Kentucky Sports Radio
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
[Moderated by Matt Jones]
Its been a great weekend in the Bluegrass. Many folks found themselves in Louisville for the Kenny Chesney concert, we had a photo contest (with winners later today), I had my annual rite of passage of watching an MTV award show and feeling old and (insert reporter name here) wrote something bad about the Cats. The latest news of the day is the report that Xavier Henry may be unhappy at Kansas and looking elsewhere. This story was first suggested at another site, and has taken on a life of its own in the last few hours. As of this point, nothing official has happened with Henry and the only school that has been mentioned as a potential visit if Henry changes his mind on Kansas, is UCLA. Nevertheless folks are talking and we will let you know if anything comes of the rumor mill.
My interest however has been consumed with the train wreck on the horizon in the form of the Billy Clyde lawsuit. For those of you that were on vacation in the Caribbean, Clyde ran off last week and filed a lawsuit in Texas, alleging all kinds of bad deeds by the University of Kentucky and asking for 6 million dollars and a piece of Mitch Barnhart’s scalp. UK then quickly followed up the next day with a countersuit in state court in Frankfort, asking for a court to announce officially that Billy Clyde is crazy and to attempt to “pull a Ted Haggard” and ban him from all establishments within the Commonwealth. Due to my primary gig as a lawyer (with Jones and Bruce, home for all your legal needs), I thought it might be good to take a look at the suits and what the likely outcome could be in the coming months.
BILLY CLYDE’s LAWSUIT:
When Billy Clyde hired his Greek dreamboat attorney and filed a case in federal court in Dallas it signaled one thing to me, mainly that after two months of negotiations of a mutually beneficial settlement, Clyde went with the nuclear option. Even though a lawsuit will end up costing him a large amount of money and could lead to the release of information that might make it difficult for him to find a coaching job in the future, Clyde decided it was time to bring the legal thunder. His lawsuit is linked here and is definitely worth your time on a rainy day. While the majority of the Complaint is filled up with beautiful paragraphs describing what a wonderful coach Gillispie has been and how he is an inspiration to young Dr. Pepper lovers everywhere, the meat of it from a legal standpoint is articulated via his claims against the UK Athletics Association. Put simply, he argues three things:
1. Breach of Contract, essentially claiming that he was not paid the 6 million dollars owed to him by the Memorandum of Understanding for an early termination.
2. Fraud, by arguing that UK never really intended to pay him his money and fraudulently got him to agree to a contract it wouldnt pay.
3. Tortious Interference of Contract, which is a fancy way of saying that UK made him terminate his contract with Texas A&M and “lured” him to Kentucky, causing him to ruin the great time he was having in College Station.
As one looks at these three claims, it is clear that two are completely bogus and one is the heart of the issue. Billy’s claim for fraud would be almost impossible to prove, as he would have to show that not only is UK not going to pay him, but it never intended to pay him, a set of facts that only exists in a McCarthy’s induced reality. His tortious interference claim is actually quite clever, but has no real chance of success. While it was likely inserted so as to get the case in Texas (more on that later), it amounts to a claim that by hiring him away from Aggieville, UK interfered with his contract with Texas A&M. While this is undoubtedly true, that in and of itself is not a tortious claim. In order for it to be a claim, you must show that the University did some wrong to interfere and simply offering a job does not qualify. It it were otherwise, EVERY TIME a person took a new job when they were under contract elsewhere, the new employer would be guilty of a tortious interference claim. That simply isnt the case.
Ultimately, the breach of contract claim is where the action is to be found. The question simply is, did the University and Billy Clyde have a working employment contract, and if it did, was it violated by either party? We will examine the arguments in a bit, but suffice to say Billy Clyde has a strong argument here and it is this claim that is the core of the case.
