Arbitration? | The Boneyard

Arbitration?

Greathusky

Greathusky

Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,285
Reaction Score
5,044
So Ollie goes through Benedict with no results. He appeals to Herbst with no results. He goes to arbitration who awards him $10 mil for capricious reasons for the dismissal.

Then what?
 
Greathusky said:
So Ollie goes through Benedict with no results. He appeals to Herbst with no results. He goes to arbitration who awards him $10 mil for capricious reasons for the dismissal.

Then what?
Expand ...


Then our administration looks like idiots.


This should shock no one.


Benedict needs to show that hand soon and he better be holding pocket aces.
 
Is it binding arbitration? Then we pay him $10 mil. I imagine that UConn has legitimate reasons to fire for cause and that the parties will agree to something in the middle.
 
I will be astounded if we end up paying KO $10M. But if we did, the only real cost to us would be the legal fees which would be nominal (relatively speaking.)

KO needed to move on. UConn can either pay him $10M or try to negotiate it down but it won't end up paying more than $10M. So we're pretty much playing with house money.
 
.-.
August_West said:
Then our administration looks like idiots.
This should shock no one.
Benedict needs to show that hand soon and he better be holding pocket aces.
Expand ...

Doesn't need pocket Aces. Just needs a better hand than Ollie, or enough of a bet that Ollie doesn't want to see the river.

I'm guessing it'll get settled, as Ollie probably doesn't want every card laid on the table in a protracted ugly dispute. Nor would he want to risk all his chips on that chance. The University already did.
 
What bothers me with the school's position is we have to show NCAA violations were committed. That's all well and good as far as the negotiations, but the worse they are, the better chance the university has to whittle down the final settlement number.

On the flip side, we end up in the exceptionally weird position of almost helping the NCAA make its case against us. The punishment ratchets up depending on how serious the violations are.

So, are we walking a fine line by admitting to having made rule violations? Do we play our entire hand, or hold back on admitting certain things, hoping we divulge just enough to make the contract stick without jeopardizing our BB rebuilding by admitting to more serious violatons? We're essentially in the awkward position of helping the NCAA prove its enforcement case against us. You can't make this stuff up...only at UCONN, and the NCAA will be watching as it all plays out.
 
UConnNick said:
What bothers me with the school's position is we have to show NCAA violations were committed. That's all well and good as far as the negotiations, but the worse they are, the better chance the university has to whittle down the final settlement number.

On the flip side, we end up in the exceptionally weird position of almost helping the NCAA make its case against us. The punishment ratchets up depending on how serious the violations are.

So, are we walking a fine line by admitting to having made rule violations? Do we play our entire hand, or hold back on admitting certain things, hoping we divulge just enough to make the contract stick without jeopardizing our BB rebuilding by admitting to more serious violatons? We're essentially in the awkward position of helping the NCAA prove its enforcement case against us. You can't make this stuff up...only at UCONN, and the NCAA will be watching as it all plays out.
Expand ...

Good point. Hopefully someone thought that through.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
I will be astounded if we end up paying KO $10M. But if we did, the only real cost to us would be the legal fees which would be nominal (relatively speaking.)

KO needed to move on. UConn can either pay him $10M or try to negotiate it down but it won't end up paying more than $10M. So we're pretty much playing with house money.
Expand ...


No, there would also be quite a cost to your school's reputation. I would imagine that your AD would be fired - unless his buy-out is too large. Then he had better hope that he's part of that employees' union, too.
 
UConnNick said:
What bothers me with the school's position is we have to show NCAA violations were committed. That's all well and good as far as the negotiations, but the worse they are, the better chance the university has to whittle down the final settlement number.

On the flip side, we end up in the exceptionally weird position of almost helping the NCAA make its case against us. The punishment ratchets up depending on how serious the violations are.

So, are we walking a fine line by admitting to having made rule violations? Do we play our entire hand, or hold back on admitting certain things, hoping we divulge just enough to make the contract stick without jeopardizing our BB rebuilding by admitting to more serious violatons? We're essentially in the awkward position of helping the NCAA prove its enforcement case against us. You can't make this stuff up...only at UCONN, and the NCAA will be watching as it all plays out.
Expand ...


Very good insight.
 
IthacaMatt said:
No, there would also be quite a cost to your school's reputation. I would imagine that your AD would be fired - unless his buy-out is too large. Then he had better hope that he's part of that employees' union, too.
Expand ...

I truthfully don't think anyone is going or remember in a few years.

Certainly would be less damaging then missing the tournament for a few more seasons in a row.
 
fatlucy said:
Do the collective bargaining rules overrule his contract language? Doesn't seem reasonable.
Expand ...

His contract language in what regard? I don't believe they are in conflict.
 
IthacaMatt said:
No, there would also be quite a cost to your school's reputation. I would imagine that your AD would be fired - unless his buy-out is too large. Then he had better hope that he's part of that employees' union, too.
Expand ...

