I know the rumors were that Gillispie had never signed his contract with Kentucky, but I guess that was all wrong. He's suing Kentucky over breach of contract - for $6mill. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4210508)
It's based on a Memorandum of Understanding, not an actual contract extension.
An MOU is a negotiated, signed written instrument. Unless there is something in there that qualifies the agreement, that's a written contract.
Maybe one of the corporate law types on the board could elaborate.
Quote from: BrewCity on May 28, 2009, 10:11:45 AM
It's based on a Memorandum of Understanding, not an actual contract extension.
This was a written agreement, apparently signed by both parties, outlining expectations and obligations. That sure as hell sounds like a contract to me.
I thought the MOU was not signed by Gillispie.
Not only did he sign it but the university enforced certain terms against Gillispie preventing him from some promotional/rep work in Houston. Kentucky is going to have a hard time arguing to Gillispie that he might be in breach of the MOU and then in court argue that the MOU was not an agreement.
Offer-Acceptance-Consideration-Performance....Gillispie wins.
Quote from: BrewCity on May 28, 2009, 11:52:59 AM
I thought the MOU was not signed by Gillispie.
Points up at the title of the thread.If he hadn't signed it, his $6 million claim would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat. Gillispie's attorney would be talking about "implied contracts" and "verbal contracts" trying to get him some compensation/severance.
Also, it's interesting the last line of that article states:
Quote
He is not coaching right now.
Implying he will be shortly?
Of course, Kentucky was paying BG in accordance with the MOU (whether signed or not). That would also come to bear in this situation.
"The lawsuit filed in federal court in Dallas contends the school's athletics association . . . has committed fraud because the university never intended to honor the agreement."
The fraud claim is likely to be really tough to prove.
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf
Scroll towards the bottom.
This will be settled out of court. Gillispie is just showing he's ready to play hard ball.
Just like Buzz's case will be settled out of court. I do not expect there to be a trial in his case.
Quote from: PE8983 on May 28, 2009, 01:07:52 PM
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf
Scroll towards the bottom.
Page 25 of 29, specifically.
Wow, Kentucky looks to be in a bind, if you read C.27 anc C.28 in the pdf. Kentucky was the ones that ended the employment contract negotiations, and instead referrenced the MOU as the binding contract between the two parties.
The memorandum of understanding should be held up in court as a valid contract. Kentucky's got no real defense on that end, since it is considered more or less a valid contract (although not necessarily titled a contract).
The fraud claim, though, Gillespie's got no real claim to. He needs to prove some sort of malicious intent on the part of UK to get him to leave A&M.
In the end, this will probably end up settled out of court. I wouldn't be surprised if BCG does collect on most of what he's asking for.
If either side started to enforce or perform within the contract, you don't need a signature. Alot of times (not all), signature just represents the intent to enter into a contract (acceptance). If there is proof of performance, then that can qualify as either party's intention to enter into a binding agreement.
well done the last two of you. :)
your law or prelaw profs would be proud.
Hahaha, this is just getting good. Kentucky filed a counter-suit, which was expected. (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4213096)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 28, 2009, 03:57:35 PM
well done the last two of you. :)
your law or prelaw profs would be proud.
Actually, believe or not, not a law student/lawyer. CPA-in-training, so all I took was a couple of business law courses. But thanks for the complement though ;)
It would behoove the university to settle the matter quickly.
One can only imagine UK hoops having to deal with two prolonged messes - Gillespie's suit and Calipari's alleged indiscretions at Memphis - during the AAU season and recruiting period.
Quote from: Avenue Commons on May 28, 2009, 11:48:05 AM
An MOU is a negotiated, signed written instrument. Unless there is something in there that qualifies the agreement, that's a written contract.
Maybe one of the corporate law types on the board could elaborate.
Most interesting to me is that he filed in Texas. UK filed a countersuit today in Kentucky. I'm sure BG felt that if he filed in Kentucky he would have no chance of winning, but by filing in Texas did he make a procedural mistake that will have the lawsuit dismissed?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 28, 2009, 11:40:35 PM
Most interesting to me is that he filed in Texas. UK filed a countersuit today in Kentucky. I'm sure BG felt that if he filed in Kentucky he would have no chance of winning, but by filing in Texas did he make a procedural mistake that will have the lawsuit dismissed?
What BG has to show is that in negotiating the deal -- apparently in Texas per his suit -- that UK had sufficient presence in or contact within the State of Texas to render it subject to jurisdiction of its laws on this matter. This will involve an analysis of the amount and type of communication that occurred there (including calls into the State, etc.), physical presence in the State by UK officials for meetings, negotiations, etc.
My quick scan of the complaint leads me to believe he will be successful in keeping it in Texas and UK is likely to have to re-file what should become a counter-claim in Texas as well.
I wholeheartedly agree that a filing in KY might have been quitee problematic for BG. But the facts -- as I understand them -- seem to bode well for him on the basic breach of contract claim. I still think the fraud claim will fail as he has to show that they intended to commit fraud when they hired him and that they actually defrauded him in some manner. I just do not see that here.