UK’s COUNTERSUIT:
UK’s countersuit (linked here) boils down to the University saying, “hey elected judge in Kentucky with UK fans as your constituents….rule that Clyde didnt have a contract before those fools in Texas can go screwing things up.” This was not the language in the suit verbatum of course, but it is close enough. UK is trying to get a Declaratory Judgment from the court saying no contract existed quickly…but is likely to have little success. They were beaten to the courthouse by Gillispie and it is likely the case that their action was a bit too little, too late. In addition, UK also however makes the point that Clyde sued the wrong entity and should have sued UK instead of the UK Athletics Association. The problem is that UK took the exact opposite position in its lawsuit with Claude Bassett, claiming that UKAA was who should be sued because it pays the checks and that UK was not the primary employer. Either way, it is likely irrelevant, since Clyde would be able to amend his Complaint to name the proper party if the court agreed with UK.
FIGHT ONE: WHERE WILL THE SUIT BE HEARD
Because Billy Clyde began the process in federal court in Texas, that is likely where it will start. UK however hopes it can move the suit to Kentucky. Clyde has to somehow argue that Texas is the appropriate place to determine a lawsuit between the UK basketball coach and the University of Kentucky. To get there, he added the “tortious interference claim”, arguing that he was just minding his poor little business in Texas when evil Kentucky came down there and manipulated his naive self. That claim, which has virtually no likelihood of success, is likely only in the complaint to try and give the Texas court jurisdiction, and will be the basis for his hope to keep the case in Texas.
From what I am told, the day before he filed the case, Billy Clyde changed all his Kentucky addresses to Texas and put his house on the market, all in the hope to establish residency in Texas. I suspect it will not work however. While Billy Clyde doesnt want to see this case in federal court in Lexington, that is where it is likely to end up, with either Judge Jennifer Coffmann or Judge Karen Caldwell (my former boss) as the presiding judge. This agreement was entered into in Kentucky, with Kentucky law governing for a position within Kentucky. UK will argue that the proper venue is thus in Kentucky and thus Clyde’s lawsuit should end up here. The venue fight might be the most important one of the case, and I suspect will be quite extensive.
To the merits:
BILLY CLYDE’s ARGUMENT:
Clyde’s argument is simple: (1) the Memorandum of Understanding operated as a contract and guaranteed him 6 million dollars if terminated and (2) If for some reason there wasnt a contract, both parties acted as if there was a contract for two years, so this “course of performance” should lead the court to enfore the agreement as if it was a contract. There are a couple of problems for Billy however:
1. The MOU says explicitly that it is time limited and that a full agreement must be reached.
2. The Complaint acknowledges that such an agreement was not reached and that the “for cause” provisions were the main reason.
3. Billy Clyde made NUMEROUS personal statements while at UK that there was no contract, often joking (in his annoying smug manner), that it was “in his briefcase” and he would sign it later.
UK’s ARGUMENT:
UK will argue two things. First, it will claim that there never existed a contract between the two parties and that the MOU is not sufficient to require the 6 million dollar payment. Second, it will claim that EVEN IF a contract exists, the University was justified in firing Clyde “for cause”, thus putting into play everything that Billy did while at Kentucky…both good and bad. There are however problems for UK’s argument as well, mainly:
1. If the MOU was not a contract, UK sure acted like it was, enforcing its provisions for two years, including paying Clyde the amount owed to him under the MOU throughout. This gives strong support to the “course of performance” argument.
2. Mitch Barnhart made NUMEROUS public statements when asked about the lack of a contract between Clyde and UK that suggested there was a contract. He even specifically used the word “contract” on a couple of occasions about the MOU saying, “there is a contract” when pressed on why a deal hadnt been reached. This is sure to be used against UK.
3. If the MOU is a contract, it isnt exactly clear that it contains a “for cause” provision, since both sides agree that was what was being negotiated after the hiring. Thus if the court finds a contract, it may be difficult for UK to argue that it was entitled to let Clyde go for cause.
