Billy Gillispie and the Great American Pastime
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 10:07 AM EDT
in Commentary
517 comments
I'm not talking about baseball in the title, as you might guess, but about litigation -- something we Americans hold near and dear to our heart. "I'll sue!" is perhaps the most famous and oft-heard response to a commercial dispute in this country, and our jam-packed court system is evidence of our love affair with the lawyers.
So Billy Gillispie has filed a lawsuit in Federal court in Texas against the University of Kentucky for breach of contract. I greeted this news with a yawn, as I have been expecting it for weeks. Folks, Gillispie has a case, and if you read the suit, you will see it writ large in the double-spaced 12-point Roman typeface. UK breached their agreement with Gillispie, about that there can be no rational argument. What is an argument is whether or not that agreement had the legal, binding force of a contract.
Now, some of the stuff in Gillispie's complaint just tortures reason. The idea that the University of Kentucky defrauded Gillispie is absurd on its face, and in my opinion will not survive a motion to dismiss. There is no way Gillispie can provide enough evidence to satisfy a judge that UK intended not to live up to its obligations under the agreement, whether it be contract or MOU. All the other allegations relating to fraud rest on the foundation that UK deliberately misled Gillispie about his intended employment. If that were true, Barnhart should lose his job and perhaps be indicted on federal fraud charges, but I don't believe that it is either a) true or that b) Gillispie can produce enough evidence that it might be true for the claim to withstand a motion to dismiss, if it ever comes to that.
What this lawsuit represents is Gillispie's attempt to force UK to negotiate seriously. That's what all such lawsuits are ever about. It costs very little to file a suit -- I have done so before and it is neither difficult nor costly. A quick phone call to a lawyer, $1500 or so and viola!
The lawsuit will force UK to expend money to respond, however, and engage their attorneys. UK will have to decide how to play it all out, but in the end, if there is actually a jury trial on this lawsuit, I will be drop-dead shocked. Jury trials are capricious and expensive, and neither side really wants that, trust me. But the longer this drags on, the more expensive it becomes for UK (I expect Gillispie's lawyer is taking it on contingency).
Now, I am not a lawyer, and what legal knowledge I have is mostly in the area of criminal, not civil, law. But I do believe that Gillispie has a very sound case against UK for breach of contract. With that said, civil and contract law is complicated and full of nuances that I have no familiarity at all with. But in the end, it matters little -- this case is not designed to go to court, it is to get UK off the $3 million dollar settlement they had been hoping for to a more reasonable (for Gillispie) figure. My expectation is that it will, and the amount will go up some -- not to the full $6 million, for sure, but to something more like $4 or even $5 million. Even at that, UK would be getting a bargain, for in my opinion, they absolutely owe Gillispie the full $6 million dollars. There is no doubt that UK understood that MOU to represent a contract, and would have enforced it as such if Gillispie had been in breach. The complaint quotes UK several times as saying just this, so there is no doubt whatever that they viewed it exactly as it was intended to be -- fully interchangeable for a formal contract.
There will be a settlement, and that's in the interest of everyone. Here's hoping it's sooner rather than later.
0 recs |
517 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
"...in my opinion, they absolutely owe Gillispie the full $6 million dollars."
I agree 100% with you on that, Tru.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
for what...?
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..!!!
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 28, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm...
with Tink on this. That was the contract. This is one part of college athletics that is exactly like the pros. If a player or coach doesn’t perform up to par, that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay them the remainder of that contract. The fact that it was a MOU instead of an actual contract can be disputed, but just about everyone I have heard speak on that believes the MOU acts just like a traditional contract.
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
by the spork on May 28, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UK Doesn't Owe Him $6 Million
Guy never belonged anywhere near the UK level.
Ask anyone in AD at University of Illinois.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UK owes him six million ...
… because the MOU, which they acknowledged publicly as having the full force of a contract, says they do.
His coaching ability is utterly irrelevant.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong
he’s public image is that of the UK athletics department and the university itself…
they tried to get him to sign a contract for 2 years, he would not, they fired him… What was Mitch and Todd supposed to do…? Just say, “oh, ok then”..?
Good lord I’m glad he’s gone….
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 28, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
the quality of his work, no matter what aspect of the job you consider, is irrelevant.(sorry for taking that word from your post Tru, my thesauras is nowhere to be found.)
Firing him is not what is being debated. When you fire someone with a contract, you’re still on the hook for the remainder of it.
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
by the spork on May 28, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fired For Cause
I hope it goes to trial and the dirt becomes public.
I doubt Gillispie really wants to go there.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My first thoughts when I read the paper this morning
Were, “Wow, this could get really ugly.”
by uk1982 on May 28, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it goes to trial ...
… none of the so-called “dirt” will be relevant. It will not be admitted as evidence.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think It Will
It will become “evidence” that UK fired Gillispie "For Cause’ in 2009.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 29, 2009 7:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The record ...
… states that is not the case.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
As far as I know, you don’t need to tell an employee that they are being fired “for cause” at the time they are terminated. It really only is relevant in case the employee applies for unemployment benefits, or sues for discrimination or, as in this case, for breach of an employment contract that contains a “for cause” exception to the severance payments. UK has every right at this time to claim that Gillespie was fired “for cause” and thus the “dirt” might be admissible (i.e. the evidence would be relevant but there is still the question of whether its probative value outweighs its prejudicial value).
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would depend.
UK fired Gillispie, and if they did not meet any of the “for cause” provisions in whatever serves as a contract (assuming the court agrees with Gillispie’s assertion that the MOU was, in fact, a contract), it’s hard to say they did not breach it.
Therefore, the “for cause” provisions would either be irrelevant to the extent they did not comport with the “contract,” or maybe the court would want to examine the “for cause” provisions of other similar contracts to discover if any additional added elements by UK were appropriate to such a contract model.
Based on the rumors of the behaviors in question, it seems likely to this layman that the court would find them either irrelevant or prejudicial if they were, in fact, presented for admission into evidence.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely...
better UK just pony up or force an out of court settlement. Otherwise, this could be very embarrassing for the University. They had to have known this was coming and they have the cash to “make it go away” and that’s exactly what they should do.
I need a Sea of Blue because I am surrounded by Tennessee orange!
by sleepytimetea on May 29, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again ...
… this has nothing to do with his work and everything to do with the agreement. If you can’t see that, you are just letting your emotions run wild while your brain sits idle.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tru,
I read this blog concerning the “MOU” and wondered if you had seen it…..it seems to define the University’s position pretty clearly, but I am not a lawyer. See what you think….
link
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I have it on my desktop. I have read it many times.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So...is the blogger correct in his assumptions?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The guy makes a couple of good points
here is a transcript of the blog in case no one wants to link
Here is a very shortened version of the closing arguments in Gillispie’s/UK’s lawsuit. Defendant goes first during closing because Gillispie bears the burden of proof. (It will be assumed that Gillispie is the plaintiff and UK the defendant even though I believe UK’s lawsuit filed in Kentucky is the proper place for the lawsuit.)
UK will stipulate the memorandum of understanding was a contract. There is no dispute about that. UK will then argue that it was Billy Gillispie, and not UK, who breached said contract. UK will point out that the memorandum of understanding expressly states that a more detailed employment contract will be completed in the future and the execution will occur at “…. the earliest possible date.” On the second page of the contract, it states that the contract is “contingent” upon “…..executing an employment contract…” and said process will be mutually concluded “within 60 calendar days of your start date.” UK will then argue that Gillispie breached this contract (memorandum of understanding) when he failed in good faith to execute a rather routine and more detailed employment contract. They will point out that they sign every coach to a similar contract and no coach has ever refused to sign said contract. Gillispie, however, refused to and nearly two years after the memorandum of understanding he still had not. UK will explain the need to have a more detailed contract to ensure their coaches conduct themselves in a way that does not embarrass the university. They will tell the jury:
Why did Gillispie refuse to execute the more detailed contract? Because he wanted to behave however he wanted to. Billy Gillispie breached the contract; not UK. He was the one who refused to execute the more detailed employment contract in direct violation of the memorandum of understanding. Once you determine that he was the one who breached the contract you mark the jury instruction here, sign it and you get to go home. It is that simple. Moreover, if Gillispie had signed the employment contract like any person acting in good faith would have, UK would have had a character clause in that more detailed contract. You’ve heard a mountain of evidence to demonstrate that he would have been in violation of the character clause. It doesn’t matter whether we were happy with his performance on the court. He breached the contract and UK had every right to fire him without any further payments.
Gillispie’s attorney will argue that Gillispie has won multiple coaching awards and he was fired, after 2 seasons, because he didn’t win enough for UK. All this talk of drinking, women, interviews, conduct off the court, treatment of players, etc is a smoke screen. We all know that Gillispie would still be the coach of UK today if he had won more games. They never would have fired him based upon the evidence of conduct they have presented if he had won the National Championship or coached UK to the Final Four, etc. He coached UK and worked all the time to make UK better. He’s sorry he didn’t win more. He worked night and day and he wishes more than anybody that UK would have won more games. But he lived up to the contract he signed. He didn’t promise to win a certain amount of games. UK had every right to fire him for not winning enough games but they don’t have the right not to pay him what they contracted to pay him if he was fired.
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with most of that.
I do not agree that UK will concede that the MOU is a contract. They shouldn’t either, as they have a strong argument (notice I did not say winning argument) that it is not a contract.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would they concede it if
it shortened the route to a settlement they will go along with?…allow both parties to save face somewhat?…Gillispie can claim that he was able to get UK to admit that it was a contract, and the University can get the settlement they want?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heck, if they come to a settlement
they may admit to being long-lost cousins.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hehehe...well...we are in Kentucky!!!....lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So who has the
“estoppel” argument here, UK or Gillispie?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is just ugly aint it???....lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contract
I see plenty of instances given in the case papers that can show that UK most certainly DID see the MOU as a contract.
Hate him all you want, guys, but Gillispie has a case. I hope he gets his money.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hate?
Why is it that when someone has a view that is contrary to a position favored by another that hate enters into it. I don’t hate BCG, but I his case is not as ironclad as some of you would have it and this lawsuit, whatever you think of the parties position, is almost career suicide.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanx Tru...
You are showing so much class….
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 6:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The MOU had two parts
The first part covered basic compensation. The second part covered issues to be addressed in the actual contract. Severance pay was in the second part.
In real life, I have been hired, I have hired, I have fired, I have been fired. I have been hired by mistake; I shouldn’t have taken the job, but I did and then I got fired. Whose fault was it? It was their fault because they hired me; my fault because I took the job without fully considering the situation I was entering. What I have learned is that these situations is that both parties need to take time to fully explore all aspects of the situation.
Employment is a two-way street; both parties bear equal responsibilities.
Mitch screwed up by offering Billy the job. Billy screwed up by taking it. It was a $6 million mistake. The equitable thing is for Billy to accept $3 million for UK’s mistake. Split it 50-50.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not rational.