Our reputation as a feelgood charity that throws taxpayer money away so idiots like you don't think we're mean and we expect our employees to perform?

I don't know about the rest of you but I work hard to make my money, (when I'm not on the Boneyard) I don't want it thrown away so some snowflake thinks we're altruistic.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
His contract language in what regard? I don't believe they are in conflict.
Expand ...


There's a lot of focus on the collective bargaining agreement but he has a contract that should stipulate dispute resolution.
 
fatlucy said:
Our reputation as a feelgood charity that throws taxpayer money away so idiots like you don't think we're mean and we expect our employees to perform?

I don't know about the rest of you but I work hard to make my money, (when I'm not on the Boneyard) I don't want it thrown away so some snowflake thinks we're altruistic.
Expand ...
Altruistic or living up to your contractual promises. Tomato, tomato. Sheesh.

The reason to pay out what you owe under a contract is that ultimately you risk a court making you do it anyway, and you make doing business with you more expensive for anyone else which they will then want to take out in the terms of the contract.

If there is really cause here -- even arguably -- great, good for UConn. But the lack of morality of those of you who don't care and wouldn't pay him anyway is truly astounding. I hope your creditors and counterparties all feel the same way.
 
fatlucy said:
There's a lot of focus on the collective bargaining agreement but he has a contract that should stipulate dispute resolution.
Expand ...

His contract (below) refers to the AAUP language for just cause termination process.

ollie contract.jpeg


Notice his contract uses the terminology of "in addition to the definition contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement"
 
Last edited:
Greathusky said:
So Ollie goes through Benedict with no results. He appeals to Herbst with no results. He goes to arbitration who awards him $10 mil for capricious reasons for the dismissal.

Then what?
Expand ...
If the contract states binding arbitration then
UConn pays the 10mm case closed
If it’s non binding than that carries no more weight than a suggestion.
 
.-.
If U were a mediator
I would suggest a settlement of the better part of th Total Buyout
but I would stretch it out at a million a year
businesslawyer said:
In almost all cases, if it's abitration it's binding. You would normally use the term mediation instead of non-binding arbitration.
Expand ...
I was in Mfg Managment in a union environment for almost 40 years but I retired about 10 years ago
Apparently the term non binding arbitration has gone out of usage.
In my memory a mediator tries to let the two parties determine the outcome . An arbitrator makes the determination of what’s equitable and that’s either binding or non binding .
Do you agree that the route Ollie is taking will be more confidential than
any kind of court case ?
 
businesslawyer said:
In almost all cases, if it's abitration it's binding. You would normally use the term mediation instead of non-binding arbitration.
Expand ...

Can't remember where I read it but I was under the impression that an arbitrator can decide for one party or the other but cannot impose a "middle ground" settlement on both parties? It seems like it's in both parties best interest to negotiate a settlement prior to a decision which has so much uncertainty (given the broad language of the "for cause" termination but the potentially weak sauce of the violations themselves).

While I'm sure Ollie wants some money out of it, I have a feeling that he wants to clear his name even more so - being accused of doing things when you've prided yourself on running a clean program seems to be one of the biggest sticking points (i.e. see his statement to ESPN). That would imply a potential settlement given it costs UConn nothing to clear his name and it may mean more to Ollie than the money.
 
jbdphi said:
Can't remember where I read it but I was under the impression that an arbitrator can decide for one party or the other but cannot impose a "middle ground" settlement on both parties? It seems like it's in both parties best interest to negotiate a settlement prior to a decision which has so much uncertainty (given the broad language of the "for cause" termination but the potentially weak sauce of the violations themselves).

While I'm sure Ollie wants some money out of it, I have a feeling that he wants to clear his name even more so - being accused of doing things when you've prided yourself on running a clean program seems to be one of the biggest sticking points (i.e. see his statement to ESPN). That would imply a potential settlement given it costs UConn nothing to clear his name and it may mean more to Ollie than the money.
Expand ...

No. That’s just baseball. The MLB arbitration process for contracts works that way to discourage either side from asking for too much or lowballing.

Normal AAA arbitration the arbitrator can award amounts in between what is sought. Like a mediator, a good arbitrator will seek to bring the sides together on a middle ground. They can settle right up to final award.
 
huskymedic said:
Here is the AAUP language as it applies:
View attachment 29366
Expand ...

Not sure how anyon can read that and assume that the cause is necessarily tied to an NCAA rules violation. All kinds of options there for UConn, in addition to the ones in his contract.
 
jbdphi said:
Can't remember where I read it but I was under the impression that an arbitrator can decide for one party or the other but cannot impose a "middle ground" settlement on both parties?
Expand ...

Per the AAUP CBA under Article 10:
ollie arbitor language.png
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,487
Members
10,467
Latest member
Eil Rule


Top Bottom