BOTTOM LINE:
So that was long and extensive and dorky, so what does it all mean? Bottom line: on the issue of whether a contract exists, it is a close call and it isnt clear which party will prevail. I think Clyde probably has the better argument, because he can correctly claim that for two years UK acted like a contract existed and paid him as if it existed. That argument is not rock solid (for the reasons showed above), but it is strong enough to likely give him the edge. UK however does have the reasonable argument to make that the mere fact that it explicitly states in the MOU that it is temporary and because Clyde acknowledges that there were still issues to be settled, no agreement exists. This could really go either way, and showcases why this will be an ugly fight.
The problem for Clyde is that by bringing this suit, UK now has free reign to release all of the information about what happened during his tenure. I cant imagine why he would want this. I have called this case a “career kamikaze mission” for just this reason. He may win the suit and then never be able to coach again. If one suspects (as I do) that he was offered about half of his 6 million in settlement, he should have taken it. Now he has a fight with an expensive lawyer, that likely will take place on the University’s home turf and that could release information he wishes would stay secret. How is that a win?
So there you go…one man’s opinion on where we are in the Clyde lawsuit. As we learn more and see how it develops, we will keep you posted. Today watch for the winner of the picture contest, more on the KSR Kids campaign and other stuff….so stay tuned.
[powered by WordPress.]
Bill Keightley Report : Never to be forgotten.
28 queries. 1.106 seconds
May 31st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
It’s HERE!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I bet Billy G has lots of skeletons in his closet or his time here in Lexington! I cant wait to see what they are! LMAO
May 31st, 2009 at 11:15 pm
I don’t understand why everyone is so excited about this upcoming legal battle. Everyone is anxious to hear about the “skeletons in Billy G’s closet”. Has anyone given thought that this lawsuit will make the University of Kentucky Athletic Department look terrible. UKAA allowed this type of shenanigans to occur under their watch. People will begin asking “Where was Mitch?” and “You let WHAT happen?”. I think this is a train wreck waiting to occur.
Thoughts?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Just a comment to note: (1) BCG’s lawsuit was brought in Dallas (not Houston); and (2) he didn’t have to bring the tortious interference to have venue in Dallas. I believe his claim is that the material terms of the contract were negotiated in Dallas. I, for many reasons, think UK has a much better argument on venue, but I agree that it is one of the most important issues in the case.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
#3 Where was Mitch? Well, he fired the guy so I say he was pretty hands
on and aware of everything going on.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
I believe it does matter whether UK or UKAA is the entity sued as UK has some additional immunities. I don’t think UK will win this particular point.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
3 - Exactly. This is a losing battle all around, much like Billy G’s entire time here. If UKAA drags Billy through the mud then they come across as the ones who let the loon run the asylum until he failed to make the NCAA’s then covered up his actions until he asked for money. Meanwhile poor Billy G has not only proven that he can’t win with the money, tradition, and facilities that UK has to offer but also raised questions (possibly soon to be proven as fact in court) as to his character, treatment of players, and professionalism.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:24 pm
#3
I have never thought about things that way before. I could see your point that it might make Mitch and UK look bad, but I think Billy has alot more to lose out of this deal. Mitch could always fall back on, well I didn’t let this happen, I took action and fired Billy and brought in Coach Cal, aka, Everyone’s happy.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Question for you Matt.
If the MOU is held to be a legitimate contract, one of the provisions it mentions is that Billy will “agree not to seek or apply for other positions without prior notice”.
I remember hearing vague rumors about Billy doing exactly that during the last two years (ie trying to get hired somewhere else) Originally I found the claims to be so bizarre that I didn’t put any stock whatsoever into them. But the more this plays out, the more I wonder whether there is any truth to these rumors.
My question to you is IF Billy did try to solicit a job opening during these past two years he was coach at UK, how might that impact the lawsuit. (basically he’s arguing that the MOU is an explicit contract, yet if those rumors are true he would be in breach of it already.)