I am a Houston attorney/MU alum, and know Gillespie's attorney...a sort of file first, run to the press conference, plaintiff's lawyer (he's good). The MOU is a contract, but it lacks the detail terms usually in an employment agreement ; especially lacking are terms "gauranteeing" payout on termination. G was to be paid $sum per year, and MOU referenced a term (5 years?), but it is silent as to remedies/obligations on early termination, its grounds, and there is not any obligation of UK to payout future years. Analogize and think of a NFL multi year contract, which can be cut off, including no pay, by cutting the player...vs. NBA contract: you can cut him, but contract "gaurantees" the full payout. The suit is just leverage/home court forum choosing; it doesnt improve the vague unresolved brevity of the MOU. I'd guess a 25-40% lump sum settlement, depending, a bit, on how personal, or public the war of words.
Quote from: PE8983 on May 28, 2009, 01:07:52 PM
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2009/05/27/16/gillispielawsuit.source.prod_affiliate.79.pdf
Scroll towards the bottom.
I'd say this Complaint goes a little beyond Rule 8 requirements of "a short and plain statement of the grounds" on which relief may be granted. It's a autobiography. Whatever happened to notice pleading???!!! Terrrible pleading!!
Quote from: lurch91 on May 28, 2009, 12:09:36 PM
Also, it's interesting the last line of that article states: quote he is not coaching right now.
Implying he will be shortly?
ok, so this might be a little far fetched conspiracy theory in the making, but whattayathink?
If we have not hired an assistant coach yet could the delay be that Buzz and Gillispie are waiting for this to resolve a bit before inking gillispie to an MU contract? Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?
I am shooting from the hip and have not looked into this very deep at all, but just wanted to see your thoughts.
As far a conspiracy theories go, I would think that signing as an assistant somewhere would strength Gillispie's arguement that Kentucky damaged his reputation in the coaching circles, etc. and possibly help Gillispie recover the punitive damages he's seeking.
Quote from: thanooj on May 29, 2009, 09:45:55 AM
ok, so this might be a little far fetched conspiracy theory in the making, but whattayathink?
If we have not hired an assistant coach yet could the delay be that Buzz and Gillispie are waiting for this to resolve a bit before inking gillispie to an MU contract? Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?
I am shooting from the hip and have not looked into this very deep at all, but just wanted to see your thoughts.
Gillispie used to be the head coach at Kentucky. The previous head coaches at Kentucky dating back to Rupp went to be head coaches at Minnesota (Smith), the Boston Celtics (Pitino), Oklahoma State (Sutton) and simply retired (Hall and Rupp). I would be amazed to see him take an assitant's postion with one of his former assistants rather than wait a year when some good job will open up for him somewhere.
Quote from: thanooj on May 29, 2009, 09:45:55 AM
ok, so this might be a little far fetched conspiracy theory in the making, but whattayathink?
If we have not hired an assistant coach yet could the delay be that Buzz and Gillispie are waiting for this to resolve a bit before inking gillispie to an MU contract? Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?
I am shooting from the hip and have not looked into this very deep at all, but just wanted to see your thoughts.
Gillispie isn't coming here, and I think his friendship with Buzz has been overstated a bit. Remember, Buzz had the chance to go work for him again at Kentucky for as much if not more money than MU was offering...and he chose not to work with BCG again. Given what we know about the two, it doesn't seem like they would have matching personalities.
Do we even want Gillispie? I understand the value of having an experienced coach as an assistant, but wouldn't having a high profile guy like that just make your HC constantly look over his shoulder.
I see Gillispie going the Huggings route. Take a year off for some unrestricted recruiting, then get a big deal with a flailing major next season with a list of guaranteed commits. Instant program savior...
Quote from: thanooj on May 29, 2009, 09:45:55 AM
Does the fact that he is not coaching "right now" have any bearing on the outcome of the suit?
If, as houwarrior states above, BG does not have a guaranteed contract [I have not read the MOU] it would seem to me one of UK's defenses would be a claim that BG has failed to act in a manner to mitigate [minimize] his damages by failing to seek other employment to replace lost income.
I predict DePaul will go after Gillispie very hard after this season.
DePaul will not spend any money for a coach like Gillispie unless you think Gillispie would coach for short money. JW was making $593,000 a year. Heck, DePaul refused to fire JW because they did not want to pay 2 coaches.
Look for DePaul to promote one of the assistants so they can avoid a big contract with a known coach.
Let's put it this way, I feel I'm in no danger of having to eat my hat on video for this group. I would be STUNNED if BG comes to MU. He's a head coach now, taking an assistant position at this point in his career is a bad move.
Not so fast-----there is another element to this----and that is that Billy couldn't be fired without "cause". Now who or what determines "cause"------is not going to the NCAA tournament for the first time since 1991 "cause"? Is losing the second most games in UK history this past season "cause"?
Obviously performance or lack thereof was the reason he was fired-----was what constitutes "cause" defined in a short contract known as a MOU?
Or another twist-----Billy has a reputation as a heavy drinker-----if this interfered with his job is that "cause" to be fired? Maybe UK has some documented instances where his drinking embarrassed the university and/or interfered with his properly conducting job.
Seems to me that UK officials/lawyerswould have done their due diligence per the MOU before they fired him.