Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[CL82]

Bingo. He’s basically confirmed the narrative KO’s lawyers have framed.

Hardly. It's not like he has hire fire authority.

 

[CL82]

Likewise I don’t think it’d be too hard to show that the violations—and maybe even the self-reporting of them—were a pretext for a preordained result, i.e., firing the guy because he was doing a crappy job, but not wanting to pay for a non-cause firing.

As I’ve said, discrimination would not have been my first legal instinct here; but I would look at breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which I suspect could get you to the same place without having to throw the discrimination bomb.

Are we sure this isn't your firm doing the representation? Your view seems to have drifted more KO's way since your self-imposed quasi ban on talking about this.

The language in KO's contract is very broad. Just cause includes, NCAA violations, violations of UConn interpretations, and not performing up to generally accepted standards, inappropriate interaction with a student among others. You've read the contract and the CBA so you get that. So doing a crappy job is just cause. That my recollection at least.

 

[CL82]

AD Benedict sold the Husky family goodwill for the chance at cutting KO's buy out.

Mmm, more like KO sold any goodwill when his attorney's FIOA'd Calhoun and Geno's records.

AD will now shine light on anything that sticks to Ollie for money and i object to our AD stabbing his own program inn the back for any reason. Past players must feel this.

Again, the narrative fits KO's actions more than the programs.

The contract language is what it is. Paying KO money he isn't owed is not only bad business it is like an state ethics violation. Would be in NJ anyway.

 

[Chief00]

Jesus Chief, the gag order man!

Chief is now revealing what will happen if KO’s legal team’s plan works.

Could we end this silly argument about not being able to find cause? Cause as it relates to the personal employment contract is overwhelming. KO’s team is not actually sincerely disputing it.
Their game plan is to win the employee/labor friendly CBA arbitration by process arguments - get KO reinstated as “head coach” continuing with pay and the contract cause stuff is academic because he will be mostly fully paid before the legal journey takes him to a trial - which will never happen.

Their strategy is to run out the clock not to dispute cause. Every month this goes on, KO has $275,000 more in his pocket before taxes. He has already made $550,000 since he was fired and we are in the early innings.

 

[nomar]

Are we sure this isn't your firm doing the representation? Your view seems to have drifted more KO's way since your self-imposed quasi ban on talking about this.

The language in KO's contract is very broad. Just cause includes, NCAA violations, violations of UConn interpretations, and not performing up to generally accepted standards, inappropriate interaction with a student among others. You've read the contract and the CBA so you get that. So doing a crappy job is just cause. That my recollection at least.

I take it you don't mean "doing a crappy job" in terms of wins and losses counts? I remember reading the Pitino contract, which was very broad but was still limited to bad acts, not a bad W-L record.

 

[Danzz]

Both parties are doing what they should do. Benedict is trying to limit the buyout and KO is trying to get as much as he can. There is no good guy bad guy here. KO will end up getting a negotiated number. KO will move on probably to the NBA as an assistant and UConn will move on with Hurley.

 

[MadDogRevival]

Put your thoughts on Ollie to the side for a second . . .

aaaaaaand you lost me right there.

 

[MadDogRevival]

And a throw-away comment from Jim Calhoun . . . has spurred your little legal brain into motion here?

I regret that I have but one like to give for my Fishy.

 

[Samoo]

So KO calling Calhoun a second dad to him was a farce?

Sons fight with their dad's all the time.

 

[8893]

And a throw-away comment from Jim Calhoun, a man not involved with the administration of the basketball program or the the firing of Kevin Ollie, has spurred your little legal brain into motion here?

Ah....why?

Sorry. That’s the way my little mind works.

 

[8893]

Are we sure this isn't your firm doing the representation? Your view seems to have drifted more KO's way since your self-imposed quasi ban on talking about this.

The language in KO's contract is very broad. Just cause includes, NCAA violations, violations of UConn interpretations, and not performing up to generally accepted standards, inappropriate interaction with a student among others. You've read the contract and the CBA so you get that. So doing a crappy job is just cause. That my recollection at least.

