Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Hans Sprungfeld, post: 3391402, member: 181"] It's factual that KO was fired. It's common assertion that dissatisfaction with his performance led to widespread displeasure among the fan base, and that the University Administration and Athletic Department shared this dissatisfaction and exercised its prerogative to terminate KO's employment as coach. In simple language, this would bolster the claim that he was fired because the team lost. I am claiming that this is an incomplete characterization, and asking for your thoughts on the fuller description of what has happened. If poor performance were the only reason he was fired, the University would be legally obligated to pay him the balance due under the terms of the contract. The contract had provisions that if he were to be fired *for cause*, then the University would have no obligation to pay him further. The University has made such claims. This is the substance of the unsettled dispute. You have not yet used this language and not addressed this significant point. The legal system has already accepted that there is valid dispute sufficient to entertain the matter through its mechanisms. To me, that suggests that parties could reasonably disagree on this matter. And that's what we have here. You seem not to regard this as valid, but instead find it self-evident that the exclusive reason for his termination was poor performance. There is a difference between being fired for good/bad/any/no reason(s) and being fired "for cause." No matter how robust your argument is on the former, it doesn't give you license to ignore the latter, so that's what I asked you about. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach