Arbitrator rules in Ollie's favor re: protections

[CL82]

I never said that Ray not showing up to coach Calhoun's event was the reason the school should have paid $11 million to Ollie, but it's clearly the argument you're attributing to me. Respectfully, can you explain to me how that is not a strawman argument?

Lol, I thought we were done... Sure though. I'm happy to do it but I won't spend much time on it. Is that fair?

We are in a thread are in a thread about about an arbiter's decision which predictably devolved to core argument of the parties. UConn terminated his contract for 'just cause' for violation of certain NCAA rules and his lack of candor regarding them while Kevin wants to be paid as if his contract was not terminated, an amount his representation has defined as a $11M.

As a part of that arbitration Kevin's representation requested they be allow to "depose" witnesses. UConn opposed it. The arbiter decided that witnesses could be deposed. The witnesses included Ray Allen, former players and at least one recruit who ultimately chose another team.

You argued, vigorously, that UConn should pay Kevin the unearned $11M because opposing coaches might 'use this against us' and that recruits would would not want to play for us (or even take visits, I guess) because they wouldn't want to be deposed. I (and many others) disagreed. You seemed to become upset by that and made some ad personam attacks that were largely ignored by other posters.

You then switched to the argument that UConn pay Kevin the unearned money because of "collateral damage" specifically referencing Ray not showing up at Jim Calhoun's tournament. (I think, you may have just said Jim's relationship with Ray, but the only evidence of any decay of that that I am aware of Ray petulantly choosing not to go Jim's annual charity event.) I pointed out that it isn't worth $11M to me to have Ray show up at charity event.

That's off the top of my head so there aren't quoted text but does that sound about right to you?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Page 14 of a thread where 2/3's of the posters are still arguing that they shouldn't have to pay a national championship winning coach because the team lost too many games his last two years.

 

[Rico444]

Lol, I thought we were done... Sure though. I'm happy to do it but I won't spend much time on it. Is that fair?

We are in a thread are in a thread about about an arbiter's decision which predictably devolved to core argument of the parties. UConn terminated his contract for 'just cause' for violation of certain NCAA rules and his lack of candor regarding them while Kevin wants to be paid as if his contract was not terminated, an amount his representation has defined as a $11M.

As a part of that arbitration Kevin's representation requested they be allow to "depose" witnesses. UConn opposed it. The arbiter decided that witnesses could be deposed. The witnesses included Ray Allen, former players and at least one recruit who ultimately chose another team.

You argued, vigorously, that UConn should pay Kevin the unearned $11M because opposing coaches might 'use this against us' and that recruits would would not want to play for us (or even take visits, I guess) because they wouldn't want to be deposed. I (and many others) disagreed. You seemed to become upset by that and made some ad personam attacks that were largely ignored by other posters.

You then switched to the argument that UConn pay Kevin the unearned money because of "collateral damage" specifically referencing Ray not showing up at Jim Calhoun's tournament. (I think, you may have just said Jim's relationship with Ray, but the only evidence of any decay of that that I am aware of Ray petulantly choosing not to go Jim's annual charity event.) I pointed out that it isn't worth $11M to me to have Ray show up at charity event.

That's off the top of my head so there aren't quoted text but does that sound about right to you?

Yawn. I never 'switched' my argument. I never said they should only pay Ollie because of the deposed recruits. That is one of a number of cumulative reasons. Just because you can't seem to understand that and continue to make strawman arguments to the contrary doesn't mean I should continue to waste my time.

If anything I've said is unclear, feel free to go back and read my other posts. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for me to keep repeating what I've said over and over. Take care.

 

[CL82]

Yawn. I never 'switched' my argument. I never said they should only pay Ollie because of the deposed recruits. That is one of a number of cumulative reasons. Just because you can't seem to understand that and continue to make strawman arguments to the contrary doesn't mean I should continue to waste my time.

If anything I've said is unclear, feel free to go back and read my other posts. Otherwise, it's a waste of time for me to keep repeating what I've said over and over. Take care.

Lol, I get it you've dug a pretty deep hole, your positions aren't sustainable and you seem uncomfortable that I (and many others) don't agree with you. Shrug...that isn't strawman arguments that's having a different point of view. FWIW have you noticed that I tend to quote posters and respond to the quoted text? Kind of hard to say I'm putting words in your mouth when they are your words in the first place.

You keep saying you're done but keep adding more posts. Let's agree this horse has been beaten to death. Okay?

 

[David 76]

Never happier about a dead horse.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Never happier about a dead horse.

So dead dogs already crapped their horse meat-based K9 food, keeled over and died!