Arbitration?

[AZHuskiePop]

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

In almost all cases, if it's abitration it's binding. You would normally use the term mediation instead of non-binding arbitration.

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 ?

 

[jbdphi]

In almost all cases, if it's abitration it's binding. You would normally use the term mediation instead of non-binding arbitration.

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.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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.

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.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Here is the AAUP language as it applies:
View attachment 29366

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.

 

[huskymedic]

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?

Per the AAUP CBA under Article 10:

 

[jbdphi]

Per the AAUP CBA under Article 10:
View attachment 29368

Seems like a binary decision tree to me - either they were justified in terminating for cause or not - no interpretation of a middle ground.