O'Day lawyers up

[PlayerRep]

Unfortunately, a verbal contract to enter a written contract argument is going to carry little weight. Otherwise, under your logic, if you tell a car dealer you want to buy a car and then back out the car dealer could sue you for the price of the car. So no, this does not create a cause of action. Now, if Phlu or O'day could show they were offered employment elsewhere and UM convinced them to stay by promising them a new deal, that may give rise to claim but there has been nothing published to indicate that those events occurred. Rather, based on published reports, it appears UM was coming up on the renewal period, events happened they didn't like so they simply told them they would not be entering into any new contracts with them. Assuming they are paid everything owed under the existing contract (which they will be because UM isn't going to do something stupid) and no other comments are made, case closed, Cliff Edwards or no Cliff Edwards. And for the records, Kramer's settlement wasn't viewed as a "win" by anyone. It simply was an acknowledgement that MSU would likely spend more money to bring the case through trial and Kramer was interesting in taking a coaching job. For Cliff, three years of work for 1/3 of $240k really isn't much of a pay day. As for Kramer, $160k for three years, could have likely made more coaching junior high football in California (that is being facetious), but considering costs associated with litigation, he likely would have made more money moving on and taking an Asst. coaching job somewhere.

You're wrong. Listen to Milt tonight on KPAX. His argument is that a contract of reliance was created in December. O'Day will be the first witness. Pflu relied on the promise of three more years of employment when he approached both new coaches and recruits. The next witnesses called will be the assistant coaches that relied on Pflu and O'Day's promises and moved their families here. Milt will then ice the cake by calling recruits and their families who will attest that Pflu and O'Day assured them that Pflu would be here for three years minimum. Leave the lawyering to the real lawyers. :thumb:

Yes, this is the argument. It's more than an argument. It's true. There are probably emails discussing the 3-year contract. Do you think O'Day has any incentive to support Engstrom on this university on saying there was no promise of a 3-year contract.

By the way, it's not a verbal contract to enter into a contract. The verbal contract is the contract. Doeb's post and analysis is just plain wrong, and dumb.

There is a new MT Supreme Court case that may impact the situation. I don't have the facts of the contract and situation to match up with the case, so I don't really know where this will come out.

 

[doebrmn]

You still have to demonstrate offer and acceptance. Again, without anyone on this board knowing the facts it is all speculation. But to prove a contract existed, the emails would have to show that there was a meeting of the minds. Which seems unlikely, otherwise why wouldn't they have just signed the new deals. More likely any emails, letters, etc. are going to demonstrate that the two sides were in negotiations over a new deal but had not reached an agreement. As discussed earlier, if evidence demonstrates that the two deterimentally relied on some type of promise made by UM then they may have a claim but there have been no published facts to support that claim.

 

[GrizPony]

Now, if Phlu or O'day could show they were offered employment elsewhere and UM convinced them to stay by promising them a new deal, that may give rise to claim but there has been nothing published to indicate that those events occurred.

Crack, perhaps you should simply learn to read. What exactly about the above quote don't you understand as it directly relates to a claim of detrimental reliance. For future reference, you would be wise to leave the lawyering to a real lawyer.

I did leave it up to a real lawyer. I pointed out that something was published that showed proof of reliance. Thanks for playing.

 

[PlayerRep]

When Robin goes to court on if he did or didn't have an oral contract extention for three more years?
Who will Milts 1st witness be? Jim O'Day maybe? Who else could have acted FOR the University of Montana at that time to offer that contract, but Jim?

Gametime, you're the one who doesn't get it! If you're so smart, you tell us what they did wrong? O'Day will have a job within a year, and Pflugrad will be somewhere before the start of season 2013!

1. They do nothing (other than a one quarter suspension) to Kemp and Johnson when they have confrontation with police and subsequent charges;

2. 2010 rape allegations against players, they do nothing to discipline players;

3. 2011 rape allegations against players, during season, they do nothing to discipline players;

4. 2012 rape allegation against Johnson. They suspend, then reinstate Johnson despite civil agreement for him to stay 1500 feet away from alleged victim, then publicly proclaim his great character and leadership skills.

They created a culture of acceptance to unacceptable behavior whether criminal or not. There are lots of things that people do that may or may not rise to the level of criminal conduct, but just isn't the way people should behave. And if they do there should be consequences. They were like the parent with no discipline with their kids. Eventually the kids are out of control, and that my friend it's exactly what happened with the players.

Gametime, you are completely wrong.

1. There was more discipline, and the initial discipline was to be reassessed after the case was complete.

2. There was discipline against the players. In fact, they were read the riot act, had to call their parents to inform them of the incident, and all were put on probation, and one player was eventually dismissed.

3. There were no facts to support the allegations. 61 players were interviewed in Texas on the day of the SHS game. Due to interference of the Missoulian, the women stopped talking to anyone.

4. There is no legal order or charge against JJ. I believe the agreement is mutual and the woman must also stay 1500 feet away from JJ. JJ already was held out of the first week of spring practice.

Of all of Pflu's recruits, the legal charges (as resolved, if they were resolved) are as follows. Montana - reckless driving. Kemp/Johnson - disorderly contract. Maus - dui and ? - indefinitely suspended. Root - partner assault - this one is bogus and will be resolved favorably. Middleton - dui in WA. What else is there?

So a coach should be fired for this? You've got to be kidding.

 

[doebrmn]

Statements by lawyers are not evidence (which interestingly is the precise instruction given by the Judge before the start of any trial). Moreover, evidence that asst. coaches and players relied on Phlu or O'Day's statements they were going to be around would not be evidence of reliance on the part of Phlu and O'Day, that would be evidence of reliance on the part of the asst. coaches and players. Only time will tell if they can demonstrate that some promise was made in December that they relied upon to their deteriment. However, based on your report, there has yet to be any reported facts to support that claim.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Arguing the merits of any claim here is like the arguments about whether any of the alleged sexual assaults involved consent -- not enough facts to evaluate, though I am not sure that any failure to talk to Foley necessarily means much.

 

[PlayerRep]

Statements by lawyers are not evidence (which interestingly is the precise instruction given by the Judge before the start of any trial). Moreover, evidence that asst. coaches and players relied on Phlu or O'Day's statements they were going to be around would not be evidence of reliance on the part of Phlu and O'Day, that would be evidence of reliance on the part of the asst. coaches and players. Only time will tell if they can demonstrate that some promise was made in December that they relied upon to their deteriment. However, based on your report, there has yet to be any reported facts to support that claim.

Statements by dumbass Bobcat lawyers on Griz matters are not credible. Please, stop the BS.

 

[GrizPony]

Statements by lawyers are not evidence (which interestingly is the precise instruction given by the Judge before the start of any trial). Moreover, evidence that asst. coaches and players relied on Phlu or O'Day's statements they were going to be around would not be evidence of reliance on the part of Phlu and O'Day, that would be evidence of reliance on the part of the asst. coaches and players. Only time will tell if they can demonstrate that some promise was made in December that they relied upon to their deteriment. However, based on your report, there has yet to be any reported facts to support that claim.

The report on KPAX intimated that evidence existed. It wasn't Milt giving his opinion, he was commenting on evidence he possessed, I thought anyway. We will all know how it comes out soon enough I am sure. I will take the advice of goatcreek and wait for the chips to fall from here on out.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Crack: Thanks for admitting I'm a "real" lawyer. That diploma from a Crackerjacks box notwithstanding.

 

[doebrmn]

And people who resort to calling someone names because they lack any logical arguments only demonstrate their own ignorance.

 

[GrizPony]

Crack: Thanks for admitting I'm a "real" lawyer. That diploma from a Crackerjacks box notwithstanding.

I had to choose between two Ivy League lawyers or a Bobcat lawyer. I chose well. lol

 

[PlayerRep]

And people who resort to calling someone names because they lack any logical arguments only demonstrate their own ignorance.

Accurate descriptions of people like you does not equal name-calling.

 

[garizzalies]

so Edwards will rep Oday and Milt will rep Pflu? That is surprising to me as they are both huge griz fans. is it an indication of their true beliefs and/or merits of the case or just bloodsuckers?

 

[Gametime]

When Robin goes to court on if he did or didn't have an oral contract extention for three more years?
Who will Milts 1st witness be? Jim O'Day maybe? Who else could have acted FOR the University of Montana at that time to offer that contract, but Jim?

Gametime, you're the one who doesn't get it! If you're so smart, you tell us what they did wrong? O'Day will have a job within a year, and Pflugrad will be somewhere before the start of season 2013!

1. They do nothing (other than a one quarter suspension) to Kemp and Johnson when they have confrontation with police and subsequent charges;

2. 2010 rape allegations against players, they do nothing to discipline players;

3. 2011 rape allegations against players, during season, they do nothing to discipline players;

4. 2012 rape allegation against Johnson. They suspend, then reinstate Johnson despite civil agreement for him to stay 1500 feet away from alleged victim, then publicly proclaim his great character and leadership skills.

They created a culture of acceptance to unacceptable behavior whether criminal or not. There are lots of things that people do that may or may not rise to the level of criminal conduct, but just isn't the way people should behave. And if they do there should be consequences. They were like the parent with no discipline with their kids. Eventually the kids are out of control, and that my friend it's exactly what happened with the players.

Gametime, you are completely wrong.

1. There was more discipline, and the initial discipline was to be reassessed after the case was complete.

2. There was discipline against the players. In fact, they were read the riot act, had to call their parents to inform them of the incident, and all were put on probation, and one player was eventually dismissed.

3. There were no facts to support the allegations. 61 players were interviewed in Texas on the day of the SHS game. Due to interference of the Missoulian, the women stopped talking to anyone.

4. There is no legal order or charge against JJ. I believe the agreement is mutual and the woman must also stay 1500 feet away from JJ. JJ already was held out of the first week of spring practice.

Of all of Pflu's recruits, the legal charges (as resolved, if they were resolved) are as follows. Montana - reckless driving. Kemp/Johnson - disorderly contract. Maus - dui and ? - indefinitely suspended. Root - partner assault - this one is bogus and will be resolved favorably. Middleton - dui in WA. What else is there?

So a coach should be fired for this? You've got to be kidding.

IMO, the question is not whether the charges are valid or not. The issue is how they handled it. What I would have liked to see, is a legitimate public statement, that the players are going to be held to a higher standard because of their position in the community. Most of the players are great kids. How about starting a program in the community to help victims of sexual assault, or counseling of young males what is and is not appropriate, do something. I know that is asking a lot and may even be far fetched. But the situation was a public relations nightmare. And I am sure you are correct that they did things behind the scenes to scold the players regarding their behavior. If so, then they should have come out and made a public statement concerning what they would accept or not accept regarding player behavior. They were the leaders, they needed to lead not sit back. You also may be correct that they shouldn't be fired, but something had to change.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Both Cliff and Milt care about UM, care about UM Football, appreciate the attention, and generally represent Plaintiffs in civil matters. Nothing more. They will represent their clients well.

 

[Bear Axed]

Crack: Thanks for admitting I'm a "real" lawyer. That diploma from a Crackerjacks box notwithstanding.

I had to choose between two Ivy League lawyers or a Bobcat lawyer. I chose well. lol

a bobkitten lawyer that still thinks krammer screwed msu through edwards? :lol:

He's the same guy that spouted off for 3 years how krammer would never collect a dime
and was only wasting his time

 

[Sportin' Life]

Well, Kramer managed to get the Idaho St. gig, but I sure as hell wouldn't consider hiring a coach or administrator that sued their former place of employment rather than just walking away with dignity. I suppose there are always the Idaho St's of the world out there for them.

 

[kemajic]

The lawsuits by O'Day and Pflugrad will effectively end their respective careers. Potential short term gain, and with long term red flags to other potential employers. In my opinion, the fact that either would sue, rather than accept consequences for their own actions or in this case non-action, confirms exactly why they were let go. Neither one of them understand what they have done wrong, they still don't get it.

Hmmm. Didn't seem to end Kramer's career. How about Leach?

 

[kemajic]

For the very reasons stated, it is unlikely anyone will know exactly why the contracts were not renewed. Unless there is some smoking gun memo, UM (I am sure on the advice of counsel) will continue stating that they simply chose not to renew the contracts.

There has already been posted a pretty believeable analysis elsewhere:

1. Player aka “”P” breaks up with girlfriend aka “X”
2. “P” gets drunk at party.
3. “X” takes player home.
4. X sleeps with P
5. X thinks P loves her
6. P says no, we both made big mistake.
7. Scorned X cries rape
8. P suspended from team
9. Police investigate and say no rape, no charges
10. Coach knows the whole story
11. Coach welcomes P back to the team.
12. Coach states that P is of good moral character
13. Female faculty revolts
14. Weak president relents to female faculty pressure
15. President forms a firing squad and executes department leaders

 

[PlayerRep]

I'm not so sure you can sue for "we changed our mind, and we are not going to renew your contract."

IMO O'Day should probably get a defense attorney.

Again, just to expose this goarmy guy, I'm responding to all his old posts.

Both of these comments are total BS.