Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
The Almighty Buck Businesses

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Buys the LA Clippers For $2 Billion 270

DroidJason1 (3589319) writes "Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has purchased the LA Clippers for a whopping $2 billion, also setting a new record price for an NBA team. This deal is apparently tentative until Donald Sterling gives his blessing. Twenty-nine other NBA owners need to offer their approval as well, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as Ballmer reaffirms his commitment of keeping the Clippers in Los Angeles. Interestingly, Donald Sterling had purchased the team back in June of 1981 for $12.5 million." We talked about this earlier in the week when rumors of the purchase started circulating.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Buys the LA Clippers For $2 Billion

Comments Filter:
  • What a punishment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ClownPenis ( 1315157 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:16PM (#47125099)
    Poor racist bastard. We showed him!
  • by fey000 ( 1374173 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:24PM (#47125165)

    I like how one of the worst CEO's of all time still makes enough money to go on a $2 billion shopping spree.
    At my job, I only get a bonus when I perform above expectations...

  • Re:News for Nerds? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by flatt ( 513465 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:25PM (#47125181) Homepage Journal

    You might be shocked to find out, despite the stereotype, that a large number of nerds are interested in professional sports as well. When an important figure in technology buys a sports team, it is a newsworthy item. Otherwise, feel free to ignore stories that you personally don't find interesting going forward.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:36PM (#47125247)
    I like how you ignore the fac that he was the 30th employee of and owned an 8% stake in one of the largest and most successful companies ever. Idiot.
  • by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:39PM (#47125267) Homepage

    One has to wonder if Donald Sterling would have received this much money for his team without a scandal? It appears to me that he greatly profited from the scandal.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:49PM (#47125375)

    I suppose Sterling has cut a loathsome figure, but how many players do the same? Do you think if a survey was made of social media and other outlets, that one could easily find instances of players making racist comments, using foul language, and paying for lurid PDA encounters with every flavor of the week? Just seems like if equal protection were to be applied, then lots of players would be paying fines, being banned, and losing rings and trophies.

  • by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:57PM (#47125435)

    Worst CEO of all time? geez most CEO's would give their right arm to be half as successful as he has been since he became CEO. Profits, revenue and sales all increased under him year on year with very good growth across the board while not allowing costs to blow out. Yes he had plenty of failures but from a business standpoint he has actually been a massive success for them with his successes far outweighing the failures, could he have been more successful with a few smarter choices, SURE, but very few CEO's have outperformed him over the past decade or so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2014 @09:17PM (#47125571)

    ...part of a free society is having assholes be assholes.

    Very few people want to live in a world where everyone is free to do whatever they want. There's even a logical contradiction in the idea of total freedom: am I free to restrict your freedom?

    Many libertarians like the idea of using "property rights" to restrict freedom (you can't walk across this land because I "own" it, you can't punch me in the face because I "own" it, etc.). Of course, that means that rich people have a greater ability to restrict other people's freedom than poor people.

    Another natural restriction on freedom is consequences to others. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt other people. Incidentally, voluntary interaction and association are related to that - and form a basis for contract law. And this also leads to the distinction between thought and action. Thoughts don't hurt people but actions can. It's legal to dislike a certain class of people but not necessarily legal to take action against them

    Digressing a bit, it's interesting that there are strict laws against discriminating against people (e.g. in employment) on the basis of race - but discriminating against people on the basis of nationality is not only allowed but actually required - even though both race and nationality are overwhelmingly accidents of birth. In a certain sense, foreign is the new black.

  • by Frosty Piss ( 770223 ) * on Thursday May 29, 2014 @09:35PM (#47125665)

    Steve Ballmer has purchased the LA Clippers for a whopping $2 billion ... This deal is apparently tentative

    So, in other words, he has *not* purchased the Clippers (yet).

  • by blueturffan ( 867705 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:42PM (#47126013)

    No, it sends the message that it's very profitable to own a professional sports franchise.

  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @10:54PM (#47126079)

    From Wikipedia:

    Sterling acquired the Clippers in 1981 for $12.5 million, and as of 2014, the team is valued at $575 million by Forbes magazine [...]

    So, this guy makes incredibly racist remarks, and he gets rewarded by a payout worth nearly 4x the value of his team?

    Ballmer should have lowballed the sleaze bag and refused to give him even the amount is was valued at. And that's the least he should've done. Never entering into business with him at all would have been preferable, but Ballmer was never known for having an awareness of how things might be perceived or a sense of what is tasteful.

  • by Fjandr ( 66656 ) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @11:26PM (#47126203) Homepage Journal

    Which in turn can be boiled down to: It's profitable to be extremely wealthy.

  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday May 30, 2014 @07:37AM (#47127585)

    I can only guess that the NBA has talked to their attorneys and found out their ability to strip Sterling of his ownership was more complicated and expensive than they thought, compounded by the fact that I think its tied up with his wife and their divorce proceedings. At a minimum Sterling is very rich, very old and probably willing to make it very expensive for the NBA to force his hand. If it's uncertain you will prevail against an adversary capable and likely willing to throw $250 million at lawyers to defeat you, you give in. Even if they would have ultimately won, Sterling could have cost the league many millions and years to achieve their goal.

    The upshot being Sterling could demand whatever he wanted to sell the team. The NBA, wanting to be rid of Sterling, was probably more than willing to greenlight a sale to the right buyer -- someone of standing who also had no problem financing the buyout.

    There was talk of A-list black celebrities buying the team, but that kind of financing gets complicated -- I don't think any of them individually have the kind of cash to finance a buyout easily, requiring a complex partnership/investment ownership which I think most sports leagues don't favor. I'd also guess that even if a single buyer in this category could have financed this solo (Oprah's net is sub-$3 billion, but probably highly illiquid) they would then be facing a lot of negative PR for agreeing to any terms of Sterling's.

    I'd also guess that the NBA may have also agreed to some kind of long-term bump in TV money to offset Ballmer's price tag. This way Ballmer actually pays less for the team while not making it look like the NBA was being forced to buy Sterling out at his price, which would have been negative PR, making them look like they were capitulating to him.

Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?