KO - A tough spot to be in

[jibsey]

You know, if the infraction is not a big deal, he deserves all of his contract money. The fact that he didn’t coach or recruit well the last couple seasons is not just cause.

 

[huskysupporter]

You know, if the infraction is not a big deal, he deserves all of his contract money. The fact that he didn’t coach or recruit well the last couple seasons is not just cause.

If the infraction is minor and this goes to arbitration, I think he will get 7-8 million.

 

[D$]

Fair enough. But not putting the necessary work and mailing in aren't necessarily the same or even close right? That's my only point.

Not sure why you have such an issue with the phrase mailing it in. Not doing the necessary work is in fact mailing it in.

 

[J187Money]

They will have zero impact on negotiations. KO will be seeking as much money as he can get, which has nothing to to with divorce decree.

That's silly. Pretending that someone's personal financial situation is irrelevant to financial negotiations doesn't make sense.

 

[J187Money]

Not sure how many of you have been contract employees - but there is no chance any of you would just walk away.

 

[mauconnfan]

Not sure why you have such an issue with the phrase mailing it in. Not doing the necessary work is in fact mailing it in.

Not really but ok I give.

 

[Hurleyman216]

Yeah, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what Ollie wants or “thinks he needs” that isn’t part of the contract. My guess is the AD has enough dirt on KO that he knows KO will never go as far as arbitration and let all of that become public. I’m sure they already had a conversation about it and KO probably thought UConn would never try firing for cause due to how it would be perceived by the media. Well UConn called his bluff and my guess is this will be settled soon. I’ll be shocked if he gets more than $3M. Benedict knows what he’s doing, he’s not a dumb guy.

 

[August_West]

Yeah, at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what Ollie wants or “thinks he needs” that isn’t part of the contract. My guess is the AD has enough dirt on KO that he knows KO will never go as far as arbitration and let all of that become public. I’m sure they already had a conversation about it and KO probably thought UConn would never try firing for cause due to how it would be perceived by the media. Well UConn called his bluff and my guess is this will be settled soon. I’ll be shocked if he gets more than $3M. Benedict knows what he’s doing, he’s not a dumb guy.

That's what common sense would tell you from afar but you can't deny that you are putting a bus load of faith in an administration that has proven to be ham handed time and again.

We will find out soon.

 

[CL82]

You know, if the infraction is not a big deal, he deserves all of his contract money. The fact that he didn’t coach or recruit well the last couple seasons is not just cause.

Under the contract, sucking isn't "just cause" but it pretty much would be by other any reasonable measure. Now, under the contract, any NCAA compliance issue is just cause.

Jibsey, isn't it inconsistent to say rely on the contract language for support for Ollie getting the full $10M, but ignore it when it comes to the NCAA compliance section? KO was represented. He agreed to it.

 

[Chief00]

That's silly. Pretending that someone's personal financial situation is irrelevant to financial negotiations doesn't make sense.

That’s the only reason I brought it up. I feel bad if some thought it was a hit job. It had been in the public domain so that reaction surprised Chief. In negotiations as in sales you should always try to understand the needs and desires of the party on the other side of the table. From that you understand flexibility and parameters for a settlement given other factors.

 

[Hurleyman216]

That's what common sense would tell you from afar but you can't deny that you are putting a bus load of faith in an administration that has proven to be ham handed time and again.

We will find out soon.

I’ve actually been pretty surprised at how good Benedict has been. I mean, he lured one of the top OC’s from a top SEC school to UConn and the guy took a pay cut to come. Now clearly something there didn’t work out, maybe a personality clash with RE? Either way it shocked most UConn fans. Let’s just see what kind of rabbit he pulls out of the hat this time before dismissing him as incompetent...the sample size so far is small and the facts don’t back up your opinion of “incompetence”

 

[August_West]

I’ve actually been pretty surprised at how good Benedict has been. I mean, he lured one of the top OC’s from a top SEC school to UConn and the guy took a pay cut to come. Now clearly something there didn’t work out, maybe a personality clash with RE? Either way it shocked most UConn fans. Let’s just see what kind of rabbit he pulls out of the hat this time before dismissing him as incompetent...the sample size so far is small and the facts don’t back up your opinion of “incompetence”

The athletic department was lying to donors 3 months ago.

