W-T-F Now Poole is in jail

[Grisly Fan]

Question?

Person in Question buys 2 pills. Why 2, has he done them before and knows what goes on? Or did he buy two to give one to some unsuspecting victim? If I were going to experiment I think I would just buy 1 to start. Just trying to get in the mind of the younger generation.

Or maybe the person in question knows zero, zip, nada about the effects of the pills and thinks if one is good then two is better or that since this person may be of large stature then two instead of one would be needed to achieve the desired effect? Or maybe he thought he was buying "Good and Plenty", some for now and more for later (but most people are probably too young to recall this marketing tag line)? The fact is, only the buyer would know his motivation and it is unfair to assume nefarious purposes.

 

[wbtfg]

Maybe there was a 120 lb girl in line in front of him who bought 1 so he figured he should take 2.

Or maybe he's OCD and can only buy thing in even numbered incriments.

Or maybe he only bought one and the cops planted a second one on him.

Or maybe......

 

[tnt]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

There's no doubt Pflu failed to report the incident up the line, but Engstrom has always been clear in his releases that at least the official position of UM was that Pflu officially did nothing wrong because he was not required to do so under the procedures in place at that time (we can debate whether Pflu was stupid in failing to report it, which unofficially led to his firing).

The thing that intrigues me, however, is you normally are an outspoken advocate for Engstrom and I'm curious if that extends to the Barz report. It's pretty easy to blame the "cover-up" in amending the Barz report, if there was one, on O'Day and Foley, but it appears to me Engstrom was calling the shots. Earlier you stated UM would have been better off being open about what happened, but if that's true, I am curious as to why you don't think that includes Entstrom and what he has stated in his press releases.

I think you ask legitimate questions. But this was in January. My impression is that Engstrom saw the emails suggesting changes to the Barz report, wet himself laughing and answered "whatever" I suspect O'day and Foley still thought they had things under control and damage control was working. The official position WAS Pflu did nothing wrong and that the policy was wrong. My personal opinion is that had pflu kept his mouth shut on the JJ issue he MIGHT have survived. But even the getting rid of Oday et al, it was pretty hard to let O'day go and NOT Pflu. None the less pflu has been treated with a lot more respect and consideration, even giving him an office to conduct he job search from, than one would think.

Also in all those "press releases" Engstrom has repeated over and over in interviews that as open as he thought he was, the One thing he has learned through all of this is that he wasn't open enough, had he a PR attitude, I'd help light the torches. I don't think anyone knows how to handle these things as they are happening. They could have been handled better, but they could have been handled worse. Can you imagine the mess if PR was the legal consult and they actually listened to him????? What happens going forward will determine Engstrom's future. But he didn't cause THIS mess.

 

[GrizPony]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

So a gang bang, even if consensual (something you clearly can't fathom), requires reporting? How about naughty sex? You know, the stuff prohibited in the Bible? You sound pretty judgmental for claiming to be liberal minded sport.

 

[tnt]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

So a gang bang, even if consensual (something you clearly can't fathom), requires reporting? How about naughty sex? You know, the stuff prohibited in the Bible? You sound pretty judgmental for claiming to be liberal minded sport.

If its a significant enough event that the city PD comes to the coach and says it happened there was a question of possible rape, they don't have enough to make an arrest etc etc, but think you ought to know coach, yeah he propbably should. Otherwise it comes out in the paper, the spin master is going nuts the DOE wonders whats going on, is there a tile IX violation? DOJ says gee, maybe this isn't the only thing being kept quiet. Who knows maybe there are a bunch of people who think that a gang bang is not the best choice of activity for the "team" and they get pissed. Before you know it there is a veritable storm. Is it the coaches job to decide what information is important and which is not? Suppose he might of asked? hey Jim, "you can't believe what the cops just told me... Wonder what we should do?" and of course Jim says "wow this could turn out badly I better push it upstairs" of course that isn't what happen is it.

People consent to be stupid all the time, just like your post suggesting that athletes being involved in a gang bang well represents the University

 

[br fan]

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

There's no doubt Pflu failed to report the incident up the line, but Engstrom has always been clear in his releases that at least the official position of UM was that Pflu officially did nothing wrong because he was not required to do so under the procedures in place at that time (we can debate whether Pflu was stupid in failing to report it, which unofficially led to his firing).

The thing that intrigues me, however, is you normally are an outspoken advocate for Engstrom and I'm curious if that extends to the Barz report. It's pretty easy to blame the "cover-up" in amending the Barz report, if there was one, on O'Day and Foley, but it appears to me Engstrom was calling the shots. Earlier you stated UM would have been better off being open about what happened, but if that's true, I am curious as to why you don't think that includes Entstrom and what he has stated in his press releases.

I think you ask legitimate questions. But this was in January. My impression is that Engstrom saw the emails suggesting changes to the Barz report, wet himself laughing and answered "whatever" I suspect O'day and Foley still thought they had things under control and damage control was working. The official position WAS Pflu did nothing wrong and that the policy was wrong. My personal opinion is that had pflu kept his mouth shut on the JJ issue he MIGHT have survived. But even the getting rid of Oday et al, it was pretty hard to let O'day go and NOT Pflu. None the less pflu has been treated with a lot more respect and consideration, even giving him an office to conduct he job search from, than one would think.

Also in all those "press releases" Engstrom has repeated over and over in interviews that as open as he thought he was, the One thing he has learned through all of this is that he wasn't open enough, had he a PR attitude, I'd help light the torches. I don't think anyone knows how to handle these things as they are happening. They could have been handled better, but they could have been handled worse. Can you imagine the mess if PR was the legal consult and they actually listened to him????? What happens going forward will determine Engstrom's future. But he didn't cause THIS mess.

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that Engstrom wasn't aware of the severity of the situation or was somewhat out of the loop in January when the report was amended, but for the moment I'll assume that was case. What I'm talking about was his press release in February that went with the Missoulian article I posted above. In it Engstrom defended UM's actions in having the report amended to protect confidentiality, and this was after the Federal Investigations were announced. If I'm not mistaken that is still his position.

Now if amending the Barz report was a "cover up," I don't see your reasoning on why you feel Engstrom will only be judged on what he does going forward. He's part of where we are today regardless of when he knew. Personally, one of the reasons why I don't feel there was an intent to make this a cover up is Engstrom defending the amendment. At this point Engstrom's trying to protect his own job, so why take the position if it's not accurate.

With regard to Pflu having an office, he was not fired; his contract was not renewed and it does not expire until the end of the year. I don't think this was respect and consideration on UM's part. I think UM took the position that "we're not firing you," and Pflu took the position that "if that's the case you better provide me with an office."

 

[tnt]

Actually I have not said the report itself was "the coverup" (Someone else said that) but it DOES pretty well typlify what was going on. If they were trying to "hide" specific identifying information, they did a lousy job. Its debatable on fire/non renew. With no duties there was no need for an office. i doubt they even helped Oday clean his out.....


Of course he knew the situation was "bad" I believe he thought between the "Barz report", awarness classes, a revise conduct code etc etc and a few press conferences the storm that followed may have been avoided. I'm sure he had no clue that Foley and Couture would really screw the pooch only to have his coach proclaim to the world the high character of one of the accused rapists.

 

[PlayerRep]

Actually I have not said the report itself was "the coverup" (Someone else said that) but it DOES pretty well typlify what was going on. If they were trying to "hide" specific identifying information, they did a lousy job. Its debatable on fire/non renew. With no duties there was no need for an office. i doubt they even helped Oday clean his out.....


Of course he knew the situation was "bad" I believe he thought between the "Barz report", awarness classes, a revise conduct code etc etc and a few press conferences the storm that followed may have been avoided. I'm sure he had no clue that Foley and Couture would really screw the pooch only to have his coach proclaim to the world the high character of one of the accused rapists.

What contributed significantly to the "storm" was the firing of O'Day and Pflu. That escalated the situation significantly, caused huge amounts of press (and got UM into the meanstream national media), and caused many to assume there must be something horrible that would come out later. Appointing an independent investigator was also a mistake, at least in retrospect,. It started the bad press and got the Missoulian going. It looks like it turned out that there was nothing that needed independent investigation.

 

[PlayerRep]

yeah br, go back and read the emails and article. The edits were way more than simply covering up identities for privacy purposes--they covered up critical substance too. That's why i like to needle PR over this issue. He adamantly claims there was no "cover up" when the evidence literally shows that is what UM did.

Looks like the article brfan provided, completely supports my view and shoots down all of your argument. I knew it would.

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

I can understand that some believe Pflu could have reported up. However, I suspect that if he had informed O'Day (that the police had investigated a complaint that had no basis) that O'Day wouldn't have done anything with it. What would you want them to do with what appears to have been a false allegation? Jeez, even the university's honor code apparently ruled 7-0 in favor of the accuseds.

When there is no policy to report up, and the police have found that allegation to be untrue, I don't see how it's a big deal to leave the situation alone. The coaches didn't know who the accuser was or even that she was a student, as that was confidential police investigation information and was not provided to Pflu (nor should it have been). No one or nothing prevented the accuser from going to the university at that time.

And as others have said, there was NO gang bang. There wasn't even vaginal sex, apparently, And it turned out to be a false allegation, as determined by the police and the university honor court.

