Sarvers future as owner

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

I didn't get that at all. The story referenced incidents. They were not going to list statements of 70 people. The article would have been 5 times as big. Plus, I am sure the league can look into these "settlements" the former head of HR (who was not fired) referenced. I am sure there is plenty for the league to investigate. I just don't think they have an appetite for Sterling 2.0.

Oh, also the people who signed the NDAs to get the settlements aren’t going to roll bc then they’d have to cough up the dough.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I chose other. I think his contract with the ownership group only gives grounds to remove him if he committed a major criminal act. That's out. Evidently, there was no moral clause (at least not reported). I question if the League has the appetite after the Sterling incident. So, I am not confident there.

I still think he is out if the other Owners will refuse to do business with him, free agents will refuse to come here and advertisers/sponsors start jumping ship. Like with the Clippers if the Suns refuse to play for him?

It's a done deal. To me that is the most likely catalyst.

He can be removed by 3/4ths vote. Essentially the league says sell or Suns aren't an NBA team.

 

[Covert Rain]

You’re falling for a ruse by the writer. They interviewed 70 people. That could still mean they got bupkis from 65 of them. As I mentioned before, the stories could all be from 6-10 people. And if they’re mostly former employees, and there are opposing stories from other employees, it’s just he said/she said, which won’t fly to oust an owner. The other owners of other franchises wouldn’t stand for it. It’s got to be either undeniable hard evidence (tape or writings) or overwhelming testimonials (like if 50 of the 70 came out in agreement).

Look, I 99% believe the stories. I also think most reporters and players and execs and nba officials believe the stories. And he’s likely “that guy.” But it takes more to oust an owner. You have to remember it’s an old boys network. And they support one and other bc they want the others’ support when the scrutiny turns on them. And ultimately the owners control the league.

No I considered that. It only takes one true story with lots of corroboration regardless of the number. There is lots for the NBA to dig into regardless of that number. Plus the X-fator? Just like with Sterling? Once the investigation started people came out of the wood work. We are all assuming this is all there is. Plus, the NBA might be able to look into the settlements that Sarver's own head of HR mentioned by checking out of they took place at all. That is not good sign for the overall investigation.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Oh, also the people who signed the NDAs to get the settlements aren’t going to roll bc then they’d have to cough up the dough.

If his conduct was illegal or violated workplace laws, NDAs don't matter.

 

[Covert Rain]

He can be removed by 3/4ths vote. Essentially the league says sell or Suns aren't an NBA team.

Fixed that above. I got the ratio wrong.

 

[Mainstreet]

I think most of us are not convinced the NBA does anything. It will be the owners who seem to hate him across the league (which you need 2/3rds to vote), advertisers/sponsors or players that force him out. To me that is the only way. Again, assuming that the NBA doesn't uncover more details or additional stories (a la settlements).

The NBA investigation will turn up some concrete things, maybe not earth shattering, but enough for the other owners to force him out.

Almost everyone understands money. Perhaps a buyout might facilitate an easier exit.

 

[Covert Rain]

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.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Guys like Sarver are bad for the league. Bad for advertising. He also isn't getting enough revenue out of the Phoenix market overall.

And if he's a jack ass in front of the common folk, you know he's probably been that way in front of owners as well. They don't want how they act to come under scrutiny.

 

[Mainstreet]

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 think we see sponsors jumping ship soon.

 

[Cheesebeef]

You’re falling for a ruse by the writer. They interviewed 70 people. That could still mean they got bupkis from 65 of them. As I mentioned before, the stories could all be from 6-10 people. And if they’re mostly former employees, and there are opposing stories from other employees, it’s just he said/she said, which won’t fly to oust an owner. The other owners of other franchises wouldn’t stand for it. It’s got to be either undeniable hard evidence (tape or writings) or overwhelming testimonials (like if 50 of the 70 came out in agreement).

Look, I 99% believe the stories. I also think most reporters and players and execs and nba officials believe the stories. And he’s likely “that guy.” But it takes more to oust an owner. You have to remember it’s an old boys network. And they support one and other bc they want the others’ support when the scrutiny turns on them. And ultimately the owners control the league.

this I think is ultimate reason the owners don't give him the boot. setting a standard where they can be gutted from their teams based on allegations but no tape or email puts them all in precarious positions they probably don't want to be in.

 

[Covert Rain]

this I think is ultimate reason the owners don't give him the boot. setting a standard where they can be gutted from their teams based on allegations but no tape or email puts them all in precarious positions they probably don't want to be in.

Yep. It's going to have to be evidence gathered by the NBA that is corroborated and documented for the owners to act. Although, I bet they are chomping for something substantial. The owners across the league hate him.

