Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

-

nomar

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
9,920
Likes
24,767
I think UConn gave Ollie a number and Ollie said he wants 11 million dollars. When Ollie went full scorched earth I think Uconn decided on 0 dollars for Ollie.
There’s always a number.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
899
Likes
1,316
My sentiments exactly. I've said from the beginning, this whole thing just isn't worth it.
But I guess the "not a single penny " crowd, the same ones who told us this was a slam-dunk for the AD and "Ollie has no chance", want to FEEL self-righteous and "get him back" for some mythical betrayal of some kind and another.
As annoying as that crowd is, it probably is worth it if they win.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
53,404
Likes
78,706
That is a great damages argument using after-acquired evidence. At least that’s how I would play it. It probably leads to the same result at the end of the day, but you don’t have to prove just cause for the initial firing. Only that you would have fired him once you learned about this anyway.
I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

10452E6C-CB31-4101-8AAA-F72EC2D6CF53.jpeg


Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.
 

8893

Curiouser
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,447
Likes
41,643
I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

View attachment 45599

Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.
Interesting. Thanks.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,650
Likes
18,078
I’m not sure you get to a damages argument in the NLRB arena. The question before the AAA Arbiter will likely be “Did the University of Connecticut have just cause to terminate Kevin Ollie’s employment @ the time of the termination.

This is the AAUP/UConn CBA language:

View attachment 45599

Today’s ruling is all part of the posturing dance. It comes down to what evidence/witnesses does UConn have to present regarding the NCAA and other violations and do they think it will lead to an all or nothing decision on their behalf.
The evidence that would lead to the 3 year KO ban was there then - the investigation had been going on for many months. The University is required by the NCAA to police itself first. The University really had no choice but to terminate KO, especially given its recent history. That would be an argument.
 

CL82

Beautiful day in Storrs
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
33,665
Likes
55,777
I’ve been on the team that agrees UConn should have paid Ollie and been done with it a Loooong time ago. He deserves some of that money in my opinion. He provided a horrible service which I thought he would from the beginning. Drove me nuts as a player, I don’t care what anyone says, but he deserved some of the money. If he turned down the settlement and tried to play hardball, then you except the consequences.
Just curious, why does he deserve some of the money.
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,816
Likes
24,911
Did UConn begin any actions toward his dismissal before it was made aware of his alleged NCAA violations? If not, what eveidence of those violations did it have and how serious were they with respect to potential NCAA sanctions? Did the evidence include KO lying to investigators?

IMO, the violations are not enough unless UConn was looking at another tourney ban. If they had him on lying before talking dismissal, then they are in the clear.

No court is going to side with an employee lying to investigators. If there was a "how do we fire him without paying" meeting, then they are screwed.
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,816
Likes
24,911
Let’s say UConn did not fire him - the 3 year NCAA just cause prevents him from doing his job for 3 years - so if they rule in his favor - they are ruling that UConn should pay him for 3 years in which by definition he could not perform his job - as a result of his actions.
No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.
 

pj

Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
7,707
Likes
10,163
No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.
Thanks for clarifying the KO team argument:

"Yeah, I'm guilty, but you only thought I was guilty when you convicted me, you didn't know for sure, therefore I should now be treated as if I was innocent."
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2015
Messages
1,850
Likes
4,695
Jesus this is the most overthought thread ever.

He had an arbitration hearing approved which was 1,000% going to happen from day-1. Nothing's changed other than his dirtbag attorney now having an excuse to invoice him more.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,650
Likes
18,078
No. When he was fired, this hadn't happened. Had they waited, they would have have just cause to fire him.

This case is about motivation at the time of dismissal.
But they did have facts from several months of investigation by March 2018 firing date that led to that almost inevitable result.
 

CL82

Beautiful day in Storrs
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
33,665
Likes
55,777
Did UConn begin any actions toward his dismissal before it was made aware of his alleged NCAA violations? If not, what eveidence of those violations did it have and how serious were they with respect to potential NCAA sanctions? Did the evidence include KO lying to investigators?

IMO, the violations are not enough unless UConn was looking at another tourney ban. If they had him on lying before talking dismissal, then they are in the clear.

No court is going to side with an employee lying to investigators. If there was a "how do we fire him without paying" meeting, then they are screwed.
IIRC, they were aware of the investigation and were aware that KO had lied to administration. I don't know if they knew that he lied to investigators.

I think that a tourney ban is a pretty high standard for being considered "serious." But what "serious' means is now the issue that the case will won or lost on.

My guess is that UConn is still in good shape but the arbiter's decision at least keeps KO in the game.
 

HuskyHawk

Hoping to see something that looks like basketball
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
14,486
Likes
16,552
That is a great damages argument using after-acquired evidence. At least that’s how I would play it. It probably leads to the same result at the end of the day, but you don’t have to prove just cause for the initial firing. Only that you would have fired him once you learned about this anyway.
Which would result in us paying him for one additional year more or less. That should be the maximum he could be entitled to as an award from the arbitrator.
 

8893

Curiouser
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,447
Likes
41,643
Which would result in us paying him for one additional year more or less. That should be the maximum he could be entitled to as an award from the arbitrator.
That's what I thought, but as @huskymedic pointed out, they are in NLRB world, where the issue submitted to the arbitrator may be only the just cause issue and not damages. I have no idea how that works, but if that's the case, the after-acquired evidence probably doesn't come in.
 

CL82

Beautiful day in Storrs
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
33,665
Likes
55,777
Which would result in us paying him for one additional year more or less. That should be the maximum he could be entitled to as an award from the arbitrator.
I don't know, the whole "We didn't have a valid reason for firing you, but we would have fire you for a valid reason if we have waited" seems a bit circular to me.

In any case, that's not my understanding of how the arbitration process works. Either UConn discharge for just cause is valid or it isn't. If it isn't and KO wasn't discharged for just cause, then he's entitled to remaining payments under the contract.
 

fleudslipcon

We are UConn!! 4>>>1
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
13,683
Likes
14,412
I don't know, the whole "We didn't have a valid reason for firing you, but we would have fire you for a valid reason if we have waited" seems a bit circular to me.

In any case, that's not my understanding of how the arbitration process works. Either UConn discharge for just cause is valid or it isn't. If it isn't and KO wasn't discharged for just cause, then he's entitled to remaining payments under the contract.
That’s how it’s always been in spite of what we may want or feel is right.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,358
Likes
5,993
He’s going to get the whole thing. I would offer 2/3 or more to make it go away and begin the healing process with former players. We need everyone on board with Hurley as we move to the BE. Shouldn’t be that tough. UCONN needs to get smart.
 

TJT

Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
135
Likes
139
With this ruling and the prospect of even more costly future legal fees, UConn should just up its offer and end this. Ollie would have to accept that he is not getting the full amount and realize anything more he might ever get would probably be offset by his own continued legal fees. Everyone needs to put this behind them and move on.
 

CL82

Beautiful day in Storrs
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
33,665
Likes
55,777
With this ruling and the prospect of even more costly future legal fees, UConn should just up its offer and end this. Ollie would have to accept that he is not getting the full amount and realize anything more he might ever get would probably be offset by his own continued legal fees. Everyone needs to put this behind them and move on.
What is UConn's offer now?

What do you believe is the amount that KO would accept?

Even $1M buys a whole lot of attorney time and the arbitration is coming to end.
 

David 76

Forty years a fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,518
Likes
6,304
UConn knew of his misdeeds and reported same to the NCAA when KO was fired.
Remember? The whole argument was the infractions weren't serious enough plus Calhoun did similar.
Now they have been judged to be serious infractions and UConn says Ollie's contract was different than JC's.
My worry is not so much UConn losing but how long will this drag out before Ollie loses.
This will prolong things but should have little impact on the findings.

"My" coach is Hurley and this mess will end without decimating UConn
 

SubbaBub

Your stupidity is ruining my country.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
26,816
Likes
24,911
Thanks for clarifying the KO team argument:

"Yeah, I'm guilty, but you only thought I was guilty when you convicted me, you didn't know for sure, therefore I should now be treated as if I was innocent."
Not quite, but generally correct. They couldn't have made up a cause just to avoid paying.

They could have made a fair good faith assessment of the allegations and the evidence and determined that the NCAA penalties would be upheld and severe enough to let him go under the terms of his contract. This is exactly what UConn will try to show. Ollie's team will look for discovery on any prior communications that they wanted to get rid of him for other reasons.

The judge will have to decide if those two sets of rationales are independent or if one was pressed to support the other.

Ollie still has a long way to go and depending on the record, UConn may choose to settle. That they have taken it this far, indicates they feel pretty good about their case.
 
Top