 

[JMick]

The athletic department was lying to donors 3 months ago.

Sauce? What did they lie about?

 

[UConnNick]

I think we're completely off the rails now. Irrespective of how you feel about Ollie, concluding that a guy is "destitute" or in "financial trouble" because he's seeking to recover compensation to which he believes he's contractually entitled is pure lunatic s___. He's acting like any other rational human being would act in his situation, whether you want him gone or not.

I'm not the one who suggested he needs the money to pay off his ex-wife, Chief did. Unlike his assertion, I have no idea what Ollie's personal financial situation is. I also never indicated he shouldn't try to collect what he's contractually entitled to. What that is remains open to serious question, based on the terms of the contract.

My only question is how he could be in a position where he is in desperate need of cash, if that assertion is true. Chief appears to want to portray him as a victim. I don't get that, in view of the many millions he's earned over the past 20 years or so.

 

[August_West]

Sauce? What did they lie about?

Sorry you aren't on the PM list

 

[Travelman6]

KO is in a tough spot.

Really hard to feel even an ounce of sympathy to be honest.

 

[JMick]

Sorry you aren't on the PM list

I only ask because I know some donors were unhappy that we were firing Ollie so they couldn't have been lying about that

 

[UConnNick]

Under the contract, sucking isn't "just cause" but it pretty much would by any reasonable measure. Now under the contract any NCAA compliance issue is just cause.

Jibsey, isn't inconsistent to say rely on the contract language for support for Ollie getting the full $10M, but ignore it when it comes to the NCAA compliance section. KO was represented. He agreed to it.

Legally Ollie's not in a very strong position here. If you enforce the contract terms as written, it's essentially a zero tolerance rule, sort of like Bobby Knight's situation regarding his personal behavior at Indiana when he got fired.

About the only way I see this turning in Ollie's favor is if a court were to rule the essentially zero tolerance for any transgression, however slight, makes it a contract of adhesion or unconscionability, almost impossible to fully comply with in all respects. However, courts are very reluctant to make such rulings except under extreme circumstances. It throws the provision out and puts the court in the position of re-writing the contract. As you correctly point out, both sides had legal representation. I don't see any way that happens.

At some point, Ollie may come to the realization that it's a losing proposition. If so, he will likely try to settle for whatever the school might be willing to pay to avoid any further negative press.

 

[CL82]

Legally Ollie's not in a very strong position here. If you enforce the contract terms as written, it's essentially a zero tolerance rule, sort of like Bobby Knight's situation regarding his personal behavior at Indiana when he got fired.

About the only way I see this turning in Ollie's favor is if a court were to rule the essentially zero tolerance for any transgression, however slight, makes it a contract of adhesion or unconscionability, almost impossible to fully comply with in all respects. However, courts are very reluctant to make such rulings except under extreme circumstances. It throws the provision out and puts the court in the position of re-writing the contract. As you correctly point out, both sides had legal representation. I don't see any way that happens.

At some point, Ollie may come to the realization that it's a losing proposition. If so, he will likely try to settle for whatever the school might be willing to pay to avoid any further negative press.

Yeah tough to argue that NCAA compliance isn't a legitimate requirement for a NCAA coach. Also keep in mind that the CBA, if I recall correctly, mandates that the Arbiter not expand or modify the agreement. So that argues in favor of strict interpretation of the contract language.

 

[whaler11]

The athletic department was lying to donors 3 months ago.

It wasn’t that long ago.

 

[August_West]

It wasn’t that long ago.

No. You're right

 

[Danzz]

If he doesn't get paid, which I think he's getting more than some people might think, then a modification will be forthcoming

Can't get blood from a stone

Obviously his kids get hurt too, I would fight for my reputation and my kids

We are talking about millions here, nobody is going to suffer. As you said there would be a modification.