Gillispie did not “screw up” taking the job. This was offer and acceptance. Gillispie accepted the position in good faith, and I believe UK offered it in good faith.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UK said
the MOU protected UK’s interests (which are to minimize payouts). UK never said that the MOU protected Billy’s interests (which are to maximize payouts).
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contracts ...
… cannot be that one-sided by definition. If what you said was true, UK is guilty of fraud and owes Gillispie a lot more than the contract amount.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually Tru
Contracts can be very one-sided….just ask any insurance agent about the contract they have with their companies…..they can be terminated at any time for any cause….employment is considered to be “at will”….we have the worst contracts of anyone
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They can be one-sided, as you mention...
…but in such “adhesion” contracts, the terms are constructed strictly against the drafting party, so if that’s the case, UK isn’t going to get the benefit of any doubts.
All that said, it’s not an adhesion contract. It was bargained for by experienced attorneys on both sides (or at least I assume it was).
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on May 29, 2009 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
never "assume".....lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no law that says a contract has to be fair to both parties
They simply cannot be “unconscionable”
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We have always been told that
by signing the contract we agree to its principals…and that we are free not to sign it if we do not wish to represent the contracts….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
companies....not contracts....sorry
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What the hell does the AD at Univ of Illinois have to do with this?
by hoboat33 on May 28, 2009 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gillispie "Issues" Showed Up There
Ask ANYONE in AD there.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I find it incredible that you are absolutlely clear in this knowledge.
But, yet, Todd or Barnhardt must have been in the dark. Your insight seems to be unmatched….and all the way from Chicago, too.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 28, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you guys neighbors? South side? North Side? Suburbs? Lakeside?
by blue oregon on May 28, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Think So
The air smells pretty decent here in Rolling Meadows.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well we certainly don't have the crystal view of Lexington from Naperville, that's for sure;
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 28, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
West and Northwest suburbs...I believe
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 28, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely Clear
No doubt whatsoever.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop passing rumors, Forty.
You know better.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is a rumor.
It is heresay. You know better.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im not so sure
It’ll have to play out in court but I dont think they owe G much of anything but a swift kick in the but on his way out of town. The man owes no one but himself for losing his job.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 10:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
UK will most likely owe the $6 million
But the rest of what he asks for, heck no.
And if this goes to court, Billy G will never coach a major program ever again. I don’t have any doubt that UK would unleash the hounds.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:43 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nah.
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 Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I"m not saying the smear would be directly in court
I’m saying the “sources” would have a field day. UK would have plausable deniability.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It won't happen.
Nobody wants to go there.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Jones already went there
And has been saying that now the suit has been filed, he’ll let more out of the bag.
Todd/Barnhart/Billy G may not want that stuff to come to light, but it may anyway.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah.
What a joke. C’mon, man, you cannot seriously think this is going to matter. UK won’t, nobody is going to care what a blogger writes, it’s all just a bunch of stuff.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not saying it will matter in court
I’m saying his filing a suit will only be bad for him.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah.
It’s not going to be a problem. UK has been expecting this, they set aside $100k in the budget to deal with it. They are already preparing their response and trying to figure out the best way to negotiate a deal.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree...
I really think this makes him less desirable for an AD to hire as a coach. That doesn’t mean he won’t find a job (I think he will) but this won’t make it any easier on him IMO.
by Clay Mason on May 28, 2009 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well ...
… who knows, maybe you’re right. I doubt it, though. If Kelvin Sampson can get hired at IU, I think Gillispie can get hired at lots of places.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kelvin Sampson doesnt have a history of sueing his employers
Knowing this guy has sued past employers would make me wary of hiring him should anything go down wrong.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, he only had a history of breaking NCAA rules
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on May 28, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasnt defending Sampson at all.
Just pointing out ther difference.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eddie Sutton
got fired by UK and got hired by OK A&M/State. Had a nice record as a coach. As I recall, he didn’t bad-mouth anybody or take legal action against anybody. He just coached basketball. He had personal issues with alcohol, but he managed to coach college basketball pretty successfully at big schools for 40 years, and he was a good father to two successful young men/coaches.
Billy Clyde could have learned something from Eddie’s example had he paid attention.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't think the fans will go nuts on Billy?
I can already tell he’s made an enemy of just about everyone in the commonwealth. UK may not try to smear him, but you can bet your butt the fans will do everything in their power to do just that.
by BleedinUKBlue on May 29, 2009 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who listens to fans?
Just askin.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Fans"
have been smearing him for over a year now. He is bigger than that. I dont blame him at all for this lawsuit. He deserves what is owed him. He should not give a rat’s a** what “fans” think. As much as I hate to see him go, that is the only way this man will have peace. People can be so ignorant sometimes. I wish him well. I wish him success.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if Coach G is as tough as he put on
then i suspect he’ll be fine. i lived in TX for a while and a lot of them boys are wise to many things. he obviously was an emotional man and very taxing as a coach which can wear a person down and not leave time for the rah rah part of the UK HC job. he is a basketball guy and UK is THE college basketball school. he just didn’t understand the rigors of such a Paris Hilton-esque type job. You have to be EVERYWHERE AT ONCE just to keep us satisfied.
my feeling is that he will benefit from this situation no matter what occurs. as a UK fan you can lose sight of the big picture someitmes, especially when caught up in the brouhaha that is currently among us.
Nationally, he did something to UK/ with UK/ for-against UK and that will play until the day he dies, or as long as UK is a relevant force in the college basketball landscape. because of this he will always have some sympathy from someone in college basketball. calipari will swoop in and steal some rival’s recruits and they’ll hire G to taunt us for a while.
either way, he walks away from UK with some fat stacks, a nice lil vacation and the chance to bank them stacks into a cushy D-1 rebuilding gig.
my only concern with the whole Coach G thing was the way it went down. i don’t need history lessons about why it had to be done the way it was, i get it. doesn’t mean i have to dig it, i just have different standards.
also, i don’t care about behind the scenes commentary. the dude is gone, has taken up residence in the vacuum of court proceedings and will live with a financial security markedly better than what i have or can anticipate having in the forseeable future, whether i write my congressman or send a postcard of the moon and put “wish you were here” on it. that stuff is so trashy that i think it would be interesting to see automatic scandalous remarks made about a user who posts gossip about a public figure. ya got anything better to do? read a book? yoga? skin flute? i know that UK basketball is VERY INTERESTING and all but speculating on another’s actions that you had no sniff of witnessing is lame.
GO BIG BLUE!!!!
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion
KSR will not release anything damaging to UK, but I’m not so sure Coach Gillispie will receive the same treatment. That is the world of blogging for you. Except, of course, for A Sea of Blue. ; )
The quickest way to a man's heart is Chuck Norris' fist.
by jbt36 on May 28, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tru has a high standard of ethics
And it is much appreciated. Other bloggers, not so much…..and they will let things leak.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let them.
If they want to soil their reputations by getting down in the mud, they can. I don’t care. It won’t make any difference at all, and anyone who thinks it will simply doesn’t understand the situation.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Matt Jones also believes that his site running the Gillispie/McCarthy’s incident “story” is the reason that Billy has decided to leave town.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Matt Jones
stated that other thought that not that he thought that.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
davw83, maybe you want to reword that?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably should
MJ stated that other people “unknown sources” thought that the KSR Mcarthy’s piece finally drove G to leave town. He did not state that he thought the piece drove G to leave town.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Riiight
I know what he said, but Matt thinks an awful lot of himself and I feel pretty confident that he is feeling like he played a roll in “running G out of town.”
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One prominent blogger has already fired...
the University’s first shot. They are promising a full story on “just cause” tommorrow. Won’t that be pretty for all involved?
The quickest way to a man's heart is Chuck Norris' fist.
by jbt36 on May 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is what I am getting at
Now that this suit is filed, more is going to leak. And if it goes to trial, it all comes out.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yawn.
Please, guys. In the legal sense, it is irrelevant. UK did not allege that Gillispie was fired for cause. They can’t go back and say it now. It is inadmissible as evidence, and destructive for UK’s cause. But hey, I could care less. If they want to turn this into a soap opera, I’ll sit back and laugh. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really, did the law change?
If so, I need to get that update as it will affect the advice that I give to my clients.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure what you mean.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can you say that you fired Gillispie ...
… for one reason, then come back later and say, “no, we didn’t really mean that, we meant something different?”
I don’t think a court would accept that.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can they not say that
they were attempting to protect the individual’s privacy ?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion,
both statements would likely be admissible (he wasn’t fired for cause, he was fired for cause) to be admitted. It would be up to the jury to decide which statement is more credible and true.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Billy G
is going to have a tough time finding a big time job already. I cant imagine how hard it would be if this goes to court. Im sure there will be a settlement but I would love to hear straight from the administration Billy G’s actions that led to his firing. I dont see how that hurts UK at all. By all accounts this guy treats his players horribly.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
A settlement is better for Billy G than going to court, because all that behind the scenes stuff will come out.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wrong.
Only what the University wants to make public will see the light of day. It will be a one-sided affair and Coach Gillispie will be painted as the proverbial “lone nut” as this unfolds.
The quickest way to a man's heart is Chuck Norris' fist.
by jbt36 on May 28, 2009 11:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be wrong.
All that “behind the scenes” stuff, if opened up, could be brought to light, and UK’s involvement may be a lot less pristine than everyone would like to believe.
We don’t know everything. Let’s not assume anything.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe ...
… 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.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I have said before that if the rumors that Gillispie mistreated the players are true then the whole program is at fault for not putting a stop to it immediately.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Program
I can understand that BUT it they are true Billy’s actions are unexplainable. Forget blaming the program.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
I will not forget blaming the program IF that is true. Sorry.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Billy G just gets a free pass from you?
What happened to personal responsbility in this country?
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No free pass
IF the player abuse rumors are true then Billy did a bad thing and gets no free pass even from me, however, I would also place equal blame on the program if they stood by and did nothing for as long as this has supposedly been going on.
I also want to add that “abuse” is a very strong and serious word and I would need proof of very strong and serious actions done by Billy to deem him an abusive man and to wish for the end of his coaching career.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There as been at least 3 players already ...
…come out and say that they did not get along with coach…
What proof are we looking for here..?
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 28, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait ...
… “not getting along” is a very, very far cry from “abuse.”
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please answer the question...
What proof do you want..? You want it on video, bruises..?? geez guys…
This is not some big secret… The man was a jerk and not a very well liked person…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 28, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is not proof.
That is an opinion, and it doesn’t prove anything except that some players did not agree with him.
Whether or not he was a jerk is utterly irrelevant. He wasn’t fired for being a jerk.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He Was Fired "For Cause"
The “jerk” aspect was a factor in the “for Cause” issues.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 29, 2009 7:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, this is a rumor.
No such revelations are in evidence in the public record.
For a man who claims to rely on “facts,” you have provided almost no factual basis for your remarks about Gillispie.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being a jerk is not "for cause"
I’ve had to pay out unemployment benefits on people I fired for having the wrong personality and for people who were incompetent.
Neither of those situations constitutes “for cause.”
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 29, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you....
