Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dogdeacon, post: 2779222, member: 1026"] 99&04 oversimplifies when it serves, 'The point of a contract is money' (?then why have words in there?) and then makes things more complex where needed 'morally speaking, long-term, sinks the program, etc...' Also; "The entire reason for including that clause in the contract was to provide insurance against a scandal that depleted revenue.." It actually nullifies the contract (part of Ollie's side's goal) to argue the 'entire reason' (intent) of putting something into a contract was to provide insurance, avoid scandal or avoid loss $. A contract is for both parties to agree EXACTLY WHAT IS EXPECTED AND WHAT TO DO IF THOSE TERMS OR EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT MET. When the contract was signed both parties intended to comply and set out parameters to define exactly what that job performance expectations are. Arguing UConn intended only to use that clause to fire Ollie assumes they entered in bad faith (they didn't, at the time they obviously wanted to keep him). That very biased interpretation reverses the intent at time of signing into a negative that serves Ollie's case only. Use the same logic and tell us why would Ollie put that clause in there? I think that'd be a convoluted Ollie wanted it so that when he got fired (as if he intended to try to get fired) he'd still get his money unless he broke the law. Clinging to won-lost records or attendance or $ as alleged reasons for the firing is inherently false because we all know those things happened because of failure to diligently & faithfully perform the duties of a head coach. Had Ollie worked hard, complied with all rules and still failed the firing may not have happened, the buyout would be an entirely different conversation & outcome. Plus incidentally in that instance he would have agreed to arbitration and won easily. That is not the case. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach