Ollie threatening to sue UConn

[intlzncster]

>>“There was no need to release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie in a FOI response since the AAUP already had been provided with them months earlier,” Parenteau wrote. “When the news organizations made the FOI request, the FOI statute required UConn to notify Coach Ollie that his right to privacy was implicated. The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information. All of the FOI releases occurred simultaneously, long after the requests were made. Had we been informed of the intention to release these false and defamatory claims, Coach Ollie would have objected to this invasion of his privacy. There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest.”<<

Board lawyers, what say you?

 

[UofCT]

Somebody makes this end

 

[gwhuskyfan]

 

[Yardigan]

C
L
U
S
T
E
R

 

[BugsyCT]

With $10 mill on the table you knew this would be a messy divorce.

 

[Edward Sargent]

Front page ESPN.com article about Ollie and his lawyers threatening to sue UConn. Guess they are going the scorched-earth tactic now.

Ollie demands retraction from UConn, may sue

Why is he suing UConn. He fired Miller and he was no longer a UConn employee. If the $30K is the basis of defamation then he should be looking at Miller for defamation. Of course Miller doesn't have UConn money

 

[huskymedic]

With $10 mill on the table you knew this would be a messy divorce.

3-2-1...

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Hearst/New Haven Register: Ollie wants retraction from UConn, threatening to sue



>>“There was no need to release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie in a FOI response since the AAUP already had been provided with them months earlier,” Parenteau wrote. “When the news organizations made the FOI request, the FOI statute required UConn to notify Coach Ollie that his right to privacy was implicated. The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information. All of the FOI releases occurred simultaneously, long after the requests were made. Had we been informed of the intention to release these false and defamatory claims, Coach Ollie would have objected to this invasion of his privacy. There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest.”<<

I will readily admit that I give greater attention than most posters to the clarity of communication on this board, but here I have some serious questions about whether the above-quoted portion of the NH Register article is the product of proofreading lapses by The Register in quoting from Paranteau's letter, or Paranteau's office's sloppiness in what was provided to The Register.

In the first line, it remains ambiguous as to whether Paranteau's office ever made a FOI request as was claimed by UConn spokesperson Reitz. It is not directly disputed, but that is the most charitable interpretation of what is being claimed, unless Paranteau intended to write, ". . . release the confidential transcripts to news outlets that had also made such requests" rather than, " . . . release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie." I truly can't tell what Paranteau wanted to convey. In any case, his statement was conclusive without support in saying that what was released was "false and defamatory." Without further determination as to whether it was indeed false and defamatory, "objectionable, and potentially defamatory" would more accurately capture the point being made.

Next, there are two outright errors. Again, are they Paranteau's or The Register's?

"The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information."
"Statue?"
And ". . . states that if . . ." would be correct if a direct quotation is not being offered.

"There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest."
"Violated?"
And again, it is disputable as to whether a privacy interest was violated, so that stating it as such would again be a conclusion without support.

Note to Paranteau: When sabres are being rattled, don't be so rattled that it's done sloppily.

Again, I allow that it could have been the sad state of print media proofreading that accounts for the errors, though the UConn statement show no similar defects.

C'mon folks, get to the table and settle this thing.

 

[StepbackCity]

If he’s suing for the cause firing, he’ll lose since it was in his contract. But I but he will get some money from the possible slander by Glenn Miller. We don’t know if Millers claims are true and if they aren’t, we are in for a mess since the media got a hold of it.

 

[superjohn]

I will readily admit that I give greater attention than most posters to the clarity of communication on this board, but here I have some serious questions about whether the above-quoted portion of the NH Register article is the product of proofreading lapses by The Register in quoting from Paranteau's letter, or Paranteau's office's sloppiness in what was provided to The Register.

In the first line, it remains ambiguous as to whether Paranteau's office ever made a FOI request as was claimed by UConn spokesperson Reitz. It is not directly disputed, but that is the most charitable interpretation of what is being claimed, unless Paranteau intended to write, ". . . release the confidential transcripts to news outlets that had also made such requests" rather than, " . . . release the confidential transcripts to Coach Ollie." I truly can't tell what Paranteau wanted to convey. In any case, his statement was conclusive without support in saying that what was released was "false and defamatory." Without further determination as to whether it was indeed false and defamatory, "objectionable, and potentially defamatory" would more accurately capture the point being made.

Next, there are two outright errors. Again, are they Paranteau's or The Register's?

"The FOI statue states if Coach Ollie objects then UConn cannot release the information."
"Statue?"
And ". . . states that if . . ." would be correct if a direct quotation is not being offered.

"There is no excuse for UConn’s failure to notify Coach Ollie of their intention to violated his privacy interest."
"Violated?"
And again, it is disputable as to whether a privacy interest was violated, so that stating it as such would again be a conclusion without support.

