Pflu was right?

[ranco]

Engstrom may have been properly advised that in Montana you cannot fire someone without cause (absent a probationary period), even if you have a contract saying you can. He may have been advised that doing so would give rise to a cause of action under Montana's wrongful discharge act (which allows, as damages, up to 4 years of wages). With that advice, he may have decided to fire them anyway and simply pay the bill afterwards. Employers actually have that right and some choose to exercise it. Unfortunately, its us tax payers that will be paying Engstrom's bill. BTW, since Engstrom is named in the new Federal complaint, it obviously means he guilty of the same wrongs as O'day and Pflu. I guess his pink slip better be next.

 

[PlayerRep]

Just ask around, especially with those in the know, in Missoula, and they will say Engtrom consulted Christian, Lopatch, Williams and Aronsoky (on legal matters).

If he consulted with these fine folks on legal matters then I think that any of them would have told him that his reasoning of "change of leadership" would be sufficient enough to not cause a lawsuit. Wouldn't you agree Jack? I can't figure out why you're so adamant that he give a different reason if he consulted with attorneys beforehand.

You just keep speaking and contradicting yourself. I'm loving it.

Only one of those people are lawyers. I doubt that anyone told him that the firings would not result in a lawsuit. Claims over firings are made all the time in MT. I haven't been "adamant that he gave a different reason". In fact, I don't even know what your phrase means. It's not even understandable. I have not contradicted myself at all.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. If you're going to keep posting, consider posting in English.

Aronofsky should've been wise enough to mention that Engstrom would need to give a better reason than he did.

You keep questioning why Engstrom hasn't clarified or justified his decision. Not only on this board, but out in public.

Oh, and I find it quite funny that you of all people would be questioning my grammar when it's very apparent that you can't even grasp the concept of hearsay.

Actually, I have said very little, on the board or otherwise, questioning why Engstrom hasn't clarified or justified his decision. The few times I've said anything on the board, or otherwise, I've said that his silence is causing the problem to get bigger, and people/companies/institutions often have to speak even if the lawyers are advising not to speak. My view is that legal concerns cannot dictate how a company/institution does it business, as there are other important concerns other than just legal ones.

On a message board, who would care about hearsay anyway? It's silly even to bring up the term on a message board, unless you were making a purely legal point about particular hearsay evidence not being allowed in court. Much of what is said on the internet is hearsay.

 

[grizbrokebacker1]

Actually, I have said very little, on the board or otherwise, questioning why Engstrom hasn't clarified or justified his decision. The few times I've said anything on the board, or otherwise, I've said that his silence is causing the problem to get bigger, and people/companies/institutions often have to speak even if the lawyers are advising not to speak.

You just proved my point. You think he should clarify his reasons other than to just say "change of leadership".

My view is that legal concerns cannot dictate how a company/institution does it business, as there are other important concerns other than just legal ones.

Unfortunately in this litigious society, legal concerns DO dictate how corporations and private institutions do business and Engstrom should not be saying anything else until this is played out in a court of law.

On a message board, who would care about hearsay anyway? It's silly even to bring up the term on a message board, unless you were making a purely legal point about particular hearsay evidence not being allowed in court. Much of what is said on the internet is hearsay.

You should care. Isn't it your business?

 

[putter]

I just watched the film "The Program" again last night. Interesting parallels and James Caan's character knew about a lot of stuff and tried to protect his players and keep them on the field. Not saying anything, just watched with a very different viewpoint given the circumstances of this year.

 

[PlayerRep]

Actually, I have said very little, on the board or otherwise, questioning why Engstrom hasn't clarified or justified his decision. The few times I've said anything on the board, or otherwise, I've said that his silence is causing the problem to get bigger, and people/companies/institutions often have to speak even if the lawyers are advising not to speak.

You just proved my point. You think he should clarify his reasons other than to just say "change of leadership".

My view is that legal concerns cannot dictate how a company/institution does it business, as there are other important concerns other than just legal ones.

Unfortunately in this litigious society, legal concerns DO dictate how corporations and private institutions do business and Engstrom should not be saying anything else until this is played out in a court of law.

On a message board, who would care about hearsay anyway? It's silly even to bring up the term on a message board, unless you were making a purely legal point about particular hearsay evidence not being allowed in court. Much of what is said on the internet is hearsay.

You should care. Isn't it your business?

Nope, I refuted your point. I haven't said he should clarify his reasons. I have said I think he will have to say more eventually, if the pressure to speak keeps building. A public institution shouldn't and can't hide behind legal things forever.

Nope, legal things influence how companies/institutions do business. They often don't "dictate" how things are done, and they are usually not the only factor to be considered.

Nope, nobody, including myself, should care about heresay on the internet, and no hearsay is not my business.

 

[mcg]

3. Reason for firings - The president has refused to say why the firings occurred. This is hurting his credibility. There's enough information out there (in this small community), and many people can now see that there were no reasons to justify this action.

What part of "without cause" can't your pea brain comprehend?

After the recent YC case, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee without cause no longer exists in Montana, except in the early months during any probationary period.

What I keep coming back to is that no one was fired. Their contracts weren't renewed. Both are still on the payroll.

 

[tnt]

What has happened Despite Yellowstone, fired, nonrenewd, fired, burned at the stake or lynched, Pflu and JOD are gone, and they aren't coming back. If you know the reasons, they aren't coming back. If you NEVER know the reasons, they aren't coming back.

If you give up your tickets, there is a LONG list of folks willing to buy them AND pay the associated donation. And guess what? You won't get them back either.

 

[Growler1]

Growler - don't believe I ever said I was 'ending my donations to athletics', only that they were suspended until I heard an explanation. Two very different things.

Next?

You took your ball and went home because things didn't unfold the way you wanted. That's weak, dude. NEXT!

 

[Growler1]

Okay, I'll take a shot at answering.

1. Level headed - Yes, but didn't consult the right people, listened to the wrong people, and just made a major blunder.
Privy to non-public information - Highly unlikely.

How in hell, I say, HOW IN HELL do you know this? Were you THERE? Were you any place? Or are you, just like so many on this board & in the community, going on hearsay, conjecture, and speculation? If you are a UM grad, you didn't learn much about solid evidence of anything, that hearsay, etc., and superstition, while I'm at it, are valid for forming a conclusion irrespective of facts based on solid evidence. Geezuz! The crap I'm seeing on this board. It's like a bunch of old wives gossiping while knitting. Gossip is fun, but doesn't mean a damned thing.

Fact is, all we have is hearsay & what's in the press or other public statements, and re: public statements, I'm not so sure what Pflu said re: JJ is the sole reason he was fired, like several of you claim. Ok, old gals, go back to your knitting and mumble on.

Just ask around, especially with those in the know, in Missoula, and they will say Engtrom consulted Christian, Lopatch, Williams and Aronsoky (on legal matters). And didn't consult his senior vp, Foley, who sits next to him and knows alot about the athletic department. If you have any information to the contrary, feel free to provide it. However, just because you aren't in the know, doesn't mean that others in the community aren't.

Hearsay, pure and simple. :bad:

Don't you know that Play-a Rape sits at the right hand of God, as well as all Grizzly officials and players?

 

[Bear Spray]

3. Reason for firings - The president has refused to say why the firings occurred. This is hurting his credibility. There's enough information out there (in this small community), and many people can now see that there were no reasons to justify this action.

What part of "without cause" can't your pea brain comprehend?

After the recent YC case, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee without cause no longer exists in Montana, except in the early months during any probationary period.

What I keep coming back to is that no one was fired. Their contracts weren't renewed. Both are still on the payroll.

Bazinga! Read the UM statement again - UM 'has determined not to renew the contracts" of both men.

 

[Grizzoola]

Just ask around, especially with those in the know, in Missoula, and they will say Engtrom consulted Christian, Lopatch, Williams and Aronsoky (on legal matters). And didn't consult his senior vp, Foley, who sits next to him and knows alot about the athletic department. If you have any information to the contrary, feel free to provide it. However, just because you aren't in the know, doesn't mean that others in the community aren't.

Hearsay, pure and simple. :bad:

Don't you know that Play-a Rape sits at the right hand of God, as well as all Grizzly officials and players?

If it weren't for hearsay, PR wouldn't have a thing to say on this board.

 

[PlayerRep]

3. Reason for firings - The president has refused to say why the firings occurred. This is hurting his credibility. There's enough information out there (in this small community), and many people can now see that there were no reasons to justify this action.

What part of "without cause" can't your pea brain comprehend?

After the recent YC case, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee without cause no longer exists in Montana, except in the early months during any probationary period.

What I keep coming back to is that no one was fired. Their contracts weren't renewed. Both are still on the payroll.

If you don't have your job anymore, then you have been fired. You really are dense.

 

[argh!]

What part of "without cause" can't your pea brain comprehend?

After the recent YC case, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee without cause no longer exists in Montana, except in the early months during any probationary period.

What I keep coming back to is that no one was fired. Their contracts weren't renewed. Both are still on the payroll.

If you don't have your job anymore, then you have been fired. You really are dense.

"if you don't have your job anymore, then you have been fired".

you are really dense.

 

[MooUBaby]

After the recent YC case, the ability of an employer to terminate an employee without cause no longer exists in Montana, except in the early months during any probationary period.

What I keep coming back to is that no one was fired. Their contracts weren't renewed. Both are still on the payroll.

If you don't have your job anymore, then you have been fired. You really are dense.

"if you don't have your job anymore, then you have been fired".

Hey, you don't say that!!PlayerRep can't handle the truth.

you are really dense.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

Move on, people. We have a new coach, any downside economic impact is manageable, the faculty is mollified, and the wide receivers look good. Why worry?

 

[Tokyogriz]

When Royce Engstrom is run out of town then all will be good. Or at least it will be the final chapter in a hysterical pitchfork and pagan burning horror movie.

 

[goatcreekgriz]

I'm all for anarchy, as entertainment if nothing else, but it does note bode well for a university or a football team. It's time to move on.

 

[Proud Griz Man]

God some of you douches on this board are dicks.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

candidate for post of the year !! :!:

 

[HighLineGRIZ]

Wow - that makes sense.... Pflu is guilty, he should hang, die, be stripped, tared, feathered, and thrown away. I look forward to the future allegations being settled and the real truth to come out. At that time, I will be the first to ask you if you were right or wrong about Pflu, but I'm sure you'll say he's a douchebag, guilty, poor judgement, etc... blah, blah, blah - how can you say that crap about someone you've NEVER even talked to or met? I just don't understand people like you that are more than willing to crucify someone you don't even know?

I have met him, and talked with him for over an hour. Nice guy. Does that mean I agree with his cover-ups of criminals? No.

Wow!! Over an hour?? You are soooo cool.... I bet you also have many leather-bound books and your condo smells of rich mahogany:lol:

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Wow - that makes sense.... Pflu is guilty, he should hang, die, be stripped, tared, feathered, and thrown away. I look forward to the future allegations being settled and the real truth to come out. At that time, I will be the first to ask you if you were right or wrong about Pflu, but I'm sure you'll say he's a douchebag, guilty, poor judgement, etc... blah, blah, blah - how can you say that crap about someone you've NEVER even talked to or met? I just don't understand people like you that are more than willing to crucify someone you don't even know?

I have met him, and talked with him for over an hour. Nice guy. Does that mean I agree with his cover-ups of criminals? No.

Wow!! Over an hour?? You are soooo cool.... I bet you also have many leather-bound books and your condo smells of rich mahogany:lol:

Or an old, old wooden ship used during the civil war era. Though, he does live in Phoenix, so the smart money is on it smelling like dirt and giving up.