Has nothing to do with worth or value. It's all relevant to his bankroll and how he wants to spend his fortune. If you had $100,000 in the bank would you pay $10,000 to play golf with Tiger Woods? He wanted the team, didn't want a bidding war and wanted a quick transaction. Just money in an account. He's a WOLF, we are sheep.
This summaries everything. The guy had the money and he wanted to be known as the "Owner of LA Clippers".
Not "co-owner" not "principal owner". He wants 100% ownership on the team.
The guy still will have $18 billion and who's to say his fortune won't increase?
It all depends on Microsoft stock.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CASTORTROY:
Has nothing to do with worth or value. It's all relevant to his bankroll and how he wants to spend his fortune. If you had $100,000 in the bank would you pay $10,000 to play golf with Tiger Woods? He wanted the team, didn't want a bidding war and wanted a quick transaction. Just money in an account. He's a WOLF, we are sheep.
This summaries everything. The guy had the money and he wanted to be known as the "Owner of LA Clippers".
Not "co-owner" not "principal owner". He wants 100% ownership on the team.
The guy still will have $18 billion and who's to say his fortune won't increase?
No way the Clippers franchise is worth as much as the Dallas Cowboys! Why would he overpay by a billion dollars?
First of all, Dallas Sucks!! But you are still missing the point. Why do people overpay for art? It's not worth the 150 million they pay for Picasso's? It has always been and will always remain supply and demand!! He will never paint another picture!! There are a set "supply" everybody wants to own one. There are a limited number of sports franchises to own. Everybody wants in, so what does a guy with all the money in the world do? He over bids and gets what he wants. A offer no one would refuse!! He won't make money on the purchase but will more then cover his tax burden with "losses" in the long run it will be a wash, but he gets to be the hero that got rid of the devil and saved the franchise-- IT'S PRICELESS!!
0
Quote Originally Posted by AchillesTG:
No way the Clippers franchise is worth as much as the Dallas Cowboys! Why would he overpay by a billion dollars?
First of all, Dallas Sucks!! But you are still missing the point. Why do people overpay for art? It's not worth the 150 million they pay for Picasso's? It has always been and will always remain supply and demand!! He will never paint another picture!! There are a set "supply" everybody wants to own one. There are a limited number of sports franchises to own. Everybody wants in, so what does a guy with all the money in the world do? He over bids and gets what he wants. A offer no one would refuse!! He won't make money on the purchase but will more then cover his tax burden with "losses" in the long run it will be a wash, but he gets to be the hero that got rid of the devil and saved the franchise-- IT'S PRICELESS!!
Do you really think Sterling would prefer $2 billion or being owner of the Clippers?
If you think the former, you should get acquainted with more people of affluence.
Just like Joe Paterno and the child molesting thing, Clippers get sold, Sterling's going to die in a few months from now and his life's "legacy" will be that he was a huge racist. This whole thing has backfired on him, I'm sure if he had to choose between even 50 billion, or remaining the Clippers owner, he'd still want to be the owner.
0
Quote Originally Posted by hustle_man:
Actually, it is the opposite.
Do you really think Sterling would prefer $2 billion or being owner of the Clippers?
If you think the former, you should get acquainted with more people of affluence.
Just like Joe Paterno and the child molesting thing, Clippers get sold, Sterling's going to die in a few months from now and his life's "legacy" will be that he was a huge racist. This whole thing has backfired on him, I'm sure if he had to choose between even 50 billion, or remaining the Clippers owner, he'd still want to be the owner.
Just like Joe Paterno and the child molesting thing, Clippers get sold, Sterling's going to die in a few months from now and his life's "legacy" will be that he was a huge racist. This whole thing has backfired on him, I'm sure if he had to choose between even 50 billion, or remaining the Clippers owner, he'd still want to be the owner.
Do you think those people really care about "legacy" ? If they did care they won't act like they do!
0
Quote Originally Posted by jimmybeam:
Just like Joe Paterno and the child molesting thing, Clippers get sold, Sterling's going to die in a few months from now and his life's "legacy" will be that he was a huge racist. This whole thing has backfired on him, I'm sure if he had to choose between even 50 billion, or remaining the Clippers owner, he'd still want to be the owner.
Do you think those people really care about "legacy" ? If they did care they won't act like they do!
Do you think those people really care about "legacy" ? If they did care they won't act like they do!
As jimmybeam pointed out, yes they do. They don't think they are going to get caught. And like paterno, sterling is too old and feeble to do anything to change the perception. His name and his children and grandchildren will always be associated with being a racist. The name is ruined.
0
Quote Originally Posted by tete:
Do you think those people really care about "legacy" ? If they did care they won't act like they do!
As jimmybeam pointed out, yes they do. They don't think they are going to get caught. And like paterno, sterling is too old and feeble to do anything to change the perception. His name and his children and grandchildren will always be associated with being a racist. The name is ruined.
Do you really think Sterling would prefer $2 billion or being owner of the Clippers?
If you think the former, you should get acquainted with more people of affluence.
This has nothing to do of him wanting to continue to own Clippers instead of selling it. But imagine a scenario where he wanted to sell Clippers, without this scandal, he would’ve gotten what? $550-$575 million for the team?
And he gets $2 billion from an illegally recorded conversation at his home!.
Imagine that…He is the winner here.
0
Quote Originally Posted by hustle_man:
Actually, it is the opposite.
Do you really think Sterling would prefer $2 billion or being owner of the Clippers?
If you think the former, you should get acquainted with more people of affluence.
This has nothing to do of him wanting to continue to own Clippers instead of selling it. But imagine a scenario where he wanted to sell Clippers, without this scandal, he would’ve gotten what? $550-$575 million for the team?
And he gets $2 billion from an illegally recorded conversation at his home!.
Has nothing to do with worth or value. It's all relevant to his bankroll and how he wants to spend his fortune. If you had $100,000 in the bank would you pay $10,000 to play golf with Tiger Woods? He wanted the team, didn't want a bidding war and wanted a quick transaction. Just money in an account. He's a WOLF, we are sheep.
Market Value is defined as what a willing buyer is prepared to buy an investment at arm's length so right now the Clippers are worth more than the Lakers.
0
Quote Originally Posted by CASTORTROY:
Has nothing to do with worth or value. It's all relevant to his bankroll and how he wants to spend his fortune. If you had $100,000 in the bank would you pay $10,000 to play golf with Tiger Woods? He wanted the team, didn't want a bidding war and wanted a quick transaction. Just money in an account. He's a WOLF, we are sheep.
Market Value is defined as what a willing buyer is prepared to buy an investment at arm's length so right now the Clippers are worth more than the Lakers.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.