 

[8893]

Legally Ollie's not in a very strong position here. If you enforce the contract terms as written, it's essentially a zero tolerance rule, sort of like Bobby Knight's situation regarding his personal behavior at Indiana when he got fired.

About the only way I see this turning in Ollie's favor is if a court were to rule the essentially zero tolerance for any transgression, however slight, makes it a contract of adhesion or unconscionability, almost impossible to fully comply with in all respects. However, courts are very reluctant to make such rulings except under extreme circumstances. It throws the provision out and puts the court in the position of re-writing the contract. As you correctly point out, both sides had legal representation. I don't see any way that happens.

At some point, Ollie may come to the realization that it's a losing proposition. If so, he will likely try to settle for whatever the school might be willing to pay to avoid any further negative press.

Yeah tough to argue that NCAA compliance isn't a legitimate requirement for a NCAA coach. Also keep in mind that the CBA, if I recall correctly, mandates that the Arbiter not expand or modify the agreement. So that argues in favor of strict interpretation of the contract language.

Really tough to say until we know what the compliance issue is. If it is something Ollie did personally, yes the contract gives the University broad rights; if it is something that was done by someone under his supervision, they have to show that he knew it was a violation and took no steps to address, correct and report within 10 business days.

 

[CL82]

Really tough to say until we know what the compliance issue is. If it is something Ollie did personally, yes the contract gives the University broad rights; if it is something that was done by someone under his supervision, they have to show that he knew it was a violation and took no steps to address, correct and report within 10 business days.

This firing doesn't feel impulsive to me. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a prior analysis by counsel. JMHO.

 

[8893]

This firing doesn't feel impulsive to me. I'd be very surprised if their wasn't a prior analysis by counsel. JMHO.

Oh I would expect and hope so. But I obviously don't know the quality of that analysis, and without knowing the charges it's tough to know how much wiggle room there is. And I haven't reviewed the other provisions or the CBA to see if the University had any requirement to provide him notice within a certain period of time after it became aware of it.

 

[August_West]

This firing doesn't feel impulsive to me. I'd be very surprised if their wasn't a prior analysis by counsel. JMHO.

The firing itself may be a month or two in the making, but in light of the current article re the legislature indicating no funds, the strategy may be less thought out. We'll see.

 

[SirHypeAlot]

It wasn’t that long ago.

Puts the donors in a tough spot. Our program is up in flames and the guy that lied to them needs their help to buyout the coach that drove it into the ground.

 

[Danzz]

Yeah tough to argue that NCAA compliance isn't a legitimate requirement for a NCAA coach. Also keep in mind that the CBA, if I recall correctly, mandates that the Arbiter not expand or modify the agreement. So that argues in favor of strict interpretation of the contract language.

UConn's compliance complaint would actually carry more weight if UConn had 20 wins. It wouldn't appear that the university was using some minor violation to get out of a contract when the real issue is poor team performance. Now if the violation was major it changes everything.
Both sides are doing what is best for them.UConn is trying to pay as little as possible and KO is trying to leave with as much as possible and I don't blame either side. The buyout will be settled and UConn will believe that they paid too much and KO will feel he didn't get enough. This is the way divorces work.

 

[whaler11]

The firing itself may be a month or two in the making, but in light of the current article re the legislature indicating no funds, the strategy may be less thought out. We'll see.

I gave them too much credit. I didn’t think they would fire him because they would end up in this exact situation and there was a chance they could be better next year.

I should have learned by now you can’t underestimate anyone in Storrs (but Geno and Stevens).

These buffoons will probably end up with two head coaches and no business school.

 

[huskymedic]

The firing itself may be a month or two in the making, but in light of the current article re the legislature indicating no funds, the strategy may be less thought out. We'll see.

The thought by anyone that the "buyout money" would just be backfilled w/ funding from the State of CT is crazy talk. Courant being the Courant after the Bob Diaco termination cost of doing business article a while back.