Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 3251252, member: 44"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach