even though there was a lot more evidence than we have on Robert right now.

You're right though, if all the owners want him gone, they can find a way but they all have their own warts and they don't want to open that door. They eventually allowed it with Sterling but only after the players revolted. We've seen nothing (so far) to warrant a player revolt.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I can’t get over the co-owner telling ESPN that “The level of misogyny and racism is beyond the pale.”

That’s the biggest indictment imo. But then again, I know nothing about her and whether she’s a believable source.

 

[Raindog]

It's not that simple. There's a reason they couldn't get rid of Sterling for so many years even though there was a lot more evidence than we have on Robert right now.

You're right though, if all the owners want him gone, they can find a way but they all have their own warts and they don't want to open that door. They eventually allowed it with Sterling but only after the players revolted. We've seen nothing (so far) to warrant a player revolt.

I disagree because A) the socio-cultural implications of Sarver's behavior in the present are a much different dynamic than they were with Sterling's so many decades ago, and B) the current cultural climate makes folks like Sarver (wealthy though he may be) bad for business - both for the Suns and for the NBA overall.

And at the end of the day, that's the real issue at the heart of situations like this. I wouldn't expect the NBA or the other Suns owners to act on the basis of any moral or ethical objection to Sarver. But when it impacts the bottom line with bad publicity and bad feelings toward the team and the league, you can count on something being done about it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

But there aren't 70+ accounts of those things. 70+ people spoke to the reporter, that's it. That doesn't mean anything. A few had claims of wrongdoing and misconduct. There weren't that many accusations made.

We don’t know that “there weren’t that many” bc so many of the stories were just “a staffer” or “an exec” - but if each was different that’s a lot. But we also don’t know if was all 70, or 6.

 

[GatorAZ]

I disagree because A) the socio-cultural implications of Sarver's behavior in the present are a much different dynamic than they were with Sterling's so many decades ago, and B) the current cultural climate makes folks like Sarver (wealthy though he may be) bad for business - both for the Suns and for the NBA overall.

And at the end of the day, that's the real issue at the heart of situations like this. I wouldn't expect the NBA or the other Suns owners to act on the basis of any moral or ethical objection to Sarver. But when it impacts the bottom line with bad publicity and bad feelings toward the team and the league, you can count on something being done about it.

As others have mentioned Donald Sterling was 80 years old when that recording of him broke. I think the league and other owners knew he wasn’t going out with much of a fight and that might’ve allowed them to proceed more aggressively. Also, IIRC, Sterling had some really shady real estate deals outside of his ownership of the Clippers and it was bad optics for the league. His scumbaggery was a poorly kept secret and the players/coaches/league wanted nothing to do with him.

 

[Hoop Head]

We don’t know that “there weren’t that many” bc so many of the stories were just “a staffer” or “an exec” - but if each was different that’s a lot. But we also don’t know if was all 70, or 6.

That's true. I think the focus has been on how many people were interviewed rather than how many had legit complaints, perhaps by design. I repeatedly see the 70+ mentioned as if that alone is damning.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I can’t get over the co-owner telling ESPN that “The level of misogyny and racism is beyond the pale.”

That’s the biggest indictment. If she’s credible that’s a whopper of a testimony.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

That's true. I think the focus has been on how many people were interviewed rather than how many had legit complaints, perhaps by design. I repeatedly see the 70+ mentioned as if that alone is damning.

Agreed. Until we know an actual number I’d stay away from using numbers as an argument against him.

 

[Covert Rain]

That’s true, but it’s not easy to find a contract unconscionable. Those tend to be extraordinary circumstances.

You don’t have many scenarios where there seems to be a toxic environment with HR running cover either.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

You don’t have many scenarios where there seems to be a toxic environment with HR running cover either.

That’s not going to make a contract unconscionable. There are specific legal requires for that. Don’t make me dig out my contracts textbook from 30 years ago.

 

[Muggz]

I put other because I don't know or care. Sort it out and tell me all about it when its done.

 

[Phrazbit]

For the NBA to take the step to remove an owner they need a 3/4ths vote.

So far, the only people to come forward are anonymous sources and ex-employees with an axe to grind. There is no way in hell that the vast majority of NBA owners will vote based on what we have seen so far, if they did several of them would be sticking their own heads in the oven.

And this is not a defense of Sarver, he sucks, he is clearly a meddling, clownshow, inconsiderate, doofus. But that is not enough to get you kicked out of a club full of rich, entitled, men who are used to doing whatever they feel like.

If we want Sarver gone then we need that "anonymous co-owner" to speak directly to the league, and then the rest of the owners to feel pressure from the media and fans. Sarver is not the "majority" owner. We need the REST of the owners to step up and run him out on a rail. They could end this mess in days if they felt like it.

 

[Covert Rain]

That’s not going to make a contract unconscionable. There are specific legal requires for that. Don’t make me dig out my contracts textbook from 30 years ago.

No need. I have dealt NDAs, contributing to writing them and have signed them. All the person has to do is prove undue influence, duress, unequal bargaining power for example. If enough people testify that the HR (including the head of HR) was acting as Sarver's personal interference and using that influence to make people feel that signing them was there only choice that is enough to bring the argument.

Straight from our HR site for officers: "At no point should you influence the acceptance of an NDA with your employees. Any perception of undue influence, coercion on signing the NDA could nullify the acceptance of that NDA and/or expose the company to future litigation. You must not have the appearance of influencing the employee's decision-making process."

I am no legal expert but I would assume that doesn't just apply to our officers but HR as well or anybody involved with the NDA process. You would have to one assume the previous head of HR is telling the truth and that HR was indeed using its influence to run interference for Sarver. That doesn't mean it's true or they will win but yet it appears to fit the criteria.