…If they are true, (and I think some are), then the UK as a whole are responsible…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 28, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think UK will go there
but I disagree completely that it would make them look bad for going there.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at this snip from the H-L story
Around that time — March 2007 — Gillispie was negotiating a lucrative contract extension with Texas A&M. The university offered him a deal through 2015 that would pay him $1.75 million annually, according to the lawsuit.
Gillispie had been at Texas A&M for three years and had just guided the team to the NCAA Tournament’s Sweet Sixteen when UK approached him about replacing Tubby Smith.
Gillispie’s lawsuit says UK’s athletics association “intentionally interfered with Coach Gillispie’s contract negotiations with Texas A&M through its fraud.”
The last part made me almost piss myself laughing.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 10:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
That allegation is … well, let’s just say it’s unserious. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
That part is pretty ridiculous.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does seem rather ridiculous
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.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting.
That makes the fraud allegations look a lot more reasonable for inclusion, even if they look impossible to prove.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, the sole reason to allege fraud
is for punitive damages. There are no punitives involved with breach of contract cases. Contract cases are all about the deal made and the value of the contract,. You don’t get punitives for breaking a contract as anyone has the right to break a contract, so long as he is willing to pay the liquidated damages.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree (imagine that lawyers in disagreement)
I seriously doubt the fraud charge has legs. I imagine his attorney knows this. Thus, punitive damages would not be much of a consideration since he is not likely to get them.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did not say he would get them.
But it is a nice bone to throw out there in negotiations.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
But I still think the main reason for fraud charge is to solidify the claim of diversity of citizenship.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep. I said that yesterday. Having punitives even a possibility raises
his starting bargaining position from $6 million to $6 million + $18 million (or whatever Texas allows for punitives).
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Typical Gillispie Move
Defiant and dumb. Do you wonder why UK flew Gillispie from Texas to Lexington for a contract signing at 2:30 a.m.? Wouldn’t it have been easier to fly the contract to Texas and sign it there? The reason is that where the contract is signed usually determines which federal court has jurisdiction.
So UK’s first move is likely to get the case dismissed in Texas on that ground or to have the case moved to US District court in Lexington. To justify trying the case in Texas, Gillispie’s lawyers claim that he is a resident of Graford, Texas, that the UKAA has extensive business in Texas and that Billy was in Texas when he verbally agreed to the UK contract.
If UK engaged in civil “fraud” by offering Billy a contract that it never intended to honor, then what about Billy’s apparent breaching of contracts with Texas El Paso and A&M?
In fairness, UK probably owes Billy some money, and I’m sure they’ve offered him some. But whether the Memo of (Mis)understanding constitutes an enforceable contract as far as severance pay is concerned is a very debatable proposition. The memo spells out some basic terms (annual pay) and then says other terms (including the $1.5 a year million severance) will be addressed in a permanent contract to be signed forthwith.
Billy better get some dough from UK because the filing of this suit doesn’t help his job prospects as a college coach.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It may ...
… 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.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This goes away quietly with BCG holding a check for 4M
and that lovely smile on his face…..lol…..and he will be off to another school to find a way to make HIS way work…..AND he prays for a chance to play UK in the tournament sometime and beat them….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 28, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I think that’s just about exactly right.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope it goes down just like that.
…only with more money! ;)
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Agree
It won’t go to a trial. And if it does, the only evidence will concern the meaning of the words in the MOU. A federal judge would probably direct the parties to mediate.
Idealistically, athletic programs at institutions of higher education would learn from the Indiana/Samson fiasco. In addition, Samson and Gillispie present different issues for prospective employers. Samson had a one-time NCAA violation; Gillispie is a serial violator, an all-purpose embarrassment looking for a place to erupt. PR conscious schools in major conferences are likely to shun Gillispie, but a smaller school not in the constant media and rabid fan cross hairs may gamble on him in order to establish a strong basketball presence.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Samson had a one-time NCAA violation; Gillispie is a serial violator
Gillispie a serial violator with NCAA violations?? News to me.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A serial embarrasser
A PR nightmare, not an NCAA violator. My bad.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe so
but neither of those things get a team sanctioned or wins/appearences revoked.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Human Rights violations
I think he was referring to human rights violations.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Riiiiggght
That is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a joke!!!
I thought it was obvious.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry - couldnt tell.
You have been awful hard on ol’ Billy lately. I just figured it was more of the same.
Sorry to have misunderstood.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ive really taken a dislike to the man
but that was a joke.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 28, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for defending me
I made a boo boo. I don’t dislike Gillispie. I’m not sure I would want to spend a lot of time in his company, but I don’t dislike him. I suspect he has at least a border line personality disorder that his close friends should encourage him to talk to qualified professionals about.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it goes to trial
I think that it should be moved. I worry about the “fairness” of a trial by a jury of his “peers” here.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 28, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is in federal court in Dallas
So no need to worry about a jury here.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you accusing him
of forum selection? NOOOOOOO.
True ’dat.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Kentucky
His folks filed where they did and the language they are using is an early front against ANY arguments in the validity of the MOU opening the CHANCE it is ruled not valid and Kentucky’s employee laws that lean strongly in the way of the employer are in full force.
Would be funny to see him get the max unemployment of $1,400 a month or so.
Honestly, he should get the full 6 but will walk away with 4.25 (specific just in case a line gets going on the amount :-)
However, I see this as hurting him more and not UK as much. “IF” this went the distance, UK could look like a heavy bully but he will look a little petty and sue happy. I would say he would get his 6 and not a penny more but loose in public and professionally. If slinging started, UK looks like big nasty business but his mud is kid related. Don’t get me wrong, both lose but a few stories about mistreatment and that they fired when it came to light would, like you said earlier Tru, would make UK sticky for allowing it to happen under their watch for even a single day but in the end, BCG would be hard to clean. BUT, you can get a crap load of Kaboom and Sham-Wows with 6 large :-)
Changing how you think will change what you think.
by wilson452 on May 28, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the case is transferred from Texas to Ky.,
then the federal aspect dies and it can only be filed in Kentucky state courts, Franklin county specifically. You can only be in federal court for a civil case like this if there is diversity. If the ruling is that the deal was made in Ky. Texas can’t keep it and it dies.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, IF Texas can't keep it,
It dies? Totally? And UK filed in Franklin county? What happens to that if the Federal suit dies? More help please ? :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay,
By dying in Texas, I mean that Texas would have no grounds to keep. Therefore, they would either transfer it to federal court in Kentucky or dismiss. If the case is transferred to federal court in Kentucky, BCG may have issues (not saying politics or anything, just saying).
All lawsuits against a state agency must be filed in Franklin Circuit Court per Kentucky law. That is why UK filed its claim. They are anticipating the death of the Texas case and then the only existing case will be in Frankfort. When it comes to courts, most times whoever is in the court room first is where the case remains.
Finally, UK has a pretty good ground for dismissing the case in Texas. He did not sue UK itself. UK was his employer.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't diversity of citizenship ...
… all that would be required in this case? I don’t think it could be persuasively argued that Gillispie was a citizen of any state other than Texas when this agreement was made.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for diversity's sake, the question is where the parties reside at the time
of filing.
Re: above—it doesn’t matter if the “deal was made” in Kentucky, i.e., signed there, etc. If he can show it was substantially negotiated in Texas, the parties met in Texas, or the like, Texas can keep it.
I think wk’s overall point was that if for some reason Texas dismisses, Gillispie may not be able to remove the Kentucky state action to federal court because state agencies cannot be sued in state court (I’m not sure one way or the other about that).
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is why his house went up for sale one day
And the suit filed the next.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, thanks for the diversity jurisdiction assist.
My federal civil procedure is not what it once was.
As for the state agency part, Ky law says that any lawsuit involving the state or one of its agencies must take place in Franklin Circuit Court in Frankfort. This would not hamper the feds, but if the Texas case is dismissed, then the only surviving action is in Kentucky.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks wklawdog :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also ...
… even if dismissed in Texas, it seems to me that he would merely have to refile the suit against the proper party.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couldn't Gillespie just...
…file for joinder of UK?
Also, Tru is right. As long as Gillespie can truly show diversity of citizenship the case would be able to remain in federal court (either in TX or KY).
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are sovereign immunity issues with suing UK.
I’m not sure exactly how that would play out, but I think he chose UKAA to avoid that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yikes
I didn’t even think about UK being an agency of Kentucky. This is problematic.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no idea,
but I wonder if the fact that UK has now sued him gets rid of that sovereignty somehow.
That is not my area of forte.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and my family wondered
why I went into engineering instead of law! ,0-
by hoboat33 on May 29, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not mine either
Thank god
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barnhart spoke to the Elizabethtown Rotary Club a year ago
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.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 28, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
Often 2 or more jurisdictions, including multiple state and federal courts, and various venues, are appropriate for a particular action. The plaintiff gets to choose, though if the plaintiff files in state court but there is diversity of citizenship between the parties, the defendant can automatically remove the action to federal court.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UK said the MOU
protected UK’s interests. UK did not say that the MOU protected Billy’s interests.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that language in the MOU?
“This document protects UKs interests, but not Billy Gillispie’s interests.”
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if this MOU...
contains the following statement:
“When taking on this position, Billy Gillispie accepts the responsibilities of serving as ambassador for the University of Kentucky as a whole. Considering that the job of Head Basketball Coach at the University of Kentucky is a position that carries greater notoriety and fame than the Office of Governor of the Commonwealth, those deemed worthy by Mitch Barnhart must always be nice to the media that seeks to tear their throat out. Furthermore, they must never, ever, ever lead a team to the NIT.”
That was the thrust of their complaints with him, as least on the surface.
The quickest way to a man's heart is Chuck Norris' fist.
by jbt36 on May 28, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The purpose of a suit is usually to settle out of cout. It is usually in the best interest of
both parties. However, in this case, this case could be used to tarnish the University as a means of rebuilding a deteriorating career of an up and coming coach. This case could be used to improve the “employability” of Gillispie. The awarding of 6million dollars could be very cheap in the long run to UK’s reputation.
by Blueobsessed on May 28, 2009 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nah.
This is just a “giddyap” by Gillispie. Nothing more, nothing less.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
billy was drunk when he filed the suit? He was intoxicated 1/2 the time he was coaching anyway.
by BleedinUKBlue on May 29, 2009 1:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't pass rumors in here.
You know better.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Doubt Billy Was Drunk While Coaching
Surely a drunk could do better than 40-27 over 2 seasons.
He had to have been stone cold sober to do that poorly.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 29, 2009 7:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Surely a drunk could do better than 40-27 over 2 seasons"
That made me laugh.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The REAL Question??????
To me if UK owes the $6 million or not is not the real question. It was worth $10 million to get rid of him for the future of the program.
