If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   The Clippers franchise had a great offseason, they're winning, and have earned lots of goodwill with general basketball fans. So what to do with this sudden flood of positive karma? Clue: Remember, they're the Clippers   (espn.go.com) divider line 50
    More: Asinine, Clippers, Clipper Darrell, inactive season, DeAndre Jordan, generals, basketball, Blake Griffin, Clippers franchise  
•       •       •

2388 clicks; posted to Sports » on 01 Mar 2012 at 9:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-03-01 07:08:02 AM
For some reason, I read the article. The Clippers are not the asshole on this one.
 
2012-03-01 09:18:40 AM

nopokerface: For some reason, I read the article. The Clippers are not the asshole on this one.


Really? Screwing over a superfan who's been tortured with over ten years of Sterling's failure to care in person is an asshole for being named something by the media? Glad I don't live in your worldview or I'd be toast.
 
2012-03-01 09:30:17 AM

FriarReb98: Really? Screwing over a superfan who's been tortured with over ten years of Sterling's failure to care in person is an asshole for being named something by the media? Glad I don't live in your worldview or I'd be toast.


Did you RTFA?
 
2012-03-01 09:30:26 AM

FriarReb98: Glad I don't live in your worldview or I'd be toast.


Did you read the article? He apparently makes public appearance where he pretends to be affiliated with the team, and makes money doing it. There's no way an NBA franchise can abide that. Who knows what the guy might say or do, or what promises he might make that people would seek to have lived up to by the Clippers.

Apparently, the team has given him tickets to games for free many times, and have no problem with him coming and cheering for the team. They just don't want him pretending to be an executive. Can't blame them for that. He's making sound like they are out to get him in order to generate more publicity for himself. Mission Accomplished.

But, since you apparently know what it is, tell me about my world view.
 
2012-03-01 09:33:50 AM

FriarReb98: nopokerface: For some reason, I read the article. The Clippers are not the asshole on this one.

Really? Screwing over a superfan who's been tortured with over ten years of Sterling's failure to care in person is an asshole for being named something by the media? Glad I don't live in your worldview or I'd be toast.


WTF am I reading?
 
2012-03-01 09:34:23 AM
Considering that CP3 and Blake sided with Clipper Darrell, the organization might want to do likewise...

Wait, they are owned by Donald Sterling, who is a racist and doesn't care what his players think.
 
2012-03-01 09:34:46 AM
IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection
 
2012-03-01 09:36:54 AM

chevydeuce: IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection


I'm sure you are mistaken. They are persecuting him because they are big, meany, racist doo doo heads.
 
2012-03-01 09:40:35 AM

nopokerface: I'm sure you are mistaken. They are persecuting him because they are big, meany, racist doo doo heads.


d0inw0rk.files.wordpress.com

That's outrageous, I am not a...well, uh....I've never had feces on my head. That I'm aware of.
 
2012-03-01 09:40:40 AM

nopokerface: Did you read the article? He apparently makes public appearance where he pretends to be affiliated with the team, and makes money doing it. There's no way an NBA franchise can abide that. Who knows what the guy might say or do, or what promises he might make that people would seek to have lived up to by the Clippers.

Apparently, the team has given him tickets to games for free many times, and have no problem with him coming and cheering for the team. They just don't want him pretending to be an executive. Can't blame them for that. He's making sound like they are out to get him in order to generate more publicity for himself. Mission Accomplished.

But, since you apparently know what it is, tell me about my world view.


apparently yours coincides with mine, where it involves getting the facts before making decisions.

my first reaction was "that's crazy" and i though about "the towel guy" who comes to the stl. blues games for twenty years now, who comes and waves a towel, and counts off the goals. what if the blues asked him to stop coming?

but after reading the article, and thinking about it---there's no way the blues would want the towel guy making money off the franchise. and it's similarly hard to imagine the towel guy wanting to make money off of it. maybe he gets his tickets at a discount---maybe. i guess people are just different in "fly-over country".
 
2012-03-01 09:43:50 AM

gtfan92: Considering that CP3 and Blake sided with Clipper Darrell, the organization might want to do likewise...

Wait, they are owned by Donald Sterling, who is a racist and doesn't care what his players think.


I'm sure CP3 and Blake would feel the same if Darrell were profiting off their images.
 
2012-03-01 09:45:28 AM
nopokerface
chevydeuce: IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection

I'm sure you are mistaken. They are persecuting him because they are big, meany, racist doo doo heads.


oh, okay...my bad....sorry for the confusion
 
2012-03-01 09:56:01 AM
As the only other Clipper fan, I feel bad for Clipper Darrell. He's the only reason the games were entertaining for quite some time and he obviously puts a lot into his persona. It's a stupid move that kills a big chunk of the goodwill the Clippers have been earning by winning lately.
 
2012-03-01 10:03:40 AM
Behind every stupid thing like this.......is a lawyer.

/lawyers, what can't they destroy?
 
2012-03-01 10:12:20 AM
That guy sounds like a Grade-A asshole.
 
2012-03-01 10:17:57 AM

bhcompy: As the only other Clipper fan, I feel bad for Clipper Darrell. He's the only reason the games were entertaining for quite some time and he obviously puts a lot into his persona. It's a stupid move that kills a big chunk of the goodwill the Clippers have been earning by winning lately.


It's annoying when fans try to become a mascot of the team/fans. Get a life.

This goes for:

Iverson's Mom
"Shawn" who wears shoulder pads to eagles games
Fireman Ed

I kinda like the Flyers dancing guy who seemed to grow organically.
 
2012-03-01 10:18:32 AM

bhcompy: As the only other Clipper fan, I feel bad for Clipper Darrell. He's the only reason the games were entertaining for quite some time and he obviously puts a lot into his persona. It's a stupid move that kills a big chunk of the goodwill the Clippers have been earning by winning lately.


I'm sure they'd be fine with him just showing up, dancing, doing whatever at games. The problem is that he's making appearances and profiting off of his "super-fan" image, and at least selling merchandise as "Clipper Darrell". At that point it stops being "Just some guy having fun" and turns into "Some guy trying to make a buck."

If I started showing up to things as "Durham Bulls Ken" and sold items with the name "Durham Bulls" on it, and got paid for appearances as "Durham Bulls Ken", then I'd imagine the Bulls would be a little pissy, too.
 
2012-03-01 10:28:12 AM
Shrug. Mark Cuban came to him and asked him to switch allegiance to the Mavs and get paid for it. Then again, Cuban's a good owner.

Regardless, Sterling and the team has been supportive of him because he was an attraction for a team that had very few attractions(Sterling even flew him with the team to Phoenix for their game 7 game years ago). Now that they have actual player attractions, they're making a 180. It's pretty stupid all things considered
 
2012-03-01 10:28:49 AM
Clapper Dirrell. Problem solved.
 
2012-03-01 10:40:44 AM
simpsonswiki.net
 
2012-03-01 10:45:48 AM

Go Fast Turn Left: bhcompy: As the only other Clipper fan, I feel bad for Clipper Darrell. He's the only reason the games were entertaining for quite some time and he obviously puts a lot into his persona. It's a stupid move that kills a big chunk of the goodwill the Clippers have been earning by winning lately.

I'm sure they'd be fine with him just showing up, dancing, doing whatever at games. The problem is that he's making appearances and profiting off of his "super-fan" image, and at least selling merchandise as "Clipper Darrell". At that point it stops being "Just some guy having fun" and turns into "Some guy trying to make a buck."

If I started showing up to things as "Durham Bulls Ken" and sold items with the name "Durham Bulls" on it, and got paid for appearances as "Durham Bulls Ken", then I'd imagine the Bulls would be a little pissy, too.


I think it has less to do with the profits off of Darrell and more to do with the potential liability of being ostensibly associated with him.

Scenario: Darrell gets trashed one night and beats up on his lady-friend. The headline the next day reads either:

A) CLIPPER Darrell Charged with Flagrant Foul
B) Clipper Darrell Charged with Flagrant Foul

When the valuation of a corporation is part goodwill. This is an important distinction.
 
2012-03-01 10:46:37 AM
*goodwill, this
 
2012-03-01 10:49:08 AM

Johnny Savage: cenario: Darrell gets trashed one night and beats up on his lady-friend. The headline the next day reads either:

A) CLIPPER Darrell Charged with Flagrant Foul
B) Clipper Darrell Charged with Flagrant Foul

When the valuation of a corporation is part goodwill. This is an important distinction.


Good point.
 
2012-03-01 10:59:35 AM
I hope this sets precedent for other annoying superfans of teams around the country...

4.bp.blogspot.com

/WOO
//concerned
///WOO
 
2012-03-01 11:04:48 AM
"Bailey, 44, has been a Clippers season ticket holder since the 2000-01 season and every aspect of his life seemingly revolves around the team."

And I thought MY life sucked....
 
2012-03-01 11:05:51 AM
There is no man more annoying than this guy, though:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-03-01 11:08:02 AM

chevydeuce: IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection


There's no obligation to protect your copyrighted material. I mean, yes, it's kind of the point of copyrighting your work instead of going the Creative Commons route, but you're mistaken about being "legally bound" to do so. The way you explained it makes it sound like the copyright office would nullify your protections just because you failed to catch some little tiny infringer.

/Works with copyrights and stuff
//Not trademarks
///They're sort of similar
 
2012-03-01 11:09:56 AM

lacrossestar83: chevydeuce: IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection

There's no obligation to protect your copyrighted material. I mean, yes, it's kind of the point of copyrighting your work instead of going the Creative Commons route, but you're mistaken about being "legally bound" to do so. The way you explained it makes it sound like the copyright office would nullify your protections just because you failed to catch some little tiny infringer.

/Works with copyrights and stuff
//Not trademarks
///They're sort of similar


Well, there is a subset of property law where that is true, and it is showcased in areas where there is no public access to public beaches
 
2012-03-01 11:19:23 AM
^ continued...

But yes, they did this to keep control over their trademarked brand. It doesn't matter who named him Clipper Darrel; the media, his mother, himself, or anyone but the Clippers. However, they decided to take the "PR nightmare" route rather than a more positive route.

For example (back to copyright, not trademark), if some band's song ended up being used in a movie without being asked, they could be a dick and say "REMOVE OUR UNAUTHORIZED SONG FROM YOUR MOVIE IMMEDIATELY!!!", or alternatively they could say "Hey! That's awesome that you liked our song enough to use it in your film! You might not know, but this doesn't fall under 'fair use', so you'll need a license, but let's work that out right now!"
It all depends on the band and the nature of the film and its filmmakers. If the band strongly objected to the content of the film, they could go the "dick" route, just as the Clippers have suddenly strongly objected to arguably their biggest and most visible fan bearing their name as part of his.

So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

/And yes, Donald Sterling is a racist slum lord jackass
 
2012-03-01 11:20:29 AM

bhcompy: lacrossestar83: chevydeuce: IANAL, but if I'm not mistaken this comes down to protecting your copyright or trademark...by asking for and receiving those protections, you are legally bound to protect them from unauthorized use. Yes, they might come off as assholes, but they are required to do it. Now, why they can't work out some sort of contractual deal with the guy is beyond me, but they can't just turn a blind eye to his making money off their "product"...or they could lose the right to any copyright/trademark protection

There's no obligation to protect your copyrighted material. I mean, yes, it's kind of the point of copyrighting your work instead of going the Creative Commons route, but you're mistaken about being "legally bound" to do so. The way you explained it makes it sound like the copyright office would nullify your protections just because you failed to catch some little tiny infringer.

/Works with copyrights and stuff
//Not trademarks
///They're sort of similar

Well, there is a subset of property law where that is true, and it is showcased in areas where there is no public access to public beaches


Oh yeah, I think I've heard something about that relating to Dave Geffen in Malibu
 
2012-03-01 11:20:57 AM

nopokerface: For some reason, I read the article. The Clippers are not the asshole on this one.


Yeah.
 
2012-03-01 11:29:17 AM
Clipper Darrell...Attention Whore...obviously.

The team is in the right here.
 
2012-03-01 11:35:29 AM
I wish the article went a little deeper in to what exactly this guy is doing. My guess is that the sticking point here is how Darrell Bailey is billing himself for public appearances, endorsements, etc. If he's just billing himself as "Clipper Darrell" I can see why the franchise might be a little concerned with this, as people might perceive him to actually represent the Clippers.
 
2012-03-01 11:39:57 AM
I didn't read all the comments here, but based on my very brief perusal of Clipper Darrel's website yesterday, it appeared more like a symbiotic relationship with him and the Clippers. He used his image as a superfan to his advantage, but the Clippers were associated with (and benefited from the publicity) what appeared to be a number of philanthropic acts that he oversaw or at least was involved with in some big way. And it didn't look like it was just him doing stuff without the organization, there were plenty of current Clipper players present, Baron Davis (at the time), for instance.

I think the easy way out is for the Clippers to officially make him a superfan by hiring him. Apparently Mark Cuban already tried to hire him to do the same for the Mavericks.
 
2012-03-01 11:46:59 AM
so the racist cheapass slumlord douchenozzle is a racist cheapass slumlord douchenozzle? you don't say...

/i'm shocked i tell you. shocked!
 
2012-03-01 12:03:13 PM

lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.


Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)
 
2012-03-01 12:10:18 PM

tlchwi02: Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)


Yes, if the owner is old, rich and white.
 
2012-03-01 12:24:13 PM

tlchwi02: lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)


The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.
 
2012-03-01 12:49:00 PM

bhcompy: The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.


i think there's a difference between encouraging a super fan and said super fan selling his own line of clothing with their team name on it, emblazening his car with their logo and colors and attending public events using their name and branding.

now i guess if the argument is they should never have allowed the guy to act like a superfan at all and shut him down from the get go and that now the cat is out of the bag, they shouldn't be allowed to change their policy thats one thing. but frankly, it sounds like they tried to come to an agreement with him, he agreed and then he went out and bad mouthed them to the press as soon as he left the building, which seems like the bad faith is on his part.
 
