Calhoun Quotes on Hurley

[8893]

I guess the question must be asked then, if firing KO at the end of the season for cause was bad timing after what 25 point loss would it have felt right? You have a lot to pick from.
How many KO defenders would have then said, you should not interrupt the continuity of a season with a disruptive firing. It falls in a category of you can’t win.

I'm not defending KO. I agreed he had to go. I'm interested in the legal stuff as sport because that's the way my mind works. Yes, there appear to have been lots of good potential reasons that he had to go, and you are correct that the end of the season makes sense for a number of practical reasons.

 

[Chief00]

I'm not defending KO. I agreed he had to go. I'm interested in the legal stuff as sport because that's the way my mind works. Yes, there appear to have been lots of good potential reasons that he had to go, and you are correct that the end of the season makes sense for a number of practical reasons.

The UConn union collective bargaining rules don’t really fit the $3 million a year head coach position.
Giving a coach 60 or 90 days warning in the middle of the season would have been loudly criticized as setting KO up to fail and sabotaging the successful Blaze recruiting.

 

[8893]

The UConn union collective bargaining rules don’t really fit the $3 million a year head coach position.

Agreed. But that's the way they drew it up.

 

[CL82]

Nope. Not what I said.

Long ago when I first explained the legal theory you said you thought it was an interesting take. It’s not something to agree or disagree with. It’s a potential strategy that depends on the facts.

We still don’t know the facts, or at least I don’t. But all I have said is that when you fire someone for one thing but say that you fired them for something else, that CAN give rise to legal claims stemming from pretext.

One of those claims is breach of the convenant of good faith and fair dealing, which would depend on other factors as well, such as what they knew, when they knew it and what they did about it. How they have treated others who are similarly situated could also play a factor.

I think the word “cause” implies that there was actually a causal relationship and he seems to agree that the cause was the poor performance, not the other things being cited.

I don’t know if it would be successful here but it is a valid legal theory.

Taking JC’s statement for what it suggested seemed to help confirm that he was fired for performance and that the decision was made long before the end of the season, that is all.

Not seeing it. JC didn't have direct hire/fire authority. He's just a guy expressing an opinion. Good post though.

(FWIW - The word "cause" isn't an undefined stand alone term subject to common usage interpretation. It is part of the phrase "just cause" which is specifically defined under the contract and has been discussed ad naseum.)

 

[8893]

View attachment 31541

Not seeing it. JC didn't have direct hire/fire authority. He's just a guy expressing an opinion. Good post though.

Your meme is 100% accurate.

As for the rest, I will leave it that I believe JC knows things that may be material to the dispute. I don't want to hypothesize further about what those things may be because I didn't like it when others hypothesized about what KO may or may not have done to warrant a just cause firing under the contract. Once suggested, hypotheticals have a way of taking on a life of their own here, and I don't desire to do that to any of our guys.

For me, this has become a debate team or moot court exercise taken too far. I used to love showing up and being assigned one side of an issue for one debate, and then having to take the other side in the next. You make the best arguments with what you have, but none of us knows what the operative facts really are here. It is fun for me as an exercise, but not so much fun when taken out of context, which is inevitable here--and not fair to the people involved imo.

 

[Chief00]

JC is always guilty as insinuated LOL!