To me the REAL question is why did Barnhart agree to include a $1.5/year buyout in ANY contract. This isn’t Indiana State trying to hire a BIG name coach…..this is one of the top programs in the country hiring a coach. Were they REALLY that desperate to hire a coach at Gillispie level? Is there anyone that thought Gillispie was one of the top 5 coaches in America???? I want to coach at UK if I can be a total screw up in every way and still walk away with $6 million!!!!!!!
by UKlvrJM on May 28, 2009 12:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Gillispie's lawyer
is based in Houston, and did an interview this morning with a radio station there where he lays out his case against the Athletic Association. He sounded pretty confident that BCG can win the breach of contract argument. It’s a great interview, listen to the whole thing:
http://thegame.podbean.com/2009/05/28/interview-with-billy-gillispies-lawyer-demetrios-anaipakos/
by rangersfan09 on May 28, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
2 legal points:
1(a): Federal jurisdiction is okay because the parties are residents of different states—diversity jurisdiction (assuming Gillispie can show that he is a resident of Texas).
1(b): Subject-matter jurisdction—I don’t think this is an issue either. It doesn’t matter WHERE the K was signed. If it was negotiated, etc., on Gillspie’s end in Texas, Texas is likely okay. It would have been fine to file in the E.D. Ky. as well, but Gillispie chose Texas, and I don’t see this going out on jurisdictional grounds.
2: Fraud—Gillispie does not have to show that UK intended to not live up to its obligations, rather he needs to show that UK made false statements of material existing fact, and made those statements either (1) with knowledge that they were false (more like “intent”); or (2) made with reckless abandon as to the truth or falsity of the statements.
He still has a large hill to climb regarding fraud, but he does not have to show that any action was intentional.
Often fraud is thrown in because you generally cannot recover punitive damages based on a breach of contract (in most cases—insurance contracts and fiduciary relationships being the exceptions).
By alleging fraud, he opens the door to punitives. Even if he hopes to settle for well less than $6 million + $18 million, all of a sudden his bargaining position starts at $24 million instead of $6 million.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks blbskue,
I was needing help on the federal jurisdiction part…..
:-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 28, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol....for one thing. :-)
and several others…lol
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 28, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if I'm going to waste time when I should be practicing law,
I might as well comment about what I’m wasting time on, eh?
Interesting thing is that I’m currently swimming in a summary judgment motion defending similar issues—breach of K, fraud, possible oral K, etc.
A lot of this is right on the tip of my tongue. Maybe the UKAA needs a lawyer. Heh.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you listened to the interview...
with Coach Gillispie’s lawyer, it sure sounds like they do.
The quickest way to a man's heart is Chuck Norris' fist.
by jbt36 on May 28, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
They could do far worse than you, sounds to me like. I’m glad you’re familiar with these civil issues. It’s way out of my league.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BARNHART!!!!!!
Dawg Gone It !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We would not be having this discussion if “BARNHIT” had done his job before Billy Clyde!!!
I am not well informed, but the only thing that I can appreciate “BARNHIT” for is the hiring of Brooks!!!!!!!! He and
Pres. Todd (who said in past that UK was about education not Sports. (or something like that) should be fired for
the embarassing way they have handeled the tradition of such a fine university!! That’s all I’m to say !!!!!!!!
SO THERE———-DONE!!!
by kentuckystrong on May 28, 2009 12:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Barnhart
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.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 28, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Believe it or not, UK is not the location of the Most Bizarre Story in College Sports (current events edition)
That honor goes to Kansas St and their ex-football coach Ron Prince, as related by Joe Posnanski (The Greatest Sportswriter in America © )
There is no gravity - the earth just sucks.
by JLeverenz on May 28, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Thanks JL
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…..
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 28, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great timing
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.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on May 28, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap!
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 28, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
another good way to put it....lol
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 28, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm Not A Lawyer (So I have No Idea) BUT
This lawsuit probably means Gillispie will never agin coach at BCS level.
He may coach at low to mid major Div I or even Div II, III, or NAIA level. But his “Big Boy” days are done.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don't think I agree.
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
litigous = litigious
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just My Opinion
BCS schools don’t like to be drugged into court. Gillispie’s name is M-U-D now.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
Dragged.
NEED EDIT function.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name
I think this makes Kentucky’s name look just as bad if not worse – and it should.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WRONG..!!!!
“most” media outlets have already expressed that Billy G was an awful hire, and now he files a lawsuit after not doing a damn thing in 2 years but make UK a freaking laughing stock..???
He deserve nothing more in my opinion… he has already received more then he “earned”
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the knob creek talking? :)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no sir...
Just an educated UK fan of course… lol
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you can still be educated and drink the creek-can't you? :)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
man I hope so....lol
or I will have to become stupid or sober one….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I said before
We will see.
I hope he gets it all.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he won't get it all
but he will be compensated rather well. as much mud as folks are slinging he will be laughing all the way to the bank so to speak. regardless of what is said Coach G will get paid a handsome set of fat stacks. might even be gilt edged…. afterwards, he’ll have his UK experience to keep his name in the mix of jobs. believe me, as much interest as this subject has drawn many a dying program would be ecstatic over just a whiff of that attention and will sign him up. He will win and he will win a lot as long as he is left alone to his craft pretty much.
Coach G couldn’t handle a wife…..what made Burnfart think he could handle something as high maintenence as a UK fan? much less MILLIONS of them? prime example: tweeter. ashton kutcher and okra are the only one’s to garner as much twat attention as cal. the blue mist is everywhere!!! if you can’t breathe it 24/7 365 then you belong on another planet. sorry, rebreather’s don’t work here, bub.
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His perfomrance on the court
And even his demeanor off the court have nothing to do with the facts of this case. That’s where a lot of fans are getting their feet tangled up. Even Forty said above that Gillispie had no business being near the program… and that’s certainly a legitimate argument, but that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 30, 2009 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking as
someone with some law knowledge, you would never, ever be hired by another large law firm if you sued the last big law firm you worked with. Big law firms don’t want people that may turn on them, regardless of the reason for doing so in the past. You can start a firm on your own, but you don’t get the second chance.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true.
I work for a big firm. I have friends working for BigLaw in NYC. Many people there have brought wrongful termination suits and the like after being “laid off” in the past few months, some find other work.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
COMPLETELY AGREE
Gillispie does not have a history of just going around suing people.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You only have to sue your boss once to have a history.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Touche'
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How the hell can that be so?
Sorry, Forty, but that’s just not rational.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Explained Why (My Opinion Only)
BCS schools don’t like to be sued by (blanks) like Gillispie.
He’s done at the BCS level of Div I schools.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You are wrong.
Pure and simple.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Opinions Are Not "Wrong" Just Different
I never said it’s a fact. IT’S MY OPINION. Nothing more nor less.
Gillispie is done at the BCS level.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In my opinion, Tubby Smith Sucks.
Of course, I’m just joking and am quite fond of Orlando.
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 28, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If There Were FACTS To Support That, Fine
There are not, yet many hold that exact opinion.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are no facts ...
… to support your opinion, none whatsoever. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There Surely Are
I’ve posted them.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 29, 2009 7:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
You have not. Not one. You have simply made baseless claims.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This feels rare for me, but...
I agree with Forty. Corporations do not like to hire people that have a history of suing their former employers. BCG, will wait a long time to get a good gig at a BCS school again. He will have to rehabilitate his employment history and show that he can “get along” with his bosses, regardless of whether he is in the right or not on this case.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe ...
… but in the end, given the facts of the case as far as I am concerned, I believe any such reservations would be overshadowed by performance.
On the other hand, I’m damn sure they would want his signature on a real, bona-fide contract. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this
a viable definition of an “MOU” because if so….I am less and less sure of Gillespie’s arguments every minute
A memorandum of understanding (MOU or MoU) is a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It most often is used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen’s agreement.
In some cases, depending on the exact wording, MoUs can have the binding power of a contract; as a matter of law, contracts do not need to be labeled as such to be legally binding. Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called “four corners”). For example, a binding contract typically must contain mutual consideration—a legally enforceable obligations of the parties, and its formation must take place free of the so-called real defenses to contract formation (fraud, duress, lack of age or mental capacity, etc.).
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To form a K:
1. Offer (check)
2. Acceptance (check)
3. Mutality of consideration
To avoid statue of frauds issues, having a writing is a good idea. (check). The writing should be signed by the party against whom the K is being enforced (here, signed by both parties, check).
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not everything that looks like a contract is.
ALLBLUECAT’s post above is pretty good. If you reread that MOU you see all kind of things that say we will do this and we will do that upon the signing of a contract. Plus, you see all kinds of things that indicate a temporary agreement existed and that a permanent one was to be agreed to.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Official Disclaimer
“I am not a lawyer, have never been a lawyer, and will never be a lawyer….my grandmother forbids it….lol.”
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I tell my parents I play the piano at the local bordello.
Sounds more honorable at times.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Youre only worth
anything when we need you dog!!!….lol….thanks
Actually I am thinking of making Robert Shapiro my lawyer….lol
Let him “zoom” all my docs….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying that to me,
the existence of a contract here is absolutely, 100% clear.
Whether that contract is enforceable is another issue.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me it is definately up for grabs.
That’s why we have courts.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say we put
bibskue on one side….lawdog on the other….and let them settle it….they seem to be up to speed….we do it for the publicity only and have Judge Judy decide……lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love it.
I was just thinking that maybe wk, bluesquire, and me need to team up and open a practice together. Heh.
My office is split between UK and UL (a few IU here and there) – practicing with all UK fans would be nice.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds to me like
Barnhart and Co. thought that an “MOU” was exactly the way to go because it left them with more “outs” in case of a problem…..wrong?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I think they did the MOU ...
because they thought there would be a signed contract within days of coming to Lexington. They never dreamed that BCG would refuse to sign a true contract, were embarassed by the fact that he didn’t and tried to play it off whenever people asked about it.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then you disagree not agree w/forty
Forty says “never” rather than you more rational “…wait a long time…”. As you said, he will have to rehab his history. He’s young enough to rebuild his career and if he wins, he win regain his position in Div I.
by hoboat33 on May 29, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Billy Clyde will become the new Hal Mummy
Where is Hal now? Is the street still named after him? How many years was he at UK? How long was BC here?
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Remember, all these people we comment on are real
Last we heard on Mumme – a positive report after his prostate cancer detection earlier this year
by hoboat33 on May 29, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
little sanity moment
thank you hoboat33.
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A BCS-conference team...
…would sign Hitler if they thought he’d win games.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on May 28, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree there TB
Hitlers dead man … but he may have been reincarnated as Gillispie – they’d even look a little alike too if Clyde would grow one of those funny little brush looking things under his nose. All BCS schools would face a media frenzy like none other by considering Clyde …. Hope he keeps some polish on that “Big 12 coach of the year award” – doubt he’ll ever see another one of those.
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
………and his SEC coach of the year award?
by hoboat33 on May 29, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right on.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can name you 10 coaches that got that award that no longer have their jobs....lol
cant hang your hat on that one…..
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not hanging my hat on anything
Just saying dont act like he only ever received a “Big 12” coaching award cause he sure as hell got one in the SEC too.