2012-03-01 12:56:08 PM

bhcompy: tlchwi02: lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)

The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.


I garuntee they never encouraged him to make money off the Clippers name without paying some kind of trademark/licensing fees.
 
2012-03-01 12:58:28 PM

Jim from Saint Paul: bhcompy: tlchwi02: lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)

The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.

I garuntee they never encouraged him to make money off the Clippers name without paying some kind of trademark/licensing fees.


I guarantee you no one made money off the Clippers until last year. It wasn't a problem when it was trivial, now it's a problem when they're popular. Kind of a bad way to police your trademark, all things considered.
 
2012-03-01 01:14:26 PM

lacrossestar83: /And yes, Donald Sterling is a racist slum lord jackass


This can't be said enough. I realize there are issues of media access and slander/libel laws, but this guy gets a pass because no one outside of Deadspin will tell the public what a piece of shiat he is.
 
2012-03-01 01:28:52 PM

tlchwi02: Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)


bhcompy: The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.


You both have strong points. As for merchandise, there are other places like Target and Foot Locker that probably sell Clippers gear. Why not work out a deal with your most visible and vocal fan?

I feel the rediculosity from this comes from the fact that we're talking about the farking Clippers, here. They're not exactly the Green Bay Packers, who couldn't pay their fans to stay home from a game at Lambeau. The LA Farking Clippers.

Again, yes, they should protect their trademark and their right to exploit it. And yes, it was right of them to release a public statement with their side of the story. But to make it such a nasty announcement including the phrase "No good deed goes unpunished" just screams "douchebag!"
 
2012-03-01 01:38:50 PM

bhcompy: Jim from Saint Paul: bhcompy: tlchwi02: lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)

The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.

I garuntee they never encouraged him to make money off the Clippers name without paying some kind of trademark/licensing fees.

I guarantee you no one made money off the Clippers until last year. It wasn't a problem when it was trivial, now it's a problem when they're popular. Kind of a bad way to police your trademark, all things considered.


This.
 
2012-03-01 01:46:11 PM
Simple solution, change your name legally.

1. Change name legally to Clipper Darrell
2. ...
3. Profit.

I'm ashamed to be a reader of FARK for this long and to not have seen this comment before this.
 
2012-03-01 01:52:48 PM

bhcompy: Jim from Saint Paul: bhcompy: tlchwi02: lacrossestar83: So again, I understand their intent to protect their trademark, but to follow this up with such a nasty public statement is just...well, very "LA Clippers" of them.

Sounds from that article that they did try and play ball with him. They asked him to clear any planned events or commercial sales he wanted to make based on the "Clipper" with the team management first, or to stop completely. He agreed to stop and then went to the media and cried how the Clippers were being mean to him. Are they supposed to let just anyone co-opt their name without their input and do whatever they want with it (including selling their own merchandise and making public appearances?)

The problem comes from the fact that they've encouraged it for years. The players like him, the owner has flown him on the team jet, they've given him free tickets, etc.

I garuntee they never encouraged him to make money off the Clippers name without paying some kind of trademark/licensing fees.

I guarantee you no one made money off the Clippers until last year. It wasn't a problem when it was trivial, now it's a problem when they're popular. Kind of a bad way to police your trademark, all things considered.


The below post is just conjecture and I am making up numbers from thin air.


Now without knowing his itinerary of course, I would disagree. How much money would it take to buy that suit? $1000? Paint his car? $3000 (high balling it).

Ok, so $4000.00 So say he does 2 apperances a week in some places, making $200 an apperance fee. That's $1600 a month, $14400 a year 9assuming 3 months of no apperances for the off-season). Season tickets, cleaning the suit and gas to the stadium don't make this unprofitable since the suit and paint job are one time expenses.
 
2012-03-01 04:45:56 PM
www.marketfergusfalls.com

RIP Clipper barrel
 
2012-03-01 04:52:03 PM
I think the thread got it right. CD is technically wrong and knows it but the team really screwed up handling this. As stated above, why not just hire him.
 
2012-03-02 01:46:57 AM
The team HAS tried to work with him regarding his appearances. Its in the article. Those of you saying "the team should just hire him" are missing the parts of the article that say that the Clippers have reached out. You can't hire a guy who doesn't want to work for you. This Darrell character is probably afraid that he'll lose income if he became an official part of the Clippers organization rather than just a fan.
 
rka
2012-03-02 05:01:47 PM

logggur: but the Clippers were associated with (and benefited from the publicity)


How did they benefit?

No one thinks the Clippers are a good organization and everyone knows Sterling is a bat-shiat loser of an owner.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report