Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 An insiders prespective... 
Author Message
BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 pm
Posts: 7372
Location: Austin
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
TheRevSWT wrote:

He just doesn't seem to grasp that any court in the land will laugh that out of court and tell the university to pay the payoff as outlined in the contract as well as his legal fees, and (I doubt this part, but it's possible) punitive damages for hurting his coaching career.




You do forget we live in Texas, where courts will roll over backwards to rule on the side of employers. Knew a Texas Supreme Court justice a few years back, we had some discussions on the matter with the Charlie Strong tenure at UT.

Hence I inserted the caveat that the University would find an amicable compromise to avoid lengthy/costly litigation.


Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:24 pm
Profile
BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 pm
Posts: 7372
Location: Austin
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Saul Goodman wrote:

coaches get fired w/o compensation for ncaa violations or scandals. they do not get fired w/o compensation for win/loss.




Image


Sat Nov 03, 2018 12:25 pm
Profile
True Bobcat Fan

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:50 pm
Posts: 376
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Bobcat.taxman wrote:

Image


Moron, Saul isn't the one who has reading comprehension issues in this discussion. It is you.

What law school did you go to? I went to a tier 1, top 10 (at the time) law school.

First, common sense should tell you that no coach is going to agree to a contract that allows him to be fired without any compensation based solely on win/loss record. Second, the damn contract explicitly states what "cause" means, and even better, what it doesn't mean.

I suggest you go to 3.05(b). There, you will see that "cause" includes "failure to perform the duties in section 1.04, with the EXCEPTION of 1.04 (b) . . . " So you scroll up to 1.04 to see what IS considered with cause, and more importantly, you go to 1.04(b) to see what ISN'T considered with cause. As you can see, 1.04(b) reads "The football team's competitiveness and performance on the field."

In other words, win/loss record is absolutely not considered with cause. If Withers is let go due to having a shitty football team and shitty win/loss record, he is owed 50% of the remainder of his base.

Now, try a far easier question:

For games WJIII played the majority and for games Vitt played the majority, tell us what the team's record is for each.


Sat Nov 03, 2018 8:39 pm
Profile
Online
BF.com Elite Sponsor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:34 pm
Posts: 14919
Location: Ten minutes north of Lake Travis
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
I see what taxman is trying to say with the press conference failing to comply with 1.04f (taxman stated as much). However, it's just flat out incorrect.

There's no way any school would win that argument, as he didn't say anything unprofessional. He just said it in a shitty manner, and NOBODY is going to be able to prove otherwise in a court.

But, taxman is thinking (if I am understanding him correctly) that the university could use that as cause and when he challenges that, come to some form of mediation or something to get a lowered buyout.

However, that won't work because Withers knows the university has no leg to stand on, his lawyers sure as FUCK would know there's no chance in hell of that winning in court, and the university's lawyers know that wouldn't fly. So again, the university would probably have to pay the FULL amount of the contract not just the termination amount (or maybe not, I am not sure how harsh the courts are on breach of employment contracts), Withers' lawyers fees, and potentially some money for a POSSIBILITY of libel/slander lawsuit by saying he was not representing Texas State positively, which he can claim hindered his career (please hold your laughter on this one... BELIEVE ME I KNOW).

_________________
Image


Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Profile
True Bobcat Fan

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:50 pm
Posts: 376
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Taxman's claim wasn't only regarding the press conference. He also said that Withers could be terminated for any reason without any compensation owed. That's false. He also claimed that Withers would be owed $0 if he is terminated for performance. Again, that's entirely false.

It's not Taxman's fault that he struggles so much with reading. Anyone who has Vitt's balls in front of their face like Taxman does would struggle reading.


Sat Nov 03, 2018 10:01 pm
Profile
Online
BF.com Elite Sponsor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:34 pm
Posts: 14919
Location: Ten minutes north of Lake Travis
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Yeah, his assertion that in spite of a contract in hand, he could be fired without cause and the university owes diddly was just dumb.

But it's taxman... it's his thing.

_________________
Image


Sat Nov 03, 2018 11:04 pm
Profile
BF.com Elite Sponsor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:45 pm
Posts: 5101
Location: at the neighboring pub...
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Bobcat.taxman wrote:
You do forget we live in Texas, where courts will roll over backwards to rule on the side of employers. Knew a Texas Supreme Court justice a few years back, we had some discussions on the matter with the Charlie Strong tenure at UT.

Hence I inserted the caveat that the University would find an amicable compromise to avoid lengthy/costly litigation.


As a guy that knows A LOT about this, I can say without hesitation that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I work in a profession that uses similar contracts in a governmental setting.

The whole reason contracts include a buyout is so you don't have to litigate for cause or not for cause. It pre-negotiates the "amicable compromise." It allows you to terminate because of leadership changes that the contracted person no longer fits with. It allows you to terminate for fuzzy issues like poor donor/alumni relationships. That is why it exists. "We hereby terminate without cause under Section xx.xx of your contract. Please contact our office regarding logistics of final disbursement in accordance with the aforementioned section."

Terminating for cause typically has a highly prescribed due process. This is because terminating for cause affects careers differently than without cause. Withers doesn't even sniff this. And honestly, the performance reviews from Teis make it difficult to fire him for cause either. Both would be highly litigious wastes of time, and the school would absolutely lose in both circumstances. Many cities have tried this with city managers, and they have lost virtually every time.

Withers' contract explicitly excludes on-field performance as justification for cause. Most coaching contracts have this--it is practically standard language.

You forget what conservative (little c) justice actually means. It means whatever judge is looking at the contract is going to read it very literally and is not going to infer unless there is an issue of vagueness. Vagueness in employment contracts at the governmental level is rare. Remember, this would not be primarily a court case of employment law (unless Teis/Trauth stupidly fires for race or it can be documented that Withers was treated differently)--it would be a case of simple contract law. Incidentally, that is where Teis' do-nothing approach to past coaches' performance could bite the university in a for-cause termination that is not clear cut. The Texas judicial system's political biases tend to disappear in contract law, as compared to more controversial issues the legality of legislation. In the absence of an employment contract, the Texas courts are deferential to the employer. But this is a contractual arrangement, and it is a contractual arrangement with a governmental entity. The courts don't give a lot of love to governmental entities even under employment law, and they really don't under contract law because they know how tight these contracts are typically written.

_________________
I respectfully disagree with time on the internet being "wasted." I would've never known that a monkey would fall over after smelling his own, stinky finger if it wasn't for the glory of the internet.


Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:46 am
Profile
True Bobcat Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 5976
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
jh1456 wrote:
Taxman, you're wrong. I draft and interpret contracts for a living.
run faster wrote:
What law school did you go to? I went to a tier 1, top 10 (at the time) law school.

bleed gold wrote:
As a guy that knows A LOT about this, I can say without hesitation that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. I work in a profession that uses similar contracts in a governmental setting.

did any of y'all get scholarship offers to ALL EIGHT IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITIES?
no. you did not. advantage, taxi.

_________________
1 down
2 to go


Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:37 am
Profile
True Bobcat Fan
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:31 pm
Posts: 834
Location: Fran's Cupboard
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
He also got a scholarship from the University of American Samoa Law.

_________________
Image


Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:59 pm
Profile
BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 pm
Posts: 7372
Location: Austin
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
:sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:
:texasstate: :texasstate: :texasstate:


So, now RunFaster is a lawyer and BleedGold negotiates contracts? Yeah, a halfway decent lawyer would not have drawn up a contract without an out (which again, this one has several of them).....and yet both of them think they are in a better position to interpret a contract than a University attorney that gets paid for a living to do these things. That would be one incompetent lawyer who agrees to everything the other party wants without stipulations. :roll: :roll: :roll:


It's usually a pretty bad indication to a flawed argument when Saul wholeheartedly agrees with anything you say. Just throwing that out there.


Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:51 am
Profile
BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 pm
Posts: 7372
Location: Austin
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
TheRevSWT wrote:
But, taxman is thinking (if I am understanding him correctly) that the university could use that as cause and when he challenges that, come to some form of mediation or something to get a lowered buyout.




The first part you're correct, the second not so. What I'm saying is that they could use the clause to terminate the contract if they wanted to play hardball, but would agree to the buyout amount (not something lower). If they REALLY wanted to be jerks about it, they would try and get BOC for the "$0" amount, but that wouldn't serve any of the interested parties, and that's why they wouldn't pursue it.

And in Texas, most courts are friendly to the employer side, I hardly ever see them find on the side of the employee given, once again, the at-will status of the way Texas employment laws are written (even with contracts involved). But of course, RunFaster and his extensive employment law experience and BleedGold with his extensive contract experience (which I call donkey on since I know what he does for a living) would beg to differ.


Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:16 am
Profile
True Bobcat Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 5976
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Image

_________________
1 down
2 to go


Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:17 am
Profile
BF.com Elite Sponsor

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:21 pm
Posts: 7372
Location: Austin
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Saul Goodman wrote:
Image




You must be a Dak Prescott fan. 8) :lol: :lol:


Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:18 am
Profile
True Bobcat Fan

Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 5:50 pm
Posts: 376
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
Bobcat.taxman wrote:
So, now RunFaster is a lawyer


I'm not an attorney, and I've never claimed to be. Going to law school, regardless of how prestigious the school is, does not automatically make one an attorney. If you were smarter, you'd be better at reading comprehension and not have made an illogical assumption.

Bobcat.taxman wrote:
Yeah, a halfway decent lawyer would not have drawn up a contract without an out (which again, this one has several of them).....and yet both of them think they are in a better position to interpret a contract than a University attorney that gets paid for a living to do these things. That would be one incompetent lawyer who agrees to everything the other party wants without stipulations.


This is yet another logical fallacy by you.

You claimed that Withers can be fired with cause (hence, not be paid on what his contract stipulates) for poor win/loss performance. That's entirely false. The contract clearly states that win/loss is not considered "with cause" in terms of him not being owed the 50% of his remaining salary as the contract stipulates.

Are you still standing by your claim about that?


Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:30 pm
Profile
Online
BF.com Elite Sponsor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:34 pm
Posts: 14919
Location: Ten minutes north of Lake Travis
Reply with quote
Post Re: An insiders prespective...
I gotta ask... What is the point of going to law school if not to be a lawyer?

Unless it's just love of education... And I'm not hating on that. If I win the lottery, I could totally go to school for the rest of my days.

_________________
Image


Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:58 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
All Rights Reserved, BobcatFans LLC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group