LOL /sarcasam
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reference to B12 COY
was just one example … He was also Texas Coach of the Year with UTEP and a finalist for National Coach of the Year in 2002/03…. I just think he’s burned too many bridges … I can’t see a university looking into his background and asking him to explain himself with regards to the UK situaton and then somehow saying “oh … I see – that’s just what we want for the kids in our program”
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know
I guess we’ll see.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SEC coach of the year
He did a great job in conference that year. Too bad he had a losing record OOC.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 29, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Clear
That winning games isn’t one of Gillispie’s strengths.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 30, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW, the Courier Journal is reporting that
UK has sued Gillispie in Franklin Circuit Court. UK is alleging that it is the proper party, not the UKAA, and that there was no contract to breach.
I assume this is a declaratory judgment action, and they’re not actually seeking damages against Gillispie.
I’ve seen this done before too. . .it gets interesting when courts in different jurisdictions are deciding the same issues. I would expect to see Gillispie’s lawyers to file a motion asking the Franklin Circuit Court to either dismiss, or stay the proceedings there pending the Texas federal action. UK’s attorneys might very well do the same thing in Texas.
The first fight here, which could take weeks or months, will just be deciding which court, or whether both, should hear this action. The substantive issues won’t be addressed for a LONG time.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 3:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I should add--
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Texas courts?
From my experience, which is not insignificant, Texans in general think very highly of themselves. They’re full of s*&t for the most part, but in a harmless way. Still, the egos…..
We're all just a banana peel away from eternity.
ICQ: 591535544
Yahoo IM: jacksbrain
by SD_UK_FAN on May 29, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you would be correct.
crafty is a word i like to use when describing a Texan. and i don’t mean that in a necessarily bad way either.
the young ladies have the same attitude…… girls with big ego’s,……….ever hear of rodeo sex? ;>
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One other option-
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BCG sued the wrong party.
His contract is with UK.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So he refiles the suit.
It’s also interesting that the MOU is on UKAA letterhead. Not that it matters, but it is pretty ambiguous as to who is paying what.
Still, if his paycheck was from UK, I would think UK would be the proper party.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He may try to refile
His problem though is that there is now an existing lawsuit in Kentucky state court, so he will most likely be told, deal with that one before you can file the new one.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm thinking ...
… he would simply move to have the case removed to federal court. Based on the diversity of citizenship claim, and the ambiguity of where the agreement was made, it would probably happen.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, but you assume judges like extra work.
They don’t.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure it's clear that UKAA is the wrong party right now.
Plus, again, there are sovereignty issues with suing state institutions.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His employer is not the UKAA.
His employer is UK. Saying otherwise would be to say that one works for the mailroom of IBM, not IBM.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So what we have ...
… 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.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 28, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Once thing he doesn't lack is toughness. Heh.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the suit was filed in Federal Court, not State Court.
by hoboat33 on May 28, 2009 4:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep, I know.
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 28, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nashville radio
just reported a countersuit by UK. The fun is beginning…
by blupride on May 28, 2009 5:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I've been gone all day
And after reading through all this Gillispie and Calipari, I will say one thing. The summer months should be full of news and not boring. Not sure if that is good or bad, but it is what it is.
by kykat51 on May 28, 2009 5:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No news is bad news
especially when you have a brand to sell….er, i mean, a tradition to continue! ;)
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a bigger question
Could this be a landmark case,in that those involved with mega dollar contracts,who fail to sign within a specified time(60-90 days,seems reasonable,per MOU)then the contract provider would NOT be liable for the full amount,based on refusal to sign a contract?
by -Zoso- on May 28, 2009 8:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is just a guess here,
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?
by BigSkyCat on May 28, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, it doesn't have to be legitamized.
It’s signed by both parties. A contract doesn’t have to say “Contract” on it in big bold letters to be such. I could title the document “My Ass,” but if it laid out terms, one party offered, the other party accepted, and there was consideration (all of which are present here), it’s a contract.
Whether it was breached is another story, but I just don’t buy how UK/UKAA can argue there was no contract.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
My layman’s understanding is that virtually any agreement, particularly one set down in writing, is a contract. Simplistic, and surely not the last word, but certainly a starting point.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
gloss
from what i can tell, the biggest substantive sticking points will be the fact that the MOU doesn’t state what “for cause” means and says that the parties agree to negotiate in good faith. courts hate to fill in the blanks on stuff like that. so, yeah, i think it’s pretty clear we’re dealing with a contract here, but the terms of that contract are quite minimal
by chstrckwl on May 29, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that, to some extent.
Courts do hate to fill in the blanks (courts prefer to look at the “four corners of the agreement”), but that does not invalidate a contract. The meaning of “for cause” is probably ambiguous, since it is not spelled out in the MOU. Therefore, the court may look to extrinsic evidence, course of dealing, how “for cause” is defined in other, similar contracts, etc.
The fact of the matter, however, is that the buy-out provisions are not ambiguous, and that being the primary provision at stake, courts are prone to interpret it as, “it is what it is.”
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I'm partially wrong.
The language “for cause” is contained in the buy-out provision, so before a court can contrue that it has to determine whether “for cause” is ambiguous or not. Again, it’s not spelled out, so it probably is, so the court will, as is within its power, construe the meaning of for cause based on extrinsic evidence, the intentions of the parties, etc., though that could go to a jury as well.
After it construes for cause, it then has to determine whether Gillispie was terminated “for cause” within the meaning it decides on.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again ...
… that makes sense.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a small question,
and I am no way trying to say anything against your question Zoso. Not at all. It is about the BCG picture that Tru has on the front of this post…. Here, so you won’t have to scroll.
I was wondering if anyone else has noticed that this picture is one of those creepy pictures that looks as if his eyes follow you no matter what angle you look at it from? We have seen it here before, but every time I see it, It sort of gives me the creeps. LOL Not the person in it, don’t get me wrong, please.
It seems that a lot of us may need a laugh (optional) every now and then, especially now…..
:-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 28, 2009 8:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
?????
Really? (sigh)
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you stare at it long enough
you can see the 3-D picture in it!! you have to cross your eyes just the right way about 15 inches from your monitor if you have a 17" one. if you have one smaller you have to be about 12 inches away. over 20" in monitor size sit back about 28 inches and stare at it. some folks can get it in a few minutes. others who have trouble visualizing will take longer. you may want to consult a doctor before attempting this excercise for extended periods of time. i have found the trick is to stare at the dark spot on HIS left shoulder. have fun!
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I will pass... :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 30, 2009 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 17" monitor distance is optimal at 15.389729845 inches
by hoboat33 on May 30, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hobo, you and bluecrip are
two too funny dudes…lol
:-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 30, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's the water in Arkansas that does it
sort of explains “Razorbacks” – I mean, really, where did THAT come from!
by hoboat33 on May 30, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG was employed by the University
and not the UKAA.The UKAA did not fire him,the University did.So why would any coach in the future bother to sign a contract,and be held accountable,when the pay day is the same without being accountable?
by -Zoso- on May 28, 2009 9:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point
This whole hired/fired by UK, paid by UKAA relationship could throw a lot of college programs into a turmoil if this issue actually goes to trial. This structure has evolved to support the pay structure of coaches in the major sports but hasn’t been challenged in court to date. There are a lot of interested parties hoping for a compremise before trial.
by hoboat33 on May 28, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG is a phucking joke
When a middleaged man goes into a bar wearing sunglasses,after getting his ass canned,speaks for itself.
by -Zoso- on May 28, 2009 10:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Please.
You know the rules. I will not tolerate continued disrespectful comments about Gillispie.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes Lawyers fill their clients head with Krapola!
The Gillispieous-sue-alotus sounds like one of those creatures whose lawyers have told him he’s in the “drivers seat” and so he wants to be seen in public to let everyone know he’s in the right. IMO he’s the worst coach at UK ever … and I don’t care what his record is compared to any other UK coach. Hell, he makes Eddie Sutton look like a Saint. He’s a burr in the saddle of every true UK fan and I wish people would see him for the “fraud” he was to all of the players and fans he ripped off while posing as a coach this year. His behavior was nothing short of irrational and at some level I feel sorry for him in that he may need professional help. Wherever the hell Tex Pan Am is I hope they’ll be real happy with this loser … and oh by the way, get a contract in place up front.
by ukcris on May 28, 2009 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He has a strong case, in this lawyer's experience.
A very strong case.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Second
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would take UK's case.
The “for cause” provision can nullify all of the payments he claims that he is owed. If it goes to trial, not saying it will, you can bet “for cause” will have days of evidence.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no ...
… “for cause” that is applicable to this case. The MOU specifies only NCAA or SEC rules violations as the only things resembing an actual “for cause” clause. It references a “for cause” provision that was supposed to be, but never was, agreed to by either party.
How evidence could be offered in support of a “for cause” firing when there is no such provision available is a mystery to me.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
Where is everyone deriving these “cause for termination” provisions? Aren’t these elucidated in contracts. And since, UK claims he never signed a contact, how can they fire him “for cause”?
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"For cause"
is a trade term in employment law. Basically, one fired “for cause” is not entitled to benefits they would normally get when the employment is terminated.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK.
My question for the law folks: Are “for cause” provisions defined in statute or in the contract or both?
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"For cause"
If not defined in the contract is up to the jury. LOL
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I’m doubting that, especially since UK did not represent that they were firing him for cause.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No employer ever says that
Until something is filed. To do otherwise can expose an employer to a suit for harming the employee’s hireability. You never fire someone and say, “He was a thief who stole from me”. You say we did not get along, and if he files for benefits, you let the dirt out. That is how the game is played.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK ...
… I’ll buy that. Even so, since “for cause” is not defined and this is a contract dispute, I expect that UK will have difficulty establishing a contractual “for cause” basis. In fact, it seems that if the judge looks to extrinsic evidence (i.e. other contracts for similar university employees or previous coaching contracts), that will further complicate any “for cause” claim.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the judge will not get to make the decision here.
This will be a jury issue. The question is whether 12 jurors in the state of Ky (or Texas) will think that what BCG did justifies being fired for cause.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finding 12 jurors in Ky without knowledge of this case will be hilarious.
Attorney: “So have you heard of the parties?”
Juror: “Nope, I live under a rock.”
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL,... sorry, it is funny :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
Yeah. I’m thinking finding a fair jury in Kentucky might be tough.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could they end up sending the case to a "neutral"
site in another state?….like say Maine???….
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
In this kind of case, there is not going to be removal for a “fair” trial.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
neutral
They’re not likely to even know what basketball is, eh?
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alaska, maybe :-)
this is the BBN
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes.
But the judge will get to say whether or not the “for cause” argument can be made, and if the evidence offered is more prejudicial than probative. Given the semi-salacious nature of some of the rumors, my feeling is the jury will not hear the “dirt,” even if it is true.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salacious does not equal irrelevant.
Just because it is damaging to one side does not keep it out. All evidence is damaging to one side.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not totally true.
Judges are given the power to construe contracts, which is the very reason breach of contract is appropriate for summary judgment. If the contract contains ambiguous terms, the judge can construe the meaning of that term.
All the jury has to do, if it comes to that, is decide whether Gillispie was fired “for cause” as the judge construed it.
