"UConn Trying to Snatch $10 Million for a Phone Call with Ray Allen"

[kemba]

This idea being branded as fact that UConn has offered a reasonable settlement but Ollie is demanding every penny of the 10 million is so confusing. I mean, at least the narratives that Ollie quit, or lifestyle changes got in the way have internet rumors. This settlement stuff has ZERO evidence.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

"Snatch" is a silly word.

On a day when I've read that JC once beat off a mugger, nothing surprises me.

 

[Jimdish255]

This - all that matters...

Everybody has gotta work reeeeaaaally hard to focus on the only issue that matters:

What the contract says. It uses very broad language that allows for Ollie's termination for even the smallest of rules violations. Ollie's lawyer advised him to sign it. If the contract says, "yeah, even a phone call to Ray Ray constitutes "just cause", " then Ollie should get what is coming to him, which is zero.

Is that "right"? Who cares? That's the wrong question presented by somebody who has lost focus or never had it.

No matter what emotional, irrational headline some scrub at a click bait internet cyberag cobbles together, all that matters is this:

Ollie had counsel. Ollie signed the contract. The contract governs.
If Ollie doesn't like that, he can google, "legal malpractice attorney connecticut."

 

[uconnbill]

He was fired because he did a lousy job the last two years, especially losing a number of players that transferred. This is on Ollie and not sure how some of you don't see it.
When you have a pro team you don't fire the players but the coaching staff and that is what happened.

 

[CL82]

Wouldn't doing that mean UConn is admitting they don't have enough confidence in their application of cause?

No it would mean they are adults and reasonable offer was made to them. That's not a hard concept, right?

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

No, actually I have always been in favor of a compromise settlement. I think people who understand litigation get the fact that it is expensive, time consuming and distracting. Pay Ollie something like 3M and move on, thats my hunch. There is value to the case being closed on a number of levels, despite the relative strength of the University's position.

Wouldn't doing that mean UConn is admitting they don't have enough confidence in their application of cause?

That's a possible interpretation @August_West. However, Huskybass' last sentence in his post may be a relevant consideration for all involved and both counterparties' confidence levels in their respective interpretations, strength of their respective arguments, etc. Alas, the sentence went missing from the rest of his message you cited with your query.

 

[August_West]

No it would mean they are adults and reasonable offer was made to them. That's not a hard concept, right?

What is a reasonable offer?

 

[August_West]

That's a possible interpretation @August_West. However, Huskybass' last sentence in his post may be a relevant consideration for all involved and both counterparties' confidence levels in their respective interpretations, strength of their respective arguments, etc. Alas, the sentence went missing from the rest of his message you cited with your query.

He must've added it after the fact. I quoted entire post.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

What is a reasonable offer?

Life supply of Arby's BBQ sandwiches, curley fries, and hangover Cokes?

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

He must've added it after the fact. I quoted entire post.

Dubious considering the source , but potentially a relevant consideration for all involved and both counterparties' confidence levels in their respective interpretations, strength of their respective arguments, etc.

 

[CL82]

What is a reasonable offer?

That's a good question. At the start of this I think it could have been settled at as much $4.5 M over 3 years. Now? Maybe $2-3M over 3-4 years but let's face it those numbers are very speculative.

 

[champs99and04]

Everybody has gotta work reeeeaaaally hard to focus on the only issue that matters:

What the contract says. It uses very broad language that allows for Ollie's termination for even the smallest of rules violations. Ollie's lawyer advised him to sign it. If the contract says, "yeah, even a phone call to Ray Ray constitutes "just cause", " then Ollie should get what is coming to him, which is zero.

Is that "right"? Who cares? That's the wrong question presented by somebody who has lost focus or never had it.

No matter what emotional, irrational headline some scrub at a click bait internet cyberag cobbles together, all that matters is this:

Ollie had counsel. Ollie signed the contract. The contract governs.
If Ollie doesn't like that, he can google, "legal malpractice attorney connecticut."

My time studying law began ten minutes ago, but I have learned that a contract can be rendered unenforceable if its terms are deemed "impossible or impracticable to carry out."

This suggests to me that UConn's burden of proof is higher than people think. They don't just have to proof he committed violations, they have to prove that it would have been reasonably possible to do his job without committing any violations. Because this is a court of law and not an appeal to the NCAA, it's unlikely that a neutral third party will view this as anything other than a desperate attempt to scrabble together some extra change.