 

[tnt]

Actually I have not said the report itself was "the coverup" (Someone else said that) but it DOES pretty well typlify what was going on. If they were trying to "hide" specific identifying information, they did a lousy job. Its debatable on fire/non renew. With no duties there was no need for an office. i doubt they even helped Oday clean his out.....


Of course he knew the situation was "bad" I believe he thought between the "Barz report", awarness classes, a revise conduct code etc etc and a few press conferences the storm that followed may have been avoided. I'm sure he had no clue that Foley and Couture would really screw the pooch only to have his coach proclaim to the world the high character of one of the accused rapists.

What contributed significantly to the "storm" was the firing of O'Day and Pflu. That escalated the situation significantly, caused huge amounts of press (and got UM into the meanstream national media), and caused many to assume there must be something horrible that would come out later. Appointing an independent investigator was also a mistake, at least in retrospect,. It started the bad press and got the Missoulian going. It looks like it turned out that there was nothing that needed independent investigation.

There was no press before that? Were you hibernating? The NCAA investigation was 4 months old.... And were declaring i was crazy to think there would be DOE investigation let alone a DOJ. (This despite the fact the complaints to those agenceys were already published in the paper. ) But you believe Florio and company weren't up to something until AFTER the investigation and firings......

 

[PlayerRep]

Which part? The part where a coach was failing to report an alleged incident or the part where a university employee failed to report an alleged incident, you know so no one would ever know the football team was involved in an incident that would have fall out for the whole university??? Or could it have been the part where the coach/employee approves of team members involvment in a gang bang (or two) and feels it isn't important enough to the image of the university unless it rises to the level of a gang rape to be reported up the line???

There's no doubt Pflu failed to report the incident up the line, but Engstrom has always been clear in his releases that at least the official position of UM was that Pflu officially did nothing wrong because he was not required to do so under the procedures in place at that time (we can debate whether Pflu was stupid in failing to report it, which unofficially led to his firing).

The thing that intrigues me, however, is you normally are an outspoken advocate for Engstrom and I'm curious if that extends to the Barz report. It's pretty easy to blame the "cover-up" in amending the Barz report, if there was one, on O'Day and Foley, but it appears to me Engstrom was calling the shots. Earlier you stated UM would have been better off being open about what happened, but if that's true, I am curious as to why you don't think that includes Entstrom and what he has stated in his press releases.

I think you ask legitimate questions. But this was in January. My impression is that Engstrom saw the emails suggesting changes to the Barz report, wet himself laughing and answered "whatever" I suspect O'day and Foley still thought they had things under control and damage control was working. The official position WAS Pflu did nothing wrong and that the policy was wrong. My personal opinion is that had pflu kept his mouth shut on the JJ issue he MIGHT have survived. But even the getting rid of Oday et al, it was pretty hard to let O'day go and NOT Pflu. None the less pflu has been treated with a lot more respect and consideration, even giving him an office to conduct he job search from, than one would think.

Also in all those "press releases" Engstrom has repeated over and over in interviews that as open as he thought he was, the One thing he has learned through all of this is that he wasn't open enough, had he a PR attitude, I'd help light the torches. I don't think anyone knows how to handle these things as they are happening. They could have been handled better, but they could have been handled worse. Can you imagine the mess if PR was the legal consult and they actually listened to him????? What happens going forward will determine Engstrom's future. But he didn't cause THIS mess.

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that Engstrom wasn't aware of the severity of the situation or was somewhat out of the loop in January when the report was amended, but for the moment I'll assume that was case. What I'm talking about was his press release in February that went with the Missoulian article I posted above. In it Engstrom defended UM's actions in having the report amended to protect confidentiality, and this was after the Federal Investigations were announced. If I'm not mistaken that is still his position.

Now if amending the Barz report was a "cover up," I don't see your reasoning on why you feel Engstrom will only be judged on what he does going forward. He's part of where we are today regardless of when he knew. Personally, one of the reasons why I don't feel there was an intent to make this a cover up is Engstrom defending the amendment. At this point Engstrom's trying to protect his own job, so why take the position if it's not accurate.

With regard to Pflu having an office, he was not fired; his contract was not renewed and it does not expire until the end of the year. I don't think this was respect and consideration on UM's part. I think UM took the position that "we're not firing you," and Pflu took the position that "if that's the case you better provide me with an office."

Pflu was fired. The furnishing of an office was part of the settlement.

 

[Griz-O-Matic]

There's no doubt Pflu failed to report the incident up the line, but Engstrom has always been clear in his releases that at least the official position of UM was that Pflu officially did nothing wrong because he was not required to do so under the procedures in place at that time (we can debate whether Pflu was stupid in failing to report it, which unofficially led to his firing).

The thing that intrigues me, however, is you normally are an outspoken advocate for Engstrom and I'm curious if that extends to the Barz report. It's pretty easy to blame the "cover-up" in amending the Barz report, if there was one, on O'Day and Foley, but it appears to me Engstrom was calling the shots. Earlier you stated UM would have been better off being open about what happened, but if that's true, I am curious as to why you don't think that includes Entstrom and what he has stated in his press releases.

I think you ask legitimate questions. But this was in January. My impression is that Engstrom saw the emails suggesting changes to the Barz report, wet himself laughing and answered "whatever" I suspect O'day and Foley still thought they had things under control and damage control was working. The official position WAS Pflu did nothing wrong and that the policy was wrong. My personal opinion is that had pflu kept his mouth shut on the JJ issue he MIGHT have survived. But even the getting rid of Oday et al, it was pretty hard to let O'day go and NOT Pflu. None the less pflu has been treated with a lot more respect and consideration, even giving him an office to conduct he job search from, than one would think.

Also in all those "press releases" Engstrom has repeated over and over in interviews that as open as he thought he was, the One thing he has learned through all of this is that he wasn't open enough, had he a PR attitude, I'd help light the torches. I don't think anyone knows how to handle these things as they are happening. They could have been handled better, but they could have been handled worse. Can you imagine the mess if PR was the legal consult and they actually listened to him????? What happens going forward will determine Engstrom's future. But he didn't cause THIS mess.

I'm not sure that I agree with your premise that Engstrom wasn't aware of the severity of the situation or was somewhat out of the loop in January when the report was amended, but for the moment I'll assume that was case. What I'm talking about was his press release in February that went with the Missoulian article I posted above. In it Engstrom defended UM's actions in having the report amended to protect confidentiality, and this was after the Federal Investigations were announced. If I'm not mistaken that is still his position.

Now if amending the Barz report was a "cover up," I don't see your reasoning on why you feel Engstrom will only be judged on what he does going forward. He's part of where we are today regardless of when he knew. Personally, one of the reasons why I don't feel there was an intent to make this a cover up is Engstrom defending the amendment. At this point Engstrom's trying to protect his own job, so why take the position if it's not accurate.

With regard to Pflu having an office, he was not fired; his contract was not renewed and it does not expire until the end of the year. I don't think this was respect and consideration on UM's part. I think UM took the position that "we're not firing you," and Pflu took the position that "if that's the case you better provide me with an office."

Pflu was fired. The furnishing of an office was part of the settlement.

Proof?

 

[PlayerRep]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Hammer]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

 

[kurtismichael]

This thread has been both entertaining and boring all at the same time.

 

[Griz-O-Matic]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

Yeah, just a couple Hammer.

First, who wrote those articles, was it Florio?

Second, I have a hard time believing he was fired when he (as PR states), entered into an agreement that included an office? How do you get fired and get your salary and office, but yet still get fired? It's a bit confusing.....

 

[Cats2506]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Its in print in the Missoulian, therefore it must be fact :lol: :lol:

hammer has the logic of a woman :thumb:

 

[GRZFTBL]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Its in print in the Missoulian, therefore it must be fact :lol: :lol:

hammer has the logic of a woman :thumb:

So you're saying your mom is dumb? I think we all would agree she should have swallowed you but it's not nice to call your mom dumb.

 

[Hammer]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Its in print in the Missoulian, therefore it must be fact :lol: :lol:

hammer has the logic of a woman :thumb:

and you have the plumbing of a woman, gina boy!

 

[PlayerRep]

Missoulian headline on May 25.

"Still on UM payroll, fired Grizzlies coach Pflugrad gets office". Note the word "fired". Or Google the phrase "Was Pflugrad fired". Lots of articles saying he was fired will pop up.

He later entered into a settlement agreement with the university.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/still-on-um-payroll-fired-grizzlies-coach-pflugrad-gets-office/article_ed0b1ecc-a61a-11e1-92b4-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"There won't be a legal battle over the firing of former Grizzlies' head football coach Robin Pflugtrad." Note the word "firing".

http://montananewsnow.com/the-latest/2012/6/11/um-reaches-deal-to-settle-former-coachs-contract.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any other questions, Griz o matic?????? :lol:

Yeah, just a couple Hammer.

First, who wrote those articles, was it Florio?

Second, I have a hard time believing he was fired when he (as PR states), entered into an agreement that included an office? How do you get fired and get your salary and office, but yet still get fired? It's a bit confusing.....

He didn't remain in his office. He eventually was given an office in the library.

He hired a lawyer to represent him and eventually entered into a settlement arrangement with the university.

I would ask you: how does a football coach get removed as the team's coach and kicked out of his office and taken off the university's email system, and not have been fired as the football coach?