 

[Rab]

No I considered that. It only takes one true story with lots of corroboration regardless of the number. There is lots for the NBA to dig into regardless of that number. Plus the X-fator? Just like with Sterling? Once the investigation started people came out of the wood work. We are all assuming this is all there is. Plus, the NBA might be able to look into the settlements that Sarver's own head of HR mentioned by checking out of they took place at all. That is not good sign for the overall investigation.

This. It only takes one. With multiple reports of something racially taking place or being said, I think there’s a good chance they find one to be true or more stories begin coming. And that’s all they’ll need.

 

[Mainstreet]

There is one group powerful enough to force Sarver out now and that is the NBPA but I haven't seen them make a stance as yet.

 

[TRW]

I said other because none of the other options fit my opinion on the situation. If there was a simple "yes" or "no" to the question posed I would say "no". The "recent allegations" are not enough to force him out. Way to premature to say one way or the other to me.

After the NBA conducts its investigation, any of the other 3 answers may come into play depending on what they conclude.

As a fan of the Suns from their beginning Sarver has sucked the fandom out of me, especially over the last decade. I couldn't even be hopeful after last season because, you know, he still owns the team.

 

[JCSunsfan]

You’re falling for a ruse by the writer. They interviewed 70 people. That could still mean they got bupkis from 65 of them. As I mentioned before, the stories could all be from 6-10 people. And if they’re mostly former employees, and there are opposing stories from other employees, it’s just he said/she said, which won’t fly to oust an owner. The other owners of other franchises wouldn’t stand for it. It’s got to be either undeniable hard evidence (tape or writings) or overwhelming testimonials (like if 50 of the 70 came out in agreement).

Look, I 99% believe the stories. I also think most reporters and players and execs and nba officials believe the stories. And he’s likely “that guy.” But it takes more to oust an owner. You have to remember it’s an old boys network. And they support one and other bc they want the others’ support when the scrutiny turns on them. And ultimately the owners control the league.

Ha. Never have I agreed with Ouchie more. Other owners make themselves vulnerable if they do not demand black and white evidence.

All Sarver has to do is say that this is distracting to the team and he will step out of his position as managing general partner while retaining ownership. That would probably make most of this go away. He gets his keeps his money and gets himself (and his family) out of the spotlight. Maybe that's a pipe dream.

Whatever the case, the NBA needs to do its own investigation and verify the breadth of the sources and the veracity of the accusations. If am a player I would say, "I will let the league office figure this out. I am not with Sarver all the time and I am not his babysitter. Until there is more clarity I am just going to play basketball. Don't ask me about it again."

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

No I considered that. It only takes one true story with lots of corroboration regardless of the number. There is lots for the NBA to dig into regardless of that number. Plus the X-fator? Just like with Sterling? Once the investigation started people came out of the wood work. We are all assuming this is all there is. Plus, the NBA might be able to look into the settlements that Sarver's own head of HR mentioned by checking out of they took place at all. That is not good sign for the overall investigation.

I don’t think any of us are assuming this is all there is. And again, those under NDAs aren’t talking.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

If his conduct was illegal or violated workplace laws, NDAs don't matter.

Those are legal battles in and of themselves. You guys don’t understand what it requires of people who got some money and likely want to put all this behind them. What you’re hoping for isn’t likely.

 

[Covert Rain]

I don’t think any of us are assuming this is all there is. And again, those under NDAs aren’t talking.

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.

 

[AzStevenCal]

The NBA investigation will turn up some concrete things, maybe not earth shattering, but enough for the other owners to force him out.

Almost everyone understands money. Perhaps a buyout might facilitate an easier exit.

I don't know that you're right but I sure hope you are.

 

[Mainstreet]

I don't know that you're right but I sure hope you are.

Of course we are all guessing but I'm hope Sarver sees the writing on the wall.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Of course we are all guessing but I'm hope Sarver sees the writing on the wall.

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

 

[Hoop Head]

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

And even if he does see it, he views it as a challenge to overcome instead of the end of the road.

 

[Cheesebeef]

And even if he does see it, he views it as a challenge to overcome instead of the end of the road.

Bingo.

 

[Raindog]

And let's not be naive - the NBA doesn't have to "officially" remove Sarver in order to force him out. They have sufficient influence to ultimately get him removed whether he wants to be or not, particularly if the co-owners of the Suns also want to be rid of him - which they should and most likely will.

 

[AzStevenCal]

And let's not be naive - the NBA doesn't have to "officially" remove Sarver in order to force him out. They have sufficient influence to ultimately get him removed whether he wants to be or not, particularly if the co-owners of the Suns also want to be rid of him - which they should and most likely will.

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.