Note to Paranteau: When sabres are being rattled, don't be so rattled that it's done sloppily.

Again, I allow that it could have been the sad state of print media proofreading that accounts for the errors, though the UConn statement show no similar defects.

C'mon folks, get to the table and settle this thing.

We will no be erecting any KO or FOI statues in Storrs.

 

[DMIL]

I thought he deserved a partial settlement, but now I hope he gets nothing.

Why the hate here....for pursuing his rights under the law? $10M is a lot of money to say...Oh well, after the leaks, about face and potential defamation impacting his professional prospects outside of UCONN let me just give it up for the love of a University stabbing him completely in the back. Put the blame where it belongs here and that is with the Administration. They gambled and made the wrong bet about the outcome. This is like a game of Chicken. Ollie is no "Puss"! It was the Administration's job to get this negotiated quietly.

 

[DMIL]

I'm just not confident the UConn administration fully understand the ramifications if KO decides air everything out. He might be at a point that he just doesn't care after everything he's been through over the past 3 years. UConn worst nightmare is KO thinking he has nothing to lose since he's lost everything

Hoping he doesn't go that route

The Administration made this bed and now we all have to pay the consequences unfortunately.

 

[DMIL]

Perhaps Ollie's attorneys are frustrated by not being able to get the other side to the bargaining table. At this point, UConn's attorneys are likely content to sit back and let the whole thing run it's course, confident in the fact that the law is on their side.

We will see....

 

[DMIL]

This is some serious grandstanding. You can say both parties don't look good but Ollie seems hell-bent on destroying himself.

$10M is $10M. This is the fight he is supposed to be having at this juncture. It was the Administration's job to clean this up and the failed miserably.

 

[superjohn]

Why the hate here....for pursuing his rights under the law? $10M is a lot of money to say...Oh well, after the leaks, about face and potential defamation impacting his professional prospects outside of UCONN let me just give it up for the love of a University stabbing him completely in the back. Put the blame where it belongs here and that is with the Administration. They gambled and made the wrong bet about the outcome. This is like a game of Chicken. Ollie is no "Puss"! It was the Administration's job to get this negotiated quietly.

You, actually think you're winning?!?? Nice try, Kevin.

 

[DMIL]

What a bridge-burning mother******.

What bridge is he burning? JC turned on him; the Administration turned on him; half the Alumni and fan base have turned on him. He still has his legacy despite being mixed. Successful player, NC as an assistant and an NC as a coach which will never be taken away. The Administration was pretty arrogant and clearly mis-calculated. They cannot turn back now.

 

[gampelcrazies]

He’s not getting a dime. NOT A DIME!!!!

 

[Stainmaster]

What bridge is he burning? JC turned on him; the Administration turned on him; half the Alumni and fan base have turned on him. He still has his legacy despite being mixed. Successful player, NC as an assistant and an NC as a coach which will never be taken away. The Administration was pretty arrogant and clearly mis-calculated. They cannot turn back now.

If it were up to you, would Kevin Ollie still be the head coach here?

 

[DMIL]

Bah, UConn should issue a statement that the University has no knowledge whether Glenn Miller's statement that KO provided funds to a recruits is accurate and that UConn's termination of Ollie's contract was based upon other NCAA violations.

I have no particular knowledge of FOIA rules, but I'd guess that since the NCAA interview transcripts were not generated by UConn, they are not subject to the personnel records production exception.

Why should they do that when that would be a lie.

 

[DMIL]

UConn released the transcripts as the result of FOIA requests, so I don’t really see what case Ollie has for defamation.

It speaks poorly about the UConn administration that they’ve allowed things to get to this point. But Ollie’s pettiness is not the best look either.

$10M and I would get pretty damn petty myself.

 

[DMIL]

If it were up to you, would Kevin Ollie still be the head coach here?

Not at all man...too much was mismanaged however the process of going about this matters and we are paying the consequences for this. Administration did not do their job in cleaning up their mess....period.

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Why the hate here....for pursuing his rights under the law? $10M is a lot of money to say...Oh well, after the leaks, about face and potential defamation impacting his professional prospects outside of UCONN let me just give it up for the love of a University stabbing him completely in the back. Put the blame where it belongs here and that is with the Administration. They gambled and made the wrong bet about the outcome. This is like a game of Chicken. Ollie is no "Puss"! It was the Administration's job to get this negotiated quietly.

You know too little to write the way you have.

 

[jimva]

Who would have thought so many inept people could make such a mess.

I think Ollie should get his money. But I also hope he gives up the way he gave up on coaching.

It's not his money. He did not earn it

 

[tentoes4rings]

Anybody still think KO wrote it??

Did you read how good the grammar was? He absolutely didn’t write that.

 

[Yardigan]

Did you read how good the grammar was? He absolutely didn’t write that.

maybe he used...
Write your best with Grammarly.