I don’t buy that the court will just apply some vanilla construction used in general employment law cases. I think the more relevant question is how “for cause” is typically used in coaching agreements.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because there is such a provision in the MOU
Reread the MOU. In the section that talks about a firing and BCG getting the 1.5 mil per, it says he is entitled to that money if he is terminated without cause.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And ...
… UK terminated him without cause, at least any cause that the parties agreed to. You can’t have one party deciding what defines cause and what does not.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your right, a jury will decide what "for cause" is.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
UK did not fire him for cause. They don’t get a second bite at the apple.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, a jury won't.
The judge will decide what “for cause” means. The jury then decides if the termination was “for cause” within the judicially construed meaning.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the type of things that everyone seems to think UK will allege
will fall under the judically construed meaning. Hence, a jury will decide.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well how can UK say,
But UK can’t cite the MOU and say 1) were allowed to fire him for cause—it says so right in the MOU and 2) the MOU of is not a contract. Or am I missing something?
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course they can argue both sides.
People do that in court, and this site every day.
UK says, the MOU is not a contract and he is not entitled to any money and if the MOU is a contract, then he was fired for cause and does not deserve the money.
See, easily done.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes sense.
I think it weakens UK’s argument tremendously, but I’m not on that jury.
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except ...
… that UK’s letter of dismissal did not fire him for cause. That would be a problem.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Upon rereading that MOU
I would argue just as UK is and that the MOU is a labor proposal and that until the contract discussed in the MOU is completed, employment was on a day to day basis. Looks like a strong argument to me.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to me.
UK verbally assured both Gillispie and others, in writing, that the MOU’s provisions were enforceable. They accepted the MOU, therefore, as a substitute for the contract until one could be agreed to. They even said as much.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
in writing = "and in writing"
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They said that they were operating under the terms of the MOU.
That does not mean that the MOU becomes the contract. I would argue that the MOU could be operated under on a temporary basis, day to day, for example.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I would argue ...
… otherwise, especially given that the parties clearly (to me) intended that not to be the case.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG certainly did...
…but UK has a valid argument that it did not. Nevertheless, I still think BG has a strong case, especially if the case stays in TX federal court.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be a contract
there must be a “meeting of the minds” to quote my old law school prof (he would be amazed that I remembered that). If there is not a “meeting” (meaning everybody agreed to the same thing) there is no contract.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everybody ...
… agreed to everything in the MOU. There was a meeting of the minds.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But did they not also agree
by the wording of the MOU that it was a “temporary agreement”…and had to be followed up by a contract
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The words ....
… “temporary agreement,” or even “temporary” don’t appear in my copy, at least, not to my eye in a quick re-read.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
by wording I meant the "definition"
every one I find states that an MOU is a temporary, or informal agreement
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
they all state that a "permanent" contract
is to follow…one definition even went so far as to say ….“within 60 days”
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They also state
that the MOU itself will serve as a contract and that no additional negoations were taking place.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually they dont.....at least not the ones I read or
posted above….
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ones I have read do
Please hold.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From Fan Post (or shot)
Forty posted the PDF link – I cant copy and paste so I will just type it out here:
“…in which the General Counsel for the University of Kentucky described in November 2007 as ‘containing all the basic terms needed for an employement agreement, and can itself serve as the employment contract for the Coach.’”
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is the quote from?
or are you saying it is from the document?
If it is from the Document, then it is left up to the interpretation of a jury or judge, if it is a quote….its worth nothing….in and of itself anyway
and my next question would be, is this person is still the “General Counsel”?
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 8:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
...just sayin
the man has a case. I dont doubt there are serveral instances that Gillispie’s legal counsel will find and site as showing that UK honored the MOU as a contract.
If Gillispie had breached any part of the MOU I dont think for a second that UK would not have honored it.
This whole thing stinks and leaves even more of a bad taste in my mouth regarding UK athletics.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, theres always the Cards!!
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 8:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
I’m done with this. Think whatever the heck you want. I could care less.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 8:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tink
I know how you feel. I really do, but something happened midseason that affected the players and even Billy.
I have always believed that if Mr. Bill had been there for BG and the players, things would have been different for all.
BG lost a very good friend and perhaps he was a father figure that he never had. I don’t know because there was nothing about his father on his bio.
He deserves some compensation for being fired and I think he would have been wise to take the 3 million and get it over and done and move on, but he has lawyers talking to him.
I will just be glad when all is done and the University can move on.
Take care young woman.
by kykat51 on May 29, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeh, I have always thought Mr. Bill
would have made things a lot different too.
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the Universisty has moved on...
I just wish Billy would do the same…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moving On
I’m sure he will WHEN HE GETS HIS MONEY.
Pretty easy to move on when you owe someone six million dollars. A little harder to do the other way around, I’m sure.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you were done with this??
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you ask me and no one did
I think you are completely ignoring UK’s side of the case. I think both sides have legitimate arguments. It will be interesting to see which one wins out in court.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 29, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
smartest thing I have heard all day
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, I would say baloney.
Yes, coaches are terminated mid-season, but those aren’t the facts here. He worked two full seasons.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basil Hayden = Worst UK Coach Ever
3-13 back in the 1920’s.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 10:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Forty
See Line 3 above …. … “and I don’t care what his record is compared to any other UK coach”
it’s really not about the record … he got in a pi**ing contest with his superiors and decided to show everyone who cares anything about UK that he was “in control” and he could toy with all of us in any way he pleased – I think there may be a mental illness side to all of this. Like you said above, it’s just my opinion – worst coach ever at UK.
by ukcris on May 28, 2009 10:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Care For Gillispie
Terrible mistake by Mitch Barnhart listening to people who knew NOTHINg about basketball coaching.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 28, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree on that one ...
The only good I see in all of this is that time heals all wounds and so I’m glad this issue and the Cal/Memphis thing are playing out now instead of when the season cranks up. I’m sure these issues will be revisited then but, hopefully they will be resolved and this team can focus on positives and get back to the UK basketball that we are all accustomed to.
by ukcris on May 28, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
About a year from now
UK powers need to review Barnhart’s record and the manner in which he represents the University. In my opinion, he is not a good representative of the university. He is wimpy. UK needs to put him in charge of university housing (that’s how Larry Ivey got his start) and hire a really competent sports competition manager to replace him.
by Fortunatus on May 28, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a link .....
This is a Pat Forde article from Mar 27, 2009 .. it talks about the rushed decision Barnhart and company made in hiring Gillispie … like Forty said “terrible mistake”
“Had Kentucky taken the time to carefully conduct its search, it might have learned that Gillispie’s prickly personality and uneven moods made him poorly suited for the fishbowl existence of coaching the Wildcats. Even being a bachelor turned out to be a complicating factor, since everyone wanted to know Gillispie’s personal business. And because the coach was hardly a stay-at-home shrinking violet, the gossip mill churned at a hysterical pace”
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4018869&sportCat=ncb
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Burnfart whiffed bad on this one!!!!!
why wait a year to evaluate him. he’s been here long enough. he obviously knew NOTHING about the landscape of UK basketball. if he had he would have knocked one out the park then instead of jerking with a poor sap of a coach and the fanbase for two years. love the other sports, really i do, but UK is KNOWN for BASKETBALL, so why not get it right the 1ST TIME? Gee, maybe it was the dim way that the Tubby fiasco was handled? Two bone headed mistakes with the same job, a job that is considered THE JOB within the UK heirarchy, does not get my vote of confidence for ol stinky.
Finally, who hired this dope Burnfart? I think we need to review their job performance as well. :)
I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.
by bluecrip on May 29, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And one more thing on Basil Hayden.... (respectfully sir)
I see Hayden lived to be 103, played for UK and was our first All American …. also …
“He had a week to prepare for his one ill-fated season as UK’s basketball coach. The previous coach, Ray Eklund, “left behind a bunch of scrubs,” Mr. Hayden said in 1989.
“What we had were players who had played in the YMCA and church leagues mostly,” he said.
UK’s starters opening night were all football players"
This man was a UK hero …. BCG doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with him
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure he'll get more money than me or you think he should
In my Opinion, (here I go again) he should have to give some money back … more than what he was given (or took – depends on how you want to look at it) …. for the time he took from fans and players while he pretended to try and win games … I hope they ask him in court if he ever intentionally tried to lose a game by holding players out or refusing to change strategies (like the Carolina game in Columbia) … I agree that he’s done at this level too. I can’t see another university taking a chance with this moron.
by ukcris on May 28, 2009 11:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You must ...
… be respectful to Gillispie if you are going to offer comment about him. You know this. Calling him a moron is not respectful.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 7:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry about that ....
Like most on this site, I bleed blue … it’s hard to have respect for someone who, IMO, tried to deliberately sabotage the program. I read through all the legal rangling and I’m sure Gillispie will get a good settlement …. Barnhart and company are culpable. Maybe someone will come forward on behalf of the players or the fans and launch a law suit after some of the details here come to light.
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Suggesting Gillispie tried to deliberately sabotage the program ...
… is not a rational position. He clearly did not do this, and there is no fact, extrapolation of fact or reasonable theory that would justify a claim that Gillispie attempted to sabotage the program.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just my opinion ...
I rationalize it based on what I saw. I don’t get to go to all of the UK games, but I was at UK@USC and UK @UGA … the difference was remarkable … you can site whatever reasons/stats you want – I think the Meeks situation after the UT game is a way of extrapolating a reasonable theory to me (not to mention holding those t-shirts from the team).. and what I’m saying is that more of the specifics of that situation and Patterson’s comments for example may come to light. It’s my opinion from what I witnessed (15 blocked shots by an average USC front line for example) that lead me to “justify my claim”. It’s just my opinion, but I think Gillispie and Barnhart & Co. were at odds with each other and it spilled over onto the team and the fans and that was both unfortunate and unprofessional.
by ukcris on May 29, 2009 9:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?!!?
You’re using the fact that Patterson doesn’t have a clue how to head fake as evidence that Gilispie deliberately sabotaged the team?!!?
I am frustrated wtih his apparent inability to handle the job just like everyone else around here, but I’m much more inclined to chalk it up to being in over his head. Not a diabolical plan to hand UNC the all-time wins lead.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 30, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?!!?
Are you hanging all of the blame on Patterson?? Are saying the game plan was great but PPat just wasn’t good enough?? If you’re a coach, how far do you have to go before you see your plan isn’t working?? What does it take to say “hey, this plan isn’t getting it done let’s try another approach”???
I don’t think it had anything to do with UNC, I don’t think he was in over his head either (See UTEP, Tex A&M, SEC victories earlier in the season … more), I think he was in a disagreement with management and this was the result … Just my opinion …
by ukcris on May 30, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly the UNC comment was tongue-in-cheek
The game plan against USC obviously didn’t work… but I also don’t think its wrong. A smaller team across the entire front line? You have a surefire NBA talent playing center? Hell yes you’re going to attack the rim!!! I still can’t explain why Patterson never used a headfake before his shots though.