 

[ctchamps]

One would think that preserving his job at his alma mater, a blue-blood college basketball program whom he coached to a national championship while defeating multiple HoF-caliber coaches along the way, would've given him enough motivation to turn things around. Evidently it wasn't. That leaves me feeling very pessimistic.

We have a coach on our current staff who went through worse and appears to have turned himself around.

Hopefully KO can get his life back on track.

 

[CL82]

My time studying law began ten minutes ago, but I have learned that a contract can be rendered unenforceable if its terms are deemed "impossible or impracticable to carry out."

This suggests to me that UConn's burden of proof is higher than people think. They don't just have to proof he committed violations, they have to prove that it would have been reasonably possible to do his job without committing any violations. Because this is a court of law and not an appeal to the NCAA, it's unlikely that a neutral third party will view this as anything other than a desperate attempt to scrabble together some extra change.

No they don't.

 

[champs99and04]

No they don't.

In an indirect way, they do, because Ollie's team can easily make the counter case that these violations occur everywhere and are only being brought to light because of the contract situation. The distinction between walking on glass and careening through a China shop is not communicated by the language used in the contract. To the extent that Kevin Ollie ever had an opportunity to fully comply, with watch dogs at every corner and the barrel of the gun plastered to his forehead, is unclear. I would think that it's very possible for the entire premise to be voided based on unrealistic or unfaithful negotiating tactics, especially if no precedent for this kind of action exists. A contract isn't worth the paper it's written on if there's no neutral party to keep score.

I mean, the contract literally states that "a violation by the Coach of any law, rule, regulation, policy, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University" can trigger the cause. That's laughable, and if you followed every contract to that decimal, none of them would ever get signed. Ollie's agent probably viewed it as a complete throwaway clause that the University would use to tout their commitment to compliance. That's the only explanation. The only explanation is that it was literally too ridiculous to worry about. If you want to make yourself the judge, jury, and executioner, what's the point of even having a buyout? Everyone knows what's going on here. Even the people who support the school's move acknowledge the deceit. Really difficult to have any faith in our legal system if a desperation heave like this from a broke institution gets rewarded.

 

[UconnU]

UCONN should just release the full details of all the various allegations against KO. Screw him.

 

[MadDogRevival]

My time studying law began ten minutes ago, but I have learned that a contract can be rendered unenforceable if its terms are deemed "impossible or impracticable to carry out."

The doctrine of "impossibility" is rarely applicable, and when it is, it tends to be something extreme - for example, a law gets changed making widget X illegal to sell. The original contract called for Party A to sell to Party B 100,000 widget Xs, but the contract was signed prior to the law being passed.
If Party B seeks to enforce the contract against Party A for breach of contract for failure to deliver 100,000 widget Xs, Party A can defend with the doctrine of impossiblity.

That does not apply here. No way, no how.

It was not impossible for KO to abide by the terms of the contract. Difficult? Maybe. But clearly not impossible.

 

[Mokum]

Certainly wouldn't want to loose interest.

What I meant was people will loose interest in the Ollie saga, not the BB team

 

[Bryan Lord]

Ray Allen is going to be the next Verizon guy.

 

[whaler11]

Your leaving out your claim that UConn enlisted Calhoun and Miller to take down Ollie. You believe that’s how it went down, adamant that’s how it went down but it’s just a guess on your part.
Your change of heart in regards to the amount of damage 10 million was to this AD a few months ago compared to now where it’s just “a few” dollars is also head-scratching to say the least. How do you explain that?

So you accept the obvious fact that Calhoun blessed Miller’s actions.

You’d propose that Calhoun would then in an effort to damage Ollie - would weaponize Miller against the athletic department (one that pays him hundreds of thousands of dollars for essentially a no show job while he works at another basketball program fulltime) without the consent of Herbst.

It is just a coincidence that Miller and Calhoun went to settle a personal score - UConn self-reported some nonsense violations and Glen Miller just happened to fall into their laps.

This isn’t a conspiracy theory - it’s just what happened.


As for the money, they don’t have it because they are inept. I didn’t think it was enough money for them to let a rat loose with the NCAA against their own organization.

