The Muschamp Clause

[GMDGator]

Foley is the best in the business though...
snark

 

[PatDooleySucks]

PDS seems to remember that discussion a little differently. Let's review...

I asked why we couldn't have implemented a non compete in Muschamp's contract.

PDS haughtily pulls out the, "I'm a badass lawyer (one of only 1.2 million in the US) and I know that non competes just don't happen in the SEC. Besides, you can't enforce a non-compete if you fire someone."

Then he is shown that in fact Arkansas had a non-compete with Brett Bielema.

So our esteemed jurist says, "Yeah....well...you still can't enforce a non-compete if you fire someone!"

Then I link him case law showing just the opposite.

This really gets his indignant badass lawyer feathers in a ruffle as he starts throwing out invectives and over the top eye rolling because ....well....he's a badass lawyer and all and he KNOWS sh!t. He says this is the big leagues and these guys don't play dat.

To which I reply that though that may be true, contracts are evolving all the time and colleges are getting sick of being on the hook to college coaches and are starting to negotiate more restrictive contracts such as the one we just did with McElwain. And just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, college football coaches seem to be the only profession in which this hasn't been prevalent but the tide is starting to turn. https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/next_big_thing_will_more_coach.html

To which we are treated to more "I'm a lawyer!" chest pounding and other various arrogant blather.

Yet this isn't a non-compete clause genius. It's simply a salary offset, and it's only for 90 days.

And you were completely wrong about Bielema. All you have is "i'm right because I say i'm right."

Keep trying. Or actually don't. You're the bed badly. You tuck that little hardon you have for me. It's getting shameful.

 

[LagoonGator68]

PDS seems to remember that discussion a little differently. Let's review...

I asked why we couldn't have implemented a non compete in Muschamp's contract.

PDS haughtily pulls out the, "I'm a badass lawyer (one of only 1.2 million in the US) and I know that non competes just don't happen in the SEC. Besides, you can't enforce a non-compete if you fire someone."

Then he is shown that in fact Arkansas had a non-compete with Brett Bielema.

So our esteemed jurist says, "Yeah....well...you still can't enforce a non-compete if you fire someone!"

Then I link him case law showing just the opposite.

This really gets his indignant badass lawyer feathers in a ruffle as he starts throwing out invectives and over the top eye rolling because ....well....he's a badass lawyer and all and he KNOWS sh!t. He says this is the big leagues and these guys don't play dat.

To which I reply that though that may be true, contracts are evolving all the time and colleges are getting sick of being on the hook to college coaches and are starting to negotiate more restrictive contracts such as the one we just did with McElwain. And just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, college football coaches seem to be the only profession in which this hasn't been prevalent but the tide is starting to turn. https://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/next_big_thing_will_more_coach.html

To which we are treated to more "I'm a lawyer!" chest pounding and other various arrogant blather.

PDS turned over a new leaf.

 

[divits]

Yet this isn't a non-compete clause genius. It's simply a salary offset, and it's only for 90 days.

And you were completely wrong about Bielema. All you have is "i'm right because I say i'm right."

Keep trying. Or actually don't. You're the bed badly. You tuck that little hardon you have for me. It's getting shameful.

So do you practice straw man law?

I never said McElwain's contract was a non compete. I said it was more restrictive than other coaching contracts we have had.

How was I wrong about Bielema? https://arkansasnews.com/sports/bielema-inks-new-deal

"A non-compete clause with other Southeastern Conference schools is part of the deal, as well. The stipulation of the clause is Bielema cannot leave Arkansas for another job in the SEC. His assistant coaches who signed new deals earlier this year had similar prohibitions."

And your last sentence is pretty indicative of most of your arguments. When faced with your own misplaced arrogance your fall back is to puff yourself up by claiming victory and talking about hardons (what's up with that?). And if you take the time and look back at every encounter I've had with you here you'll see that the only time I've ever engaged you is when you attempt to call me out. It's like your a masochist or something.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

So do you practice straw man law?

I never said McElwain's contract was a non compete. I said it was more restrictive than other coaching contracts we have had.

How was I wrong about Bielema? https://arkansasnews.com/sports/bielema-inks-new-deal

"A non-compete clause with other Southeastern Conference schools is part of the deal, as well. The stipulation of the clause is Bielema cannot leave Arkansas for another job in the SEC. His assistant coaches who signed new deals earlier this year had similar prohibitions."

And your last sentence is pretty indicative of most of your arguments. When faced with your own misplaced arrogance your fall back is to puff yourself up by claiming victory and talking about hardons (what's up with that?). And if you take the time and look back at every encounter I've had with you here you'll see that the only time I've ever engaged you is when you attempt to call me out. It's like your a masochist or something.

I never said McElwain's contract was a non compete. I said it was more restrictive than other coaching contracts we have had.

I asked why we couldn't have implemented a non compete in Muschamp's contract.

:headscratch:

So what are you pumping your chest about? That nothing has changed from what I originally said?

As to Bielema. Thanks for proving my point in the old thread and again ...

The stipulation of the clause is Bielema cannot leave Arkansas for another job in the SEC. His assistant coaches who signed new deals earlier this year had similar prohibitions."

We have never been talking about people leaving on their own volition. We have been talking about firing.

And your last sentence is pretty indicative of most of your arguments.

:wobble:

 

[dubster1]

this is some good shi! right here

 

[WobbleGator]

 

[PatDooleySucks]

this is some good shi! right here

This is no fight. It's just a

 

[GatorJB]

 

[dubster1]

This is no fight. It's just a

 

[oxrageous]

Where's law? We need his two cents on this.

 

[divits]

:headscratch:

So what are you pumping your chest about? That nothing has changed from what I originally said?

As to Bielema. Thanks for proving my point in the old thread and again ...

We have never been talking about people leaving on their own volition. We have been talking about firing.



:wobble:

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Is following the context of a conversation that difficult for you? It must be. You mix and match totally different conversations and their context in a lame attempts to obfuscate.

As for Bielama, you said there were no non competes in the SEC. You were flat wrong. Again. Just like you were flat wrong about not being able to enforce a non compete if you fire someone.

So continue to fill yourself with false bravado. It's pretty transparent and you're really not fooling anyone. But I'm done subjecting the rest of the board to our catfight so I'll just I look forward to more emotes from you "proving" your manhood.

:hehehe:

 

[divits]

Where's law? We need his two cents on this.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? Is following the context of a conversation that difficult for you? It must be. You mix and match totally different conversations and their context in a lame attempts to obfuscate.

As for Bielama, you said there were no non competes in the SEC. You were flat wrong. Again. Just like you were flat wrong about not being able to enforce a non compete if you fire someone.

So continue to fill yourself with false bravado. It's pretty transparent and you're really not fooling anyone. But I'm done subjecting the rest of the board to our catfight so I'll just I look forward to more emotes from you "proving" your manhood.

:hehehe:

 

[divits]

I distinctly said, "....more emotes proving your manhood." That's a gif. But it'll do.

 

[PatDooleySucks]

I distinctly said, "....more emotes proving your manhood." That's a gif. But it'll do.

I hope nobody tries to prove their "manhood" on a message board. I'm sure not. I just posted the gif that I felt was most reflective how you look in attempting to argue with me.

:wobble: = you

 

[WobbleGator]

I hope nobody tries to prove their "manhood" on a message board. I'm sure not. I just posted the gif that I felt was most reflective how you look in attempting to argue with me.

:wobble: = you

How do I equal divits???

 

[playzwtrux]

...... this is epic, or can I not use that word?