Nope not my doing, and your memory is off: I suggested exactly this view months ago, before KO even had legal counsel; and they have gone in a different direction with the due process and potential discrimination angle.

Look it up.

Sorry to have violated my self-ban; I can’t turn my little legal brain off and sometimes it likes to play.

I will try and keep it under wraps again so you and Mr. Ivy can go back to handling this and framing the narrative.

 

[huskysupporter]

I take it you don't mean "doing a crappy job" in terms of wins and losses counts? I remember reading the Pitino contract, which was very broad but was still limited to bad acts, not a bad W-L record.

Yes, I believe “just cause” would not cover poor performance. Has to be something egregious. (i.e. stealing equipment)

 

[Paesano]

Adults do. Take a nap.

Funny stuff coming from the guy that got ejected from a game.

 

[mauconnfan]

Funny stuff coming from the guy that got ejected from a game.

Take a poll and see what people think of his ejection. You will be on the short end of that one I promise. A little passion (and a couple cocktails) never hurt anyone.

 

[8893]

A little passion (and a couple cocktails) never hurt anyone.

Rick Pitino?

 

[mauconnfan]

Rick Pitino?

...add a blonde and an Italian restaurant

 

[jimva]

Am I the only one who sees how remarkably problematic this is and how dangerous a precedent it sets? Put your thoughts on Ollie to the side for a second and realize that money is literally being put before the reputation of the program and the school, or at the very least configured in such a way as to suggest a conflict of interest.

You're essentially using a neutral party - the NCAA - as an unpaid prosecution team to extort money from an employee. And calling them neutral would be generous when they have every incentive to restore the credibility of a traditional money maker.

This is a great precedent. Go back and read his contract. He can be fired for cause for "underperformance" and not rectifying it, as long as it was brought up as part of his annual review. Just like any other person out there! NCAA violations dont have to have anything to do with his being fired for cause. I think the bigger message to all coaches is that if you don.t get the job done, you wont get the big payouts when you are fired. This is a great message that will be well received by the general public.

 

[jimva]

AD Benedict sold the Husky family goodwill for the chance at cutting KO's buy out. The chance to get Hurley was then or maybe never. He is a good fit and wanted to be here. So points to Benedict for that. We don't know how rare that is for a coach of this caliber.

AD will now shine light on anything that sticks to Ollie for money and i object to our AD stabbing his own program inn the back for any reason. Past players must feel this.

Hurley is in a tenuous place regarding the family and needs to keep some distance from Benedict. Calhoun is trying to help. Maybe he is even trying to get Ollie all his money and disprove the adage you can't have Hurley and not eat the money.

Nonsense

 

[dennismenace]

Yes. Exactly the image I have in mind. We’ve seen that movie before.

Wonder if Jack Nicholson studied the JC and Youtube videos with "testy reporters".

 

[CL82]

I take it you don't mean "doing a crappy job" in terms of wins and losses counts? I remember reading the Pitino contract, which was very broad but was still limited to bad acts, not a bad W-L record.

Take a look at the 8893's post that I replied to. He used the "crappy job" language. That is what I referenced. Have you read the CBA? There is job performance language in there. The highlighted language below would be 8893's "crappy job" clause:

Pitino's contract isn't relevant to Ollie's contract. 8893 knows that, his "like" of your post notwithstanding.

 

[CL82]

Nope not my doing, and your memory is off: I suggested exactly this view months ago, before KO even had legal counsel; and they have gone in a different direction with the due process and potential discrimination angle.

Look it up.

Sorry to have violated my self-ban; I can’t turn my little legal brain off and sometimes it likes to play.

I will try and keep it under wraps again so you and Mr. Ivy can go back to handling this and framing the narrative.

Lol, oh by all means, chime in. You know that I actually asked for your opinion on the procedural issues KO's legal team raised like the sufficiency of the Loudermill hearing, which I think can be pretty informal.

I suspect that you won't address that and will just do a periodic drive by comment, which is fine.

 

[Pgh2Storrs]

I love Jim Calhoun.

That is all.

