October 19, 20178 yr It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation. This. Most I talked to this weekend at the football game indicated that they felt Pitino was a liability and there is not much angst on him. But many were still frustrated about the Jurich situation. Just wanting to 'clean house' or 'get ahead of the NCAA hammer' can be viewed at correct actions. And even if that is desired there are contracts in place that define what and how things should happen. As of now, there is interim president, an acting men's basketball coach and now no AD. There is no way a permanent AD is hired quickly with an interim president. Everything is a drift now it seems.
October 19, 20178 yr "Proven"? This has at least the appearance of personalized vendetta hit job with a Bevin-appointed board and in interim President who is way in over his head and some say being manipulated by others. So far, the evidence of 'cause' at a pure contractual level for either Pitino or Jurich has not been 'proven' by any means. At least it has not been made public. That is not say that there is nothing there or that there is not and will never be found actual actions that trigger the "for cause" clauses of either contract. But the actions of the BoT is more akin to the firing of 'at will' employees instead of contract employees. The process was rushed, its sloppy, its unprofessional in its handling and it will likely cost the University a lot of money at the end. The word is that the BoT offered to donate $1.5M to the Pitino foundation in the name of his dead son if he resigned instead of being fired. That's an example of the lack of professionalism exhibited by this Bevin board. This was strike while the iron is hot, agenda-driven action. Process, facts and contracts seemed to be viewed as speed bumps. As for you question, Yes ...Proven ! A combination of his (Pitino) more than one instances concerning as far back as years ago ...... his little affair (alleged, of course :sssh:) at the diner / restaraunt. that of course was a hit job by the woman ....(right ) ... Then what was basically a brothel for recruits, complete with booze, strippers, hookers that he "allegedly knew nothing about. (threw his asst. coach under the bus) .... His class act of the caught on camera of the "middle finger salute" to the crowd when leaving the floor after a loss at a visiting arena (that had to have embarrassed the U of L admin........ Now, the FBI led investigation of $10. 000 (I think was the amount) given to a recruit's family for the kid signing with U.L. . Again. an asst. coaches action with one supposedly witness of Pitino personally handing the money to be transferred...and of course Pitino knows nothing again ??? Note : this wasn't the NCAA, the FBI doesn't investigate rumors or here say, they had concrete evidence or they wouldn't have made the charges. In the words of NFL HoF receiver C. Carter ... "C'mon Man". Even "If" the very remote possibility of Rick Pitino telling the truth in every instance as he claims, then the man had lost control of his team / program years ago. Then we get to the U.L Fans / Admin. described "best AD in America" , Mr. Jurich ..He hired, backed and obviously knew, covered for his coach. Granted, the university handled the procedure wrong but that doesn't change the facts that over a period of time, Rick Pitino had lost control, discipline of his program. and BTW - Pitino with his red, teary eyed interview w/ Jay Bllas was at best a bad acing job. So yes, the way I see it Pitino with Jurich wrote their own pink slip. IMO the University had no choice but to fire both. Edited October 19, 20178 yr by oldrambler
October 19, 20178 yr It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation. Thanks. Wasn’t aware his contract was that strict in his favor. It sounds like the university agreed to a bad contract, for them anyway.
October 19, 20178 yr It's not whether we think the cause is just. It's whether the cause for which he was terminated fits the definitions of cause for which the university and Jurich already contracted. That term is defined and that definition must be met or Jurich may be entitled to some compensation. Could there be some sort of "lack of institutional control" definition that they used? I would think something like that might be vague enough to be able to include the current/past situations, wouldn't it?
October 19, 20178 yr This. Most I talked to this weekend at the football game indicated that they felt Pitino was a liability and there is not much angst on him. But many were still frustrated about the Jurich situation. Just wanting to 'clean house' or 'get ahead of the NCAA hammer' can be viewed at correct actions. And even if that is desired there are contracts in place that define what and how things should happen. As of now, there is interim president, an acting men's basketball coach and now no AD. There is no way a permanent AD is hired quickly with an interim president. Everything is a drift now it seems. If you want to argue whether there is "cause" per his contract fine. But even if TJ can a fight that there was not cause per his contact so what? He still has to be fired. Do you not agree? I mean I would think any sane fan can't believe Tom should stay.
October 19, 20178 yr If you want to argue whether there is "cause" per his contract fine. But even if TJ can a fight that there was not cause per his contact so what? He still has to be fired. Do you not agree? I mean I would think any sane fan can't believe Tom should stay. If a contract is terminated for cause that cause needs to be well documented and thoroughly reviewed by the legal teams. Termination for cause may require an action by the board but that action should be evident enough that the action is merely a procedural step to what should be clearly obvious on its face. In watching the video of the vote yesterday this action was raised as motion and then voted on. Three members voted against. So the board, like the fan base, is fractured on this. Many UofL fans, boosters and supporters sane or insane were not in favor of this action in this manner at this time. Had the board terminated for convenience to simply clean house and move on that would be without much legal controversy. Just write the check. But to have an vote, raised on a simple motion, to terminate for 'cause' - when that cause is not established only muddys the already muddy water. Personally, I think that Jurich did a lot of good things and I agreed with Brian Cromer's comments. But if there are violations of the contract terms and the termination for cause is legally justified - it should happen. That is why those clauses exist. But you do not usually vote on whether a contract term was breached or not. It usually a very black and white issue that has review and approval by council before making that declaration.
October 19, 20178 yr If a contract is terminated for cause that cause needs to be well documented and thoroughly reviewed by the legal teams. Termination for cause may require an action by the board but that action should be evident enough that the action is merely a procedural step to what should be clearly obvious on its face. In watching the video of the vote yesterday this action was raised as motion and then voted on. Three members voted against. So the board, like the fan base, is fractured on this. Many UofL fans, boosters and supporters sane or insane were not in favor of this action in this manner at this time. Had the board terminated for convenience to simply clean house and move on that would be without much legal controversy. Just write the check. But to have an vote, raised on a simple motion, to terminate for 'cause' - when that cause is not established only muddys the already muddy water. Personally, I think that Jurich did a lot of good things and I agreed with Brian Cromer's comments. But if there are violations of the contract terms and the termination for cause is legally justified - it should happen. That is why those clauses exist. But you do not usually vote on whether a contract term was breached or not. It usually a very black and white issue that has review and approval by council before making that declaration. Again, you keep going back to cause or no cause. Doesn't matter, he had to go. Cause or no cause will be decided in court most likely. They could have a mountain of cause and this would still end up in court.
October 19, 20178 yr If we woke up this morning to a headline in the Lex Harold reading "Mitch Barnhart fired from UK"...THAT would need to include a statement. Jurich? The reasons are all in the news, and have been for months. There is absolutely no need for a statement, because if someone doesn't know, it's because they don't care or live under a rock.
October 19, 20178 yr I kind of feel like I don't give a crap what people who are 100% NOT invested in what happens at UL on any given day think about how UL fans react and expect.
October 19, 20178 yr UofL fans can act however they choose. But they aren't the only ones who can form an opinion. I find this to be an amazing case study
October 19, 20178 yr If we woke up this morning to a headline in the Lex Harold reading "Mitch Barnhart fired from UK"...THAT would need to include a statement. Jurich? The reasons are all in the news, and have been for months. There is absolutely no need for a statement, because if someone doesn't know, it's because they don't care or live under a rock. While True, we have also had issue after issue after issue come up at UofL. If UK fired Barnhart tomorrow with no issues present, yeah there would need to be some substance behind it.
October 19, 20178 yr Article with Jurich contract: SUNDAY EDITION | Why firing Tom Jurich could be ‘complicated or - WDRB 41 Louisville NewsRe Termination for cause clauses are outlined in 6.3 a through d. 6.4 identifies a 30-day cure period for a and b. Since there was no 30 day period then that leaves only c and d as the reasons for termination for cause. c) dishonest conduct resulting in detriment to the University d) willful misconduct detrimental to the University, including conviction of a felony.
October 20, 20178 yr The Godfather has left the building. Will be good for UL long term. Exactly how? And in the meantime?
October 24, 20178 yr University of Louisville skewers Tom Jurich in firing letter - WDRB 41 Louisville News LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) -- University of Louisville interim President Greg Postel blasted Tom Jurich in the formal letter firing the longtime athletics director last week. “(Y)our own willful misconduct has also been demonstrated through ineffective management, divisive leadership, unprofessional conduct, and a lack of collegiality best characterized as intimidation and bullying that extends from student government to the University's senior leadership,” Postel wrote. “This has caused substantial damage to the University.” In the letter, Postel accused Jurich of a “consistent and willful lack of supervision of head coaches” and noted “multiple compliance lapses occurring in multiple sports.” The entire Letter is in the Link.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.