And yes… he was in over his head at UK. He wasn’t at UTEP or Texas A&M.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 30, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Point I was making .... (not very clearly)
Maybe sabotage was a poor choice of words … but, obviously Gillispie was not getting along with Barnhart&Co. over a range of issues … and this affected his coaching and the teams play (If you can’t agree on that part, then you just didn’t follow the season close enough) … to me, you cannot conduct yourself in this manner (with the players, after all they are just kids) and then launch into a lawsuit – and think another D-1 program will want to take a chance on you … very unprofessional to me
As far as being in over his head … I think he was when it came to being the face of UK basketball – he was NOT ready or willing to assume that role.
As far as “coaching” the team, I think he was capable when he wasn’t distracted by offcourt issues. For example we struggled OOC, but we were cruising through the SEC schedule early when the drama started and the wheels came off.
by ukcris on May 31, 2009 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the deal...
Billy is going to say he was fired without cause…
UK is going to say that it had “cause” to fire him…
The whole reason there was no actual contract negotiated after the MOU was signed had to do with the parties never agreeing on what “for cause” constituted. Apparently, Billy G. felt that “for cause” should only be if he got any NCAA violations—we in the Big Blue Nation know that “for cause” means a whole lot more than that in terms of personal appearances, being the “face” of Kentucky basketball, …
IF it should go to court, the firing “for cause” will be the crux of the litigation.
I do not believe UK owes Billy G $6 million because I do believe they had cause to fire him—a lot of regular folks have been fired over much less.
Billy should have taken the $3million and shut up. Provided that his attorney took the case on a contingency basis, the attorney will get 30% to 1/3 of what Billy gets plus expenses. So if Billy settle for $4, and with the attorney taken 1/3 and all expenses reimbursed, Billy will get some where near $2.6 million. That is less than the $3million he apparently was offered by UK. Ridiculous! Billy has proved to be just as ridiculous as he looked on television.
by ukkrazyintn on May 29, 2009 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Again ...
… it all comes down to the contract. The MOU did not contain, if I recall correctly, a for-cause provision. That was the subject of negotiation between the parties, a subject that both the parties explicitly and repeatedly disagreed about. You can’t claim he was fired “for cause,” contractually speaking, because the signed document contained no such provision, and it was the main sticking point between the parties. You can never enforce a non-existent provision to which neither party agreed, and more specifically, which was apparently the main sticking point in actual contract negotiations.
UK had the option to terminate the agreement at any time due to the lack of ability to agree on a contract. That, in my opinion, was the foundation of the MOU, so either Gillispie or UK, at any point, could have thrown up their hands and said, “we can’t agree, so we are going to part ways.” In my estimation, this is UK’s strongest hand, but it has problems – not the least of which are that UK repeatedly offered up the MOU as defending their rights, which implicitly means that they had to accept the provisions which defended Glilispie’s rights. You can’t have one-sided contracts.
It is utterly irrelevant, for good or ill, what “we in the Big Blue Nation” may know or think.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moreover,
UK cannot simultaneously claim that Gillispie was fired for cause and that he never had a contract. The two are mutually exclusive. If they claim Gillispie was fired for cause, they are suggesting that, by contract, Kentucky doesn’t have to pay Gillispie. By contract. The very contract they also claim does not exist.
Has any UK official ever suggested on record, that UK had fired Gillispe for cause?
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to my knowledge.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought they cited not signing a contract as cause
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IN the letter they gave Billy G the day Cutler chased him.
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not being able to agree ...
… is, in my judgment, a reason that UK could possibly exploit, but if you will read me above, you will see why that has problems.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is,
why is that cause?
by Thomas Hunt Morgan on May 29, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, technically ...
… the MOU is an instrument designed as an “agreement to agree.” What happened was that both parties could not get that agreement made, so they separately began to treat the MOU as the contract.
At that point, I think you could successfully argue that the MOU became the contract, and no longer an MOU which, as it’s foundation, would presumably be dissoluble should the parties not be able to reach agreement.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree
Just saying I think that is part of what UK will claim
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They never agreed as to what would constitute "cause"
due to BCG’s unreasonable positions. Defining firing for cause is obviously a material term of the contract . For BCG to refuse to agree as to what constitutes “cause” and then try to impose remaining terms from the MOU wouldn’t work for me if I were judging the dispute. UK’s declaratory judgment complaint lays it all out.
by StLCat on May 29, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does depend ...
… on the wording of the “cause” clause. If it were simply a normal and customary clause consistent with other UK contracts, I would absolutely agree that Gillispie’s continued refusal would be a problem for his case. If the terms were extraordinary or inconsistent with other contracts, however, the situation could be reversed.
I do agree with the idea that if Gillispie were simply rejecting an ordinary, common “for cause” clause, that could give him a great deal of trouble in convincing anyone that his case has merit. It would be a clear violation of the spirit of the MOU, which was to get to terms on an official contract. That’s how I see it, anyway.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good article on this
http://mrsec.com/story/gillispie-might-be-making-a-big-mistake
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on May 29, 2009 9:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Blue Moon of Kentucky, Keep on shinin'
Shine on the one who’s gone and proved untrue…..
We're all just a banana peel away from eternity.
ICQ: 591535544
Yahoo IM: jacksbrain
by SD_UK_FAN on May 29, 2009 9:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Tru hit the nail on the head at the beginning of the post.
This is all just part of the process to get a better settlement.
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 9:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They really ought to pay him the six million, it isn’t much, it is owed and despite all the ranting, ravings, and misgivings that other fans specifically the nonsensical ones over at Rupp’s Rafters… UK is at a catch .22 in statements over the MOU and previous statements about a contract – he’s going to get his money and a lot of it. Just a matter of how much and how bad it will hurt his reputation.
"If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up."
by trich on May 29, 2009 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean "it is owed"?
It looks to me like BCG refused to negotiate in good faith to get a final contract, e.g., not wanting conviction of a felony to constitute a basis for firing with cause. If the court agrees, I think the Court would have difficulty allowing BCG to try to enforce the the pay-off terms of the MOU.
by StLCat on May 29, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lachlan...
McLean read that part on his show yesterday. I don’t remember the exact wording, but a few parts were very vague, such as adherence to school policy and things like that. Not just being convicted of a felony.
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
Are you NORML?
by the spork on May 29, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was a time in my life where I thought about going into law
In high school actually. After reading Tru, wklaw, and blb go back and forth discussing the case, I think I made a good decision to go into math instead ;-)
There is no gravity - the earth just sucks.
by JLeverenz on May 29, 2009 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's where you're wrong
They all just billed their clients for these hours.
/currently waiting on lawyers to get off their a$$ and get some documents back to him
The King is dead! Long live the King!
by NYCCats on May 29, 2009 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are there still lawyers in NYC?
I thought they had all been laid off.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're still here
But we all had to start our own practices. Seriously.
I saw a job ad the other day offering $15 an hour for an admitted attorney, in NYC. It was not a joke.
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 30, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good observation, JL
I thought so too in HS, but think I made a wise decision. :-)
I am sort of wondering if Dick Wolf, is still looking for ideas for fresh episodes of Law & Order. He does sometimes use true stories with a disclaimer at the beginning. Hey, but I like the shows too….
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No way....I still say we sell this story
to Judge Judy and Co. make enough on the TV rights to pay him off and tell him to “not go away mad, just go away”….
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The court room there
isn’t big enough, ABC….And a few minutes wouldn’t be doable….lol
:-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
Tru is not a lawyer. But I think he does have lawyer envy. lol
the REAL fake Mr. Bob Dobalina
Formerly known as "senowen"
by bluesquire on May 29, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK now I wanna know about lawyer envy.....lol
Do we all line up and see who’s degree is bigger????…..lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
Well, not envy, exactly …
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Funny
I actually started out in math and went to law.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I went into law
because I can’t do math, or science, thus my dreams of pre-med went pooooooof.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Line From Animal House (Movie)
Pre-law, pre-med, what’s the difference?
by FortyYearCatFan on May 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait ...
… I’m not a lawyer, and don’t play one on the Internet. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 29, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One need not be a lawyer to discuss the law
Any more than one need be a coach to discuss basketball ;-)
There is no gravity - the earth just sucks.
by JLeverenz on May 30, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that true? ;-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 30, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to admit I loved reading all the comments here.
It’s so nice to have some lawyer members on this site to give us some insight into the legalese system when something of this nature happens. I think we all knew it would happen eventually and now I will be glad when it’s over.
by kykat51 on May 29, 2009 3:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, as you can see,
(and in my opinion), all three of us have good arguments, some that mesh, some that are polar opposites.
Being a lawyer can be frustrating when you’re swimming in hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery, reading 10 depositions where everyone says the same thing 10000000 different ways, having clients that want millions of things done but, not surprisingly, don’t want to pay for them, etc., but when it comes down to true arguments, positions, and the like (today’s debate being an example), it reminds me why I actually like what I do.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on May 29, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You all did a great job!
I learned a lot from this. Thanks again for all your knowledge. It helps me to understand the situation so much better.
by kykat51 on May 29, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for your kind words.
I used ASOB to while away the time before I delivered bad news to a client today. Definately took my mind off of other issues while having a civilized discussion, even though some (later in the day it appears) decided to take everything as a personal attack.
by wklawdog on May 29, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it always amazes me
how many people on here have no sense of themselves when it comes to not agreeing with someone else…..some people just cannot agree to disagree….or at least have a civilized disagreement….lol…..time to lighten up folks….let your hair down a little….and try to have some fun
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
abc
I almost always agree with your point of view. I know we both can agree that you will be hatin that cardinal hat you have to wear and post with your bet with forty :) I am having fun:)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well....anything
to make Forty’s year…..lol…..but I am still holding out on winning it all ….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Biggest problem is that I dont
want to be seen buying the dang thing!!!!
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
late night out of a van purchase!!
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or Hoze may have a direct online connection.
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
now that would make 'ol
Hoze’s day…..call him up and ask him where to buy a Cards hat!!!
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You might have trouble reaching Hoze...
with the neighbors house on fire etc…:)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Call 1-800-WINNERS
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you missed an H in there between the W and the I
Hoze…..lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
dang it HozeQueen...!!!!
That’s a blatant violation of the ASOB rules….
Why did you give out my home phone number..????
Not cool dude… not cool at all…!!!!!
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
One of the advantages of a blog such as ASoB is that members are able to share their experience when matters such as this occur, and we get to benefit from information and insight that aren’t going to appear in the standard news stories (not that they should).
There is no gravity - the earth just sucks.
by JLeverenz on May 29, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another way to look at it
Isn’t it tough for BCG to block a final agreement by refusing to agree to actions that would justify firing “for cause” and then try to enforce the remaining MOU, wihch doesn’t contain those terms?
by StLCat on May 29, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
On a brighter note......
we are back on the front page of Yahoo…..lol
with this
Forty will have to look up some new stats to go after this guy…..lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 3:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
while this is important,
I’m much more interested in what the NCAA turns up in Memphis, we all knew the suit was going to happen, and the powers that be are prepared for it
by Bluehound on May 29, 2009 10:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's a Thought:
Why doesnt UK just ask Cal to cut them 6 million from the account he uses to pay people to take recruited players college entrance exams??
lol.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
and you call yourself a UK fan...
shame-shame, everyone knows your name…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whatever
I thought it was funny.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, not everyone knows your name...