 

[CL82]

This is a great precedent. Go back and read his contract. He can be fired for cause for "underperformance" and not rectifying it, as long as it was brought up as part of his annual review. Just like any other person out there! NCAA violations dont have to have anything to do with his being fired for cause. I think the bigger message to all coaches is that if you don.t get the job done, you wont get the big payouts when you are fired. This is a great message that will be well received by the general public.

NCAA violations are just cause, they just aren't the only one. Here is the language form Ollie's contract that augments the language above:

Discharge for just cause terminates the obligations under the agreement.

 

[8893]

Take a look at the 8893's post that I replied to. He used the "crappy job" language. That is what I referenced. Have you read the CBA? There is job performance language in there. The highlighted language below would be 8893's "crappy job" clause:
View attachment 31420

Pitino's contract isn't relevant to Ollie's contract. 8893 knows that, his "like" of your post notwithstanding.

I don't know what Pitino's contract said. I remember scanning the language you've highlighted above when I looked at the CBA a few months ago and wondering whether that was invoked here. I still don't know what has been cited as just cause by the University, but I had been going on the widely-reported suggestion that it was relying on the allegedly self-reported NCAA violations and was not using the job performance language. I know you have advocated for more of a shotgun approach, including alleged relationships with students and the like, which you have referenced above, and which your co-counsel Chief seems to suggest as well. I don't know which approach they have taken, but that would obviously affect KO's response.

As for the administrative law/Laudermill issues, I don't know. They might have legs, and perhaps Chief is right that that is part of the drag-it-out-while-getting-paid strategy. As I've said, it would not have been my first angle, but that's more of my bias because I've never really loved admin law issues; the standards are too mushy and it all seems like a smoke screen with after-the-fact justifications when I read the cases.

I'm sorry for the drive-by comment; I just like unpopular causes and novel legal theories and remain genuinely curious about the one I've suggested, but I suspect it will remain a curiosity because I haven't seen it suggested elsewhere. And that may very well be because you, Chief and Ivy are correct that there is a mountain of documented just cause that KO is ill-equipped to fight.

And now you've made me bored with the armchair lawyering again. Back to the paying gig.

 

[CL82]

I don't know what Pitino's contract said. I remember scanning the language you've highlighted above when I looked at the CBA a few months ago and wondering whether that was invoked here. I still don't know what has been cited as just cause by the University, but I had been going on the widely-reported suggestion that it was relying on the allegedly self-reported NCAA violations and was not using the job performance language. I know you have advocated for more of a shotgun approach, including alleged relationships with students and the like, which you have referenced above, and which your co-counsel Chief seems to suggest as well. I don't know which approach they have taken, but that would obviously affect KO's response.

As for the administrative law/Laudermill issues, I don't know. They might have legs, and perhaps Chief is right that that is part of the drag-it-out-while-getting-paid strategy. As I've said, it would not have been my first angle, but that's more of my bias because I've never really loved admin law issues; the standards are too mushy and it all seems like a smoke screen with after-the-fact justifications when I read the cases.

I'm sorry for the drive-by comment; I just like unpopular causes and novel legal theories and remain genuinely curious about the one I've suggested, but I suspect it will remain a curiosity because I haven't seen it suggested elsewhere. And that may very well be because you, Chief and Ivy are correct that there is a mountain of documented just cause that KO is ill-equipped to fight.

And now you've made me bored with the armchair lawyering again. Back to the paying gig.

I won't look it up now but somewhere, probably the CBA, it provides for pay in lieu of notice. I think the notice is 180 days, so KO is getting paid regardless. (Here's a question for you, does this clause undercut the procedural argument because the contract provides for a specific remedy for it?)

Outside counsel went with the 14th Amendment arguments because the union was handling termination proceedings under the CBA. They specifically excluded that in their letter to UConn.

KO's personnel file will dictate the approach that the school uses. I don't know that I'd call it "shotgun" but listing all the alternative reasons for reasons for discharge makes sense. Most people don't get discharged for a single act. The same is true for KO. But the contract is clear that termination for just cause, which can be a lot things, as shown above, terminates the schools obligations under the contract.

A just cause dismal is an event that triggers termination.