Skip to content

Court of Appeals shoots down Donald Sterling’s effort to overturn Clippers sale

Aug 13, 2014, 7:35 PM EST

Donald Sterling Donald Sterling

Donald Sterling threw a Hail Mary Tuesday, hoping an appeals court would step in and overturn the sale of the Los Angeles Clippers to Steve Ballmer.

Turns out, Donald Sterling is no Doug Flutie.

We tried to tell you before that when Donald Sterling and his attorneys filed a writ of mandate trying to stop the sale of the Clippers it would fail. Ramona Shelburne of ESPN confirms that it has indeed fallen well short.

No judge was ever going to step in and undo a completed $2 billion sale.

Sterling also asked the Appellate Court to overturn the lower court’s ruling that cleared the way for the sale. That was rejected.

As we’ve been saying, Donald Sterling is out of the Clippers and out of the NBA. He is not getting back in the club. Ever. His wife Shelly on the other hand

Donald is still a rich, bitter, old man with his attorneys on speed dial so you can expect a lot of continued niceness lawsuits over the coming years — he is already suing the NBA and Commissioner Adam Silver on anti-trust grounds (and the league is counter-suing) plus he is suing the league for fraud. He’s got the money to try and make things uncomfortable and ugly for the NBA, and he might even have some level of success at that.

But he’s lost what he really wanted. He loved being the owner of the Clippers — he didn’t love the Clippers, but rather the perks and attention that came with owning them — and that is gone forever.

  1. nfl4days - Aug 13, 2014 at 8:19 PM

    Make it stop

  2. rdrfan - Aug 13, 2014 at 8:41 PM

    He got the shaft big time.

  3. revren10 - Aug 13, 2014 at 8:49 PM

    Nice time he will pick the right prostitute to tell stories too

  4. ncarolinarn7 - Aug 13, 2014 at 10:18 PM

    Evidence of stealing being legal??

    • eventhorizon04 - Aug 13, 2014 at 10:30 PM

      Yes.

      Because when you’re given $2 billion for something, that’s pretty much the definition of stealing.

    • ProBasketballPundit - Aug 13, 2014 at 11:47 PM

      Ownership of an NBA team isn’t the same thing as owning property. It’s like owning 1/30th of a swimming pool and there’s a specific set of rules to govern how each person treats his portion because if he pees in it then everybody’s swimming in pee water.

  5. eventhorizon04 - Aug 13, 2014 at 10:34 PM

    There’s a group of Donald Sterling fans on this site who can’t seem to understand this situation correctly, so I’m going to explain it to them very simply.

    Owning an NBA team isn’t like owning a sandwich. When you buy a sandwich, you have complete control over the sandwich, and you can do what you want with it.
    Every NBA owner signs a document when they purchase the team that allows the other owners to, in rare circumstances, vote to force an owner to give up ownership.

    That’s why this isn’t stealing. Sterling agreed to this arrangement. Ultimately, his ex-wife negotiated a sale on Sterling’s behalf when the Sterling family still had leverage to get the best price, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is not stealing. It’s not. NBA teams are not sandwiches.

    • eventhorizon04 - Aug 13, 2014 at 10:37 PM

      If you really can’t understand the difference between owning an NBA team versus owning a sandwich after that explanation, then you’re better off just giving up on trying to figure this out.

      There’s really no way to explain this more simply. At no point did Donald Sterling ever have the freedom to do whatever the heck he wanted with the Clippers without the other NBA owners having the power to stop him.

      NBA teams are interlinked businesses, not individual sandwiches.

      • muhangis - Aug 14, 2014 at 12:43 AM

        Who is calling NBA teams as sandwiches, except you? Completely illogical. Quit putting words in peoples mouths to frame up your own argument.

        “If you really can’t understand the difference between owning an NBA team versus owning a sandwich” …. SHUT YOUR ARROGANCE UP .. your point is irrelevant, cause you are the *only one comparing an NBA organization to a sandwich and nobody else.

        [I’m not in any way supporting Donald Sterling and I do not like the guy. I personally am glad he is no longer the owner.]

      • nfl4days - Aug 14, 2014 at 6:30 AM

        The sandwich is just a placer for something that one owns. People clearly believe that owning a team is the same as owning something you buy ie. a sandwich. I don’t see how he said anything wrong.

  6. Bob Loblaw - Aug 14, 2014 at 10:50 AM

    When is SOMEONE in the media going to write the story that needs to be written…that is BEGGING to be written…

    Donald Sterling just QUINTUPLED THE VALUE OF HIS TEAM by saying bad things about minorities. Period.

    If that isn’t the single biggest thing to take out of this entire saga, then I don’t know what the hell is!!!!!

    • mackcarrington - Aug 14, 2014 at 11:41 AM

      Another way to look at it is, that was the cost of GETTING RID of someone like Sterling. But there are multiple factors in that price being what it was. Like for instance, there suddenly being an NBA franchise available in the second largest market in the country; the necessity for a quick and rapid sale, and the fact it was a blind auction. I don’t know if another team will be sold under those conditions.

      • Bob Loblaw - Aug 14, 2014 at 1:55 PM

        It doesn’t matter what the circumstances, the facts are as follows:

        – Before Sterling made racist comments, his team was worth in the $350-400 million range

        – After Sterling made racist comments, his team SOLD for $2 Billion.

        That’s a QUINTUPLING of the worth of his team because he was taped making racist comments. What if this were a setup by Sterling, and I don’t think that it is, but I am just saying “What if?” If he did set this up from the beginning, then what he did was pure genius.

        It was in the second largest market in the country BEFORE he made those comments and it was only valued in the $350-400 million range so that has absolutely ZERO to do with it. However, the necessity of the quick sale was BECAUSE of the racist comments. Blind Auction would not have mattered if he had not made those comments.

        So again..where’s this story? I haven’t seen one media person write it. And it has to be said. Sterling pulled off the heist of the Millennium.

      • RavenzGunnerz - Aug 14, 2014 at 2:47 PM

        You continue to believe in Forbes valuations? those are not real at all.

        Try to get the Lakers at 1.2bil. They will laugh at you.

        Lakers are like a house that will not go away, that will continue to bring you rent money. For 40yrs or so. Now compare it to the purchase of companies like, let’s say… Whatsapp… Whatsapp is not even making money, but it was sold for $19bn.

        Now, If I were to give you the Lakers or Whatsapp… which property would you prefer? I know I would prefer the Lakers. So, do you still think the Lakers are only worth $1.2bn compare to Whatsapp $19bn?

      • mackcarrington - Aug 14, 2014 at 9:17 PM

        Ok Bob. so you’re saying that none of the factors I mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with the price Ballmer paid? Of course, the racist comments TRIGGERED the whole chain of events. And you’re giving Donald and Shelly far too much credit for having that kind of genius. And there probably isn’t a story because it would be a stretch to hypothesize that Sterling deliberately set this up.

  7. ans2034 - Aug 14, 2014 at 7:08 PM

    Sick and tired of hearing about him.
    Let it go old man…now go pick up a hobby or learn a trade.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Jabari Parker injury latest for disappointing rookie class
Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Favors (7432)
  2. K. Martin (6978)
  3. D. Cousins (6793)
  4. A. Davis (6737)
  5. A. Bogut (6576)
  1. J. Noah (6473)
  2. T. Jones (6358)
  3. D. Lee (6172)
  4. C. Bosh (6095)
  5. T. Parker (5843)