Think about that. They are so wholly inept that they needed the NCAA to clean up their mess and the way they attempted to do that was by enlisting a rat.

Then the best this rat can do is invent half baked third hand accounts of what he wife told him after he was fired.

Sure this mother spilled to her about 30k in cash from Ollie and she sat on that tidbit until he was fired.

Not only did they use a rat - they used one that can’t even tell a credible lie in order to not implicate himself.

Cheer them on because your interests align with theirs (saving money), but y’all have lost the plot and can’t even figure out who the bad guys are.

 

[whaler11]

What is a reasonable offer?

This might be the stupidest part.

If you have him for cause why would you pay him a cent? It completely flies in the face of your legal argument.

He certainly isn’t going to stop fighting for some small percentage of the money anyway.

It’s mind-bottling how clueless some of this stuff is.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

In an indirect way, they do, because Ollie's team can easily make the counter case that these violations occur everywhere and are only being brought to light because of the contract situation. The distinction between walking on glass and careening through a China shop is not communicated by the language used in the contract. To the extent that Kevin Ollie ever had an opportunity to fully comply, with watch dogs at every corner and the barrel of the gun plastered to his forehead, is unclear. I would think that it's very possible for the entire premise to be voided based on unrealistic or unfaithful negotiating tactics, especially if no precedent for this kind of action exists. A contract isn't worth the paper it's written on if there's no neutral party to keep score.

I mean, the contract literally states that "a violation by the Coach of any law, rule, regulation, policy, bylaw, or official interpretation of the University" can trigger the cause. That's laughable, and if you followed every contract to that decimal, none of them would ever get signed. Ollie's agent probably viewed it as a complete throwaway clause that the University would use to tout their commitment to compliance. That's the only explanation. The only explanation is that it was literally too ridiculous to worry about. If you want to make yourself the judge, jury, and executioner, what's the point of even having a buyout? Everyone knows what's going on here. Even the people who support the school's move acknowledge the deceit. Really difficult to have any faith in our legal system if a desperation heave like this from a broke institution gets rewarded.

The burden of proof on the University is that they have to prove why they fired Ollie, and discovery is going to be a motherscalitoer. You only need one email from someone that says "we need to find a way to get rid of Ollie without paying his contract", and the school is on the hook for the $10 million, plus potential punitive damages.

The safest bet in a wrongful termination case is on the terminated employee. Employers can fire whoever they want, but courts are inclined to enforce severance more often than not. UConn has a shot, and maybe they can turn one of these molehills into a mountain, but will be an uphill fight.

 

[huskyrob1]

What is a reasonable offer?

Going forward, he can use the word "snatch" as much as he wants..

 

[huskyrob1]

The burden of proof on the University is that they have to prove why they fired Ollie, and discovery is going to be a motherscalitoer. You only need one email from someone that says "we need to find a way to get rid of Ollie without paying his contract", and the school is on the hook for the $10 million, plus potential punitive damages.

The safest bet in a wrongful termination case is on the terminated employee. Employers can fire whoever they want, but courts are inclined to enforce severance more often than not. UConn has a shot, and maybe they can turn one of these molehills into a mountain, but will be an uphill fight.

Everyone conveniently forgets that any Judge, Jury, or Union Arbitrator, that sides with Ollie is setting a nation precedent for all of college basketball, and legitimizes what goes on in college basketball and other major college sports these days. It would mean the end of college basketball, the NCAA, thousands of jobs, amateur athletics as we know it, and many millions of dollars that now go to the P5, and the college sports industry. As ticky tack as some of the things he did are, I don't see any governing or ruling body having the balls to do that. I think UConn wins this hands down and KO gets Zippo. If there was a settlement offered he definitely should have taken it.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Everyone conveniently forgets that any Judge, Jury, or Union Arbitrator, that sides with Ollie is setting a nation precedent for all of college basketball, and legitimizes what goes on in college basketball and other major college sports these days. It would mean the end of college basketball, the NCAA, thousands of jobs, amateur athletics as we know it, and many millions of dollars that now go to the P5, and the college sports industry. As ticky tack as some of the things he did are, I don't see any governing or ruling body having the balls to do that. I think UConn wins this hands down and KO gets Zippo. If there was a settlement he definitely should have taken it.

The precedent would be that contracts are enforceable, nothing else.