But I do…. hehehe
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you threatening me?
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no ma'am...
just having some fun… sorry
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch! Kygirl you surprise me with that reply
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Thought we were supposed to “let our hair down” and “have some fun” – not take ourselves so seriously. LOL!!!!!!!!!!
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hair off and already took my teeth out too :)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
now who has been drinking???.....lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
me too....from somewhere in New York.....lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
somewhere out near the river.....i dunno......or maybe it was the ocean
there was definitely water in there somewhere!!!
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
There you go! That’s the spirit!
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better yet, since you want him to have it
so bad, why dont YOU cut him a check so we can be done with this???
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anaipakos: UK Playing Shell Game
Gillispie’s attorney says UKAA was official employer just as they were for Smith. UK’s chief counsel didn’t sign countersuit because she is on record for considering MOU a contract.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson
by Wild Weasel on May 29, 2009 10:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was wondering ...
… if Smith’s contract was with the UKAA. I was just too lazy to check it out for myself. :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 30, 2009 8:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it is.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
(oops - hit post before i finished)
I think it is just as funny as all the Gillispie jabs that get the big LOLs. No difference. I can make jokes, too. I happen to think that one was pretty good, myself. :)
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I chuckled
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 30, 2009 9:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tink... I have a question...
Do you realize how much your addiction to Billy G is like Forty’s addiction to Tubby..??
wow, you and Forty “might” be related… I know, scary huh… ;-)
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
VERY scary!
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even Scarier
if Forty shares ALL the thoughts I have regarding G about Tubby! ;) lol.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Raised eyebrows on that comment :)
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
Exactly.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 11:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd Take Tubby's 2 Worst Years Over Gillispie's 2 Years
There are facts to support my position on Tubby. He was very good for 8 years then not so good for 2 years.
Gillispie had 2 worse years. He never belonged anywhere near the UK coaching position.
Thank God And Greyhound He’s Gone (as the song goes).
by FortyYearCatFan on May 30, 2009 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But would you offer to have his children?
Cause Tink eyes Billy up and down quite regularly.
;-)
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on May 30, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well played, Chirop.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 30, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Had Gillispie had 8 more years
I really believe they would have been equal to or better than Tubby’s tenure. No use throwing out facts as this is purely speculation and nothing that either your or I will ever know. Ever. Period.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 30, 2009 9:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hogwash
UK in 2009-10 under Gillispie would have (likely) endured its worst season since 1988-89.
Gillispie has a mediocre coaching record, nothing more. 62% W-L record, 43% in NCAA games, 1 conference title in 7 years, 0 conference tourney championships.
Gillispie was 40-27 over 2 seasons. To MATCH his predecessor, it would have required 223-56 over the next 8 seasons. And 23-8 in NCAA games. Neither is believable.
Thank God And Greyhound He’s Gone!
by FortyYearCatFan on May 30, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Recruits
With the recruits G has coming in I high doubt that. Hood, Orton, Ferguson… all good players and Vilarino probably a good four year player BUT the rest of his classes lined up were unimpressive.
WE would have lost so many players if he has come back I shudder to think what next season would have been like with him at the helm.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 30, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Certainly 2009-10 Would Have Been Ugly
Patterson and Meeks both to the NBA. Likely 4 or 5 players transferring.
UK may have struggled to reach .500 record.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 30, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Lol, lol, lol. It is all speculation. No one KNOWS what would have happened. You can speculate and opine all you want. NO ONE KNOWS because it never happened. No one KNOWS what could have or would have happen had Gillispie been given time to implement his system. Blow all the hot air you want ’cause there is no way ANYONE KNOWS what would have happened.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 30, 2009 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no one knows
exactly no one knows. he could have been a huge failure just as easily as you think he could have been a success.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 30, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
No one KNOWS. It is ALL speculation. My opinion is no less right or wrong than anyone else’s. No one KNOWS.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 30, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Respect your opinion 724
But, after the meltdown from about the middle of the season on, IMO, only a coaching change or a AD change would have given us much of chance at success.
by ukcris on May 30, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reports of players leaving IMO isnt hot air.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 30, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe not
but again no one KNOWS what would have happened there as far as who would have replaced them, etc. All future results are pure speculation. No one KNOWS what would have happened. That is what is hot air.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 30, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do know one fact..!!!
…The more a see his name in print or hear it spoken, the sicker I get…
I hope his house sells quick and he never steps foot on Kentucky soil again…
But hey, that’s just me… ;-)
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 31, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
very grown up. ;)
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 31, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I know...
…Maybe if I followed him all over town, called him on his cell and fawned over him like some teenage high schooler, you would think I was all grown up…?
maybe..? ;-)
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 31, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank God And Greyhound He's Gone
The 2 worst years since the 1920’s are over.
Some of the best years (ever) are coming soon.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 31, 2009 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
I doubt it though. ;0
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 31, 2009 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So What?
Do you think there would be a link to anything of that sort?
Live in your dream world if you choose. But the real world KNOWS that UK basketball averted disaster by firing its coach in March 2007 and hiring Calipari.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 31, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Link
There is rarely a link to anything you state.
I am quite happy in my dream world, thank you very much.
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 31, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Inaccurate
For example, read Larry Vaught’s recent column in Danville A-M.
by FortyYearCatFan on May 31, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Players leaving
IT’s of course speculation at this point because we changed coaches and it didnt happen. It has more legs to it than most and while I respect your opinion I find your continued BCG fervor to be a little naive. I didnt have a problem with the man at all until this last season when it became evident that he has personality issues. The fact that Nike printed commemorative t shirts in honor of Jodie’s UT game and CAl had to find them in the craft center and give them out to the team because Billy didnt want them to have them is galling and it’s just one example. I am absolutely with him as a person. It has nothing to do with his record.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 31, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
livid with him
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on May 31, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This has been beat to death,
but the 2007-08 team, especially Joe and Ramel, seemed to get along fine with Gillispie.
Remember the “heart” of that team? 2 worst years since the 20s? Sheesh 40. I mean, c’mon.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
--O.W.
by blbskue on Jun 1, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah well
the 08-09 team sure didnt and IMO the conference record of the 07-08 team doesnt much fix the OOC record.
Meeks didnt play in 07-08 and it seems to me that a lot of G’s ire was directed towards him for some unfathomable reason. In light of the info we have gained after this season ended G’s responses towards Edward’s questions regarding Meeks takes on a whole new meaning.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Jun 1, 2009 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
40-27 = Worst Coaching Record Since The 1920's
Look it up.
Even Sutton was 90-40 over 4 years.
by FortyYearCatFan on Jun 1, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
me too..!!!
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 30, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ky Girl
Writing with a friendly smile on my face. Once BCG filed the lawsuit, Billy G. is now going to take hit after hit after hit here and everywhere in Ky. He is no longer a Cat. Many of those hits will be painful and unfair. This will be nasty.
I wish him well and hope he can coach again. That is why I posted earlier, I hope he moves away from Ky for his sake.
by blue oregon on May 29, 2009 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah.....thats the spirit
“dont go way mad……just go away”
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even care of he goes away mad... :-)
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
It is not worth an intelligent man’s time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.
by kentuckygirl0724 on May 29, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I suppose I have a different sense of funny.
by kykat51 on May 29, 2009 10:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we are going to have to laugh at it a little kat
just to keep our sanity….lol
Remember, we're having fun now!!!
by ALLBLUCAT on May 29, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it has been
a wild 2 months for sure
by Bluehound on May 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's gonna get better... you'll see....
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on May 29, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NCAA Invitation To Calipari
The committee wishes to make it clear that you are not considered to be “at risk” in these proceedings
Provide helpful information and useful context …
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." --Thomas Jefferson
by Wild Weasel on May 29, 2009 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Geeezzzz....does he need to go all the way to China to run away from this?!?!?!?
I thought you’d just go and hole up in Sicily for a year or two.
j/k
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 29, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Hozerdude,
I sent you a reply to something a few days ago. I been out of the loop the last few days. I can’t live on the puter like the rest of you guys. Wish I could more. That’s my life, so ….! I do want to say about all the BCG stuff. I’ve been sued BY MY PASTOR! Got run out of his church, and I was his associate at the time. I have some experience in this area, just not the kind of experience one likes to brag about. It all works out for the good – in time – if your in the right. That my friends is called a law OF GOD. Three years later, we got an apology and the suit was dropped. Those were three LONG years. I can laugh about it now. Barely. This will work out. I can’t wait for the day that some one says “Billy who?”! Oh, hozerbaby, we may owe you an apology. I have always referred to you in masculine terms. Totally an assumption on my part. I don’t have that right in our “politically correct” world today. You may be a hozermamma for all I know. Or maybe a Hozertweetybird? I offer my sincere apologies if I’ve offended you. Now, after covering that base, what do you think about Wall!? Is he fast or what? Think the Wall vs. oh, what’s the kids name that UL signed? Silver? No. Siva? Yea, that’s it! Wall vs Siva? Can you see it?
Food for thought: The virgin birth has much more to do with the absense of a natural earthly father then the use of a virgin mother. Now, chew.....
by blubloodcatfan on May 30, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad it will only be one game.
'..when they bring a knife, you bring a gun...that's the Chicago way..'
by HozeKing on May 30, 2009 8:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
China can hardly be far enough, if you read some of what’s out there. I think some of the sports columnists in this country have, “Plumb lost their minds.” :-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 30, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a question
kinda new here, and not very high tech, when someone posts, is there a way to go directly to that post without scrolling back
by Bluehound on May 29, 2009 11:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think so
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
Are you NORML?
by the spork on May 29, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "z" key ...
… will take you to the next unread post, so you don’t have to scroll.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on May 30, 2009 8:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a new comment, you mean?
This is a guide right above the first comment of a thread. Just click top of comments below the post a comment box to see it. :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Wow...
thank you a2d2, been here forever and never noticed that.
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
Are you NORML?
by the spork on May 29, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had to find it...very helpful
Remember the day of the door… :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man...
I hated sifting through those threads.
The Spork, I'm two things in one.
Are you NORML?
by the spork on May 29, 2009 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know one 500 post right after another....
I was going crazy until I found it…lol :-)
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
most welcome,
see bluecrip posted way UP THERE just now, and z takes you right to it…..handy dandy tool….
Blue, there is no other color to Bleed !!!
by a2d2 on May 29, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ABC. More Scary Louisville Card Baseball Hat pics...
You may want to peek at louisvillesportsbuzz.com. Friday night Matt Jones 11:30 p.m. radio show. You can watch it anytime.
I have seen this guy twice now. Last week red Card hat, tonight black Card hat.
WOW!! Not a good look for this guy and I am being kind.
by blue oregon on May 30, 2009 12:08 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Reverse the roles
The greatest comment in the article is about what UK would be doing if the roles were reversed — you KNOW they’d be hounding Gillispie for not living up to the ‘contract’ – fair is fair, folks.
by Sabajeff on May 30, 2009 10:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
[UPDATED 3/13/2010]
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
