winning games..? NO
improving our team..? NO
being a great ambassador..? NO
losing with dignity..? NO
creating a family/team like environment for our players..? NO
showing class while on a national stage…? NOT EVEN CLOSE…

Please tell me why we own this man $6 million…? I’d love to know..!!!

UK will not do that. They have a lot to lose here as well, and attempting to smear Gillispie would damage UK more than him.

It won’t come to that. UK will make a more reasonable offer, and Gillispie will accept, and everyone will agree to kiss and make up. This is just part of the dance.

A settlement is better for Billy G than going to court, because all that behind the scenes stuff will come out.

… but he can always start back amongst the little guys and work his way up again.

As far as his treatment of the players, UK is not going to go there. The worse they try to make him look, the worse they will look for putting up with it for any length of time.

Trust me, that’s not going to happen.

That allegation is … well, let’s just say it’s unserious. :-)

That part is pretty ridiculous.

Billy G misremebers

But you need to understand something. For various reasons that I don’t feel like fully explaining, Billy’s attorney is smart to make the fraud and intentional interference with contract claims for the sole reason that it solidifies jurisdiction in the federal court in Texas. A civil fraud case is very difficult to win without a smoking gun (which I doubt Billy has). His attorney knows this. But, fraud cases are also difficult to get dismissed before trial. As long as the fraud charge is triable, then the case will be able to remain in Texas.

… get moved to Lexington, jurisdiction is never really all that clear to me. But it will remain in federal court, which is all Gillispie really wanted anyway. Lexington or Texas makes no real difference. If it comes to trial, it may well be moved due to pre-trial publicity, but I predict that will never happen.

Gillispie’s actions with other colleges will never enter into the discussion. They are irrelevant to the legal case, and a judge will not allow any such evidence in. The only thing at issue right now are the facts surrounding the complaints in the lawsuit.

As far as Gillispie’s prospects, you are dreaming. If Samson can get hired at Indiana with his record, Gillispie will have no problems finding a home. It probably won’t be a huge school, but hey, he can work his way back up the ladder.

And at that time, he said he was perfectly comfortable working under a MoU and it had all the things in there that they would have in the final contract. I don’t see how he can weasel out of that part of it.

The jurisdiction is a funny thing, when I have sued people for non-payment of bills in the past… I have done it where my office is. One of them tried to say it should be in their home county, the judge made the statement that it could have been tried there, but it was perfectly acceptable to try it here as well. That could be an interesting part of it all.

This is just a “giddyap” by Gillispie. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was needing help on the federal jurisdiction part…..
:-)

Mishandled the PR side of things in Tubby’s last days and should have handled the Gillispie hire better, but I can find no fault with him other than that.

He has spearheaded a major improvement in facilities across the board for all sports at UK. He has hired stellar coaches for baseball and women’s basketball. He took heat for his hiring of Coach Brooks until hindsight made it look like the right move.

That story is really WAY!!!!!! out there… LOL … Definitely a big WOW… It gets my vote for the most bizarre story in college sports. :-)
But one question ! ! !
Why does it have to be more wildcats??? Some unknowing ones will only hear wildcats with a big K…..

I happened to be reading this thread, and my school gets brought up.

What’s happening at K-State is beyond bizarre. I have been following K-State for years, and I have no idea what anybody involved in this situation was thinking.

I can see the reasons for having that opinion, and Matt Jones has surely been spouting it all day long, but at its most basic level that’s like saying that if I, an attorney with a larger, respected firm, filed suit for wrongful termination against that law firm, that I could never get another job with a large firm. People sue their previous employers all the time, and find similar or better jobs with other employers down the line.

I do think that in the future, if he gets an opportunity at a BCS school, that school (and hopefully Gillispie) will take careful steps to ensure that a clear, unambiguous contract is in effect, and SIGNED by all parties.

It’s not as if Gillispie has sued other employers—this is the first, and I just don’t buy that it ends his career, or that other BCS schools will shy away because Gillispie is “litigous.” Whether he wins or loses, he’s fully within his rights to bring this suit.

If it does end up ending his coaching career, it’s a shame. He’s not doing anything wrong by bringing this lawsuit.

Sorry, Forty, but that’s just not rational.

…would sign Hitler if they thought he’d win games.

From my experience, Texas state courts are VERY unlikely to stay or dismiss actions because of similar actions filed in other states. Texas state courts have a very high opinion of themselves. I can’t really say one way or the other if federal district courts there are like-minded.

Gillispie could likely remove UK’s action to federal district court in Kentucky because of diversity of citizenship, and therefore there are two federal actions pending.

A hiccup I missed above, however, is that the partires are different (i.e., UK in one, UKAA in the other). I’m not sure how this affects whether only one action goes forward, etc.

… not unexpectedly, is a jurisdictional struggle. In the end, though, UK will wind up spending much more money on this. It will be interesting to see when they decide to cry “Uncle.”

This is simply wishful thinking on UK’s part. They are trying, quite reasonably, to fight a rear-guard action. I have a feeling that it won’t work out well for them. They hope that by this jurisdictional muddle, they will fatigue Gillispie. It might even work, but I don’t think so.

I was pointing out my experience with Texas state courts, and then said I don’t know if the same is true for Texas federal courts.

especially when you have a brand to sell….er, i mean, a tradition to continue! ;)

but it seems to me that UKAA is pretty much responsible for honoring the MOU in large part due to the fact that they were operating under the MOU when they were paying Gillispie, right? If they were paying him under the terms of the MOU, weren’t they in fact legitimizing it?

Really? (sigh)