Sarvers future as owner

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

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.

Though this isn’t my area of practice I can tell you that perception alone isn’t enough. You’d have to provide evidence. Testimony may not be enough to unwind a contract absent any additional evidence. Your companies statement is common - it’s conservative in its messaging to avoid having an NDA void. That doesn’t mean it’s a commonplace legal event. Courts prefer to keep contracts intact.

 

[Covert Rain]

Though this isn’t my area of practice I can tell you that perception alone isn’t enough. You’d have to provide evidence. Testimony may not be enough to unwind a contract absent any additional evidence. Your companies statement is common - it’s conservative in its messaging to avoid having an NDA void. That doesn’t mean it’s a commonplace legal event. Courts prefer to keep contracts intact.

Totally agree which is why I said it doesn't mean it's true or they will win. It completely comes down to evidence. I just know that they are very strict with us once the NDA process starts. We basically can't be involved outside of providing details to write the NDA in regards to their job duties and information they had access too etc. We are not allowed to discuss it with employees at all once drafted. Only HR.

 

[Western Font]

Sterling negatively affected the Clippers for decades, but for most of that time NBA teams were not worth as much, the league wasn’t superseding baseball, and the Clippers also inconspicuously shared a market with a marquee franchise (which probably loved him for it).

I don’t know what’s going to happen but I do think there is more pressure here from a number of angles.

 

[Dr dumas]

You want to end this quick? Players like the Clippers did refuse to play for Sarver coupled with Advertisers/Sponsors jumping ship. Sarver 100% will not survive that. Just not sure the players have an appetite for that. So far no sponsors/advertisers have jumped which might not happen without a smoking gun or pressure from fans.

I sure wish the sweet James guy would jump ship.. stupid song plays over and over in my brain..

 

[Phrazbit]

I sure wish the sweet James guy would jump ship.. stupid song plays over and over in my brain..

Good lord yes.

I've been considering going so far as to try and figure out how to let Michael Jackson's estate know that some dude in Arizona is ripping off his music for a horrid radio ad.

 

[JCSunsfan]

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.

The question is whether the other 60% of the Suns ownership group can oust him. While they might not take away his stake maybe they can remove him from the role of managing general partner.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The question is whether the other 60% of the Suns ownership group can oust him. While they might not take away his stake maybe they can remove him from the role of managing general partner.

Apparently they tried it before or at least had the agreement reviewed by legal experts to determine if it was possible. It requires significant transgressions that I think would have to far exceed what we've heard to date. I expect more is coming, don't know if it will rise to the level needed so I think our best bet is if they can talk him into selling out or stepping aside willingly.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Apparently they tried it before or at least had the agreement reviewed by legal experts to determine if it was possible. It requires significant transgressions that I think would have to far exceed what we've heard to date. I expect more is coming, don't know if it will rise to the level needed so I think our best bet is if they can talk him into selling out or stepping aside willingly.

Oh really?! Now that is fascinating. There was already a pre-existing civil war going on in the Suns ownership group BEFORE this story broke. So, is this story a result of that war--owners co-opting the press to put pressure on Sarver? Or could it be that this story has been brewing for a while and the issues mentioned here are the REASON for that war?

I do know this. I would absolutely despise being in a business relationship with Robert Sarver--especially if I felt I was unable to extricate myself from it. Is Fitz being used by Sarver as part of a power struggle within the organization? Intrigue and conspiracy within the Suns ownership group.

Hope James Jones can keep the basketball side separated from this mess.

 

[Mainstreet]

If Robert Sarver is to be forced out in some way, better hope there are some recordings or videos.

Chris Coppola of the Arizona Republic mentions some ways Robert Sarver could be forced out but I found this comment interesting when he compared the difference between the Donald Sterling and Mark Cuban situations.


By Chris Coppola, Arizona Republic:

The biggest differences between the Mavericks and Clippers situations is there was an audio recording of Sterling that proved decisive.

Sterling was banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver — then two months into the job — after an NBA investigation confirmed he made racist remarks that were recorded during a conversation. The NBA Board of Governors, comprised of team owners or their representatives, then voted to force him to sell the team, which he did.

What would it take for Robert Sarver to step aside? Donald Sterling case might offer clues

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has power over investigating the Robert Sarver allegations, but other NBA team owners may have final say.

www.azcentral.com

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Good lord yes.

I've been considering going so far as to try and figure out how to let Michael Jackson's estate know that some dude in Arizona is ripping off his music for a horrid radio ad.

Work on the Shane Company first, and then you can focus on other things.

 

[Hoop Head]

Oh really?! Now that is fascinating. There was already a pre-existing civil war going on in the Suns ownership group BEFORE this story broke. So, is this story a result of that war--owners co-opting the press to put pressure on Sarver? Or could it be that this story has been brewing for a while and the issues mentioned here are the REASON for that war?

I do know this. I would absolutely despise being in a business relationship with Robert Sarver--especially if I felt I was unable to extricate myself from it. Is Fitz being used by Sarver as part of a power struggle within the organization? Intrigue and conspiracy within the Suns ownership group.

Hope James Jones can keep the basketball side separated from this mess.

As far as a civil war scenario, the ESPN article mentioned members of the ownership group had their agreement examined by outside council to determine whether it was possible to unseat Sarver as the managing general partner. That was done within the first decade of ownership, which would be prior to 2014.

Knowing that was explored early in his ownership rather than recently makes me believe they've worked past any issues from that time. It's been a while and there hasn't been any news like that slip out so I doubt it's been brewing for that long. That was likely another issue that's been remedied somehow since.

 

[AzStevenCal]

As far as a civil war scenario, the ESPN article mentioned members of the ownership group had their agreement examined by outside council to determine whether it was possible to unseat Sarver as the managing general partner. That was done within the first decade of ownership, which would be prior to 2014.

Knowing that was explored early in his ownership rather than recently makes me believe they've worked past any issues from that time. It's been a while and there hasn't been any news like that slip out so I doubt it's been brewing for that long. That was likely another issue that's been remedied somehow since.

Sarver is Sarver, always has been - he's a miserable employer. And the ownership group probably would have liked to move on from his embarrassing antics early on even if there had been no significant employee problems. But then came that stretch where they were losing money. I'd imagine embarrassment plus losing money became the impetus for them pursuing the possibility of removing him.

Now, thanks in almost no part to the management group, they are again making money so most of the owners are probably content (ish). The wealthiest person in that ownership group seems to be the most outspoken against Sarver and the culture. We're too far removed from it to know whether he has huge dollar signs in his eyes or if he's truly trying to do the best for the organization and the employees.