Jon
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Why would zavier go to ucla
May 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
2- I believe UK letting him go was more or less for those very reasons, so no.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Whoa whoa .. that little nugget about Xavier Henry. You know, SHOULD Meeks stay in the NBA draft and this tidbit about Henry advance far enough that he bolts from KU .. is there a CHANCE…
May 31st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I just wish I had 6 million dollars to give to Billy and tell him
to go away and never come back to kentucky and never speak of Kentucky
again. We fans have final fours to start saving up for and planning and
no time for Billy’s crap
May 31st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Hey Matt, I tend to wonder how Anaikpos (or however you spell his name) can claim diversity jurisdiction with a straight face? I’m not too convinced the fed court will buy this whole change of address the day before the suit is filed.
Regardless I think UKAA has the much better argument for venue, and I would not be surprised if the case was settled if a venue transfer is granted (assuming it stays in federal court). I kind of see the suit as a gambit to see if Clyde can bring this out in Texas, because if not his chances of success decrease exponentially.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
#9 - It would be extremely hard for UK to prove that Clyde tried to get another job I would think. Regardless if he was in breach and it could be proven, Clyde could once again argue “course of performance” and say that UKAA deliberately ignored or waived that requirement of the MOU.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
9, I heard he tried to get his A&M gig back the first week he was here.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The press hates BCG and will enjoy what they are going to be able to write about him. They
would be all over a story like this no matter who the coach was including Roy, K, and Tubby.
The fact thatit is BCG is EXTRA special.
This is going to be a story where reality will be stranger than fiction. The press loves a good\\\
crazy story and Billy’s shenanigan’s make it easy. It’s not too hard to make BCG a villain and
create sympathy for the poor players who had to tolerate his crazy a@$!
May 31st, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Thanks for clearing up the claims. Before this I though UK had an excellent chance because of Gillespie not signing the contract but I can definitely see the argument of UK paying and acting by it.
What about Gillespie saying he was just a coach and nothing more? Does that fall into the reason they fired him for not doing his job as expected?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Didn’t read.
Can someone make cliff notes?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:36 pm
#17 The press hates UK more
May 31st, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Jon,
Interesting question….that would be a breach, but probably not material enough to justify ending the agreement. But it is a good point I want to think about.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Even if Clyde argues that the MOU was a contract successfully, I don’t see how you can argue that the buyout amounts should be adhered to when they were to be included in the negotiated contract.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Maybe I’m a little confused (or just plain wrong), but I was understanding that the verbage in the MOU was worded to indicate that it would function as an operating contract UNTIL the final contract was signed, and that all of its provisions were dependent upon the formal agreement being reached. Without there ever being a formal contract agreed upon, would that nullify the previous MOU (although in a somewhat posthumious way)? To put it more directly, is the MOU’s validity based on the assumption of a final contract? Could all of its provisions be ruled non-binding since he never signed the final version?
May 31st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Or (as I should have asked in 23) isn’t the MOU a “contract to sign a contract,” and could it be tossed because of a failure to reach final action on the “contracted contract?”
May 31st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
23 that is a great point. If the MOU was declared void because it was dependent on a final contract being signed that would be one hell of a lesson to learn that you should always sign your contract.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:43 pm
#23…that’s why the course of performance argument exists. It is going to be a close call. #22 if it is a contract, it is all or nothing…at least that is what I would argue if I were Clyde. UK might try to pick and choose provisions but that’s a tough argument
May 31st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Matt, I hope you never have to try a case in front of Judge Jennifer COFFMAM, cause screwing up her name could not possibly be a good way to start a trial.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I agree Rob. When we fired him after 2 years we got a lot of sh** about not giving him enough time and who would want to come, etc. I say, we should air it all out, and make him suffer. Thats what he deserves.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:51 pm
24 - That I think is what UK’s argument will be. The MOU was nothing more than an agreement to agree. They will point to the fact that material terms of the contract were never agreed upon such as what is “for cause” (I still can’t believe Clyde deleted a clause saying committing a FELONY qualified as “for cause”) as well as the mitigating damages provision, which actually seems like a pretty standard provision to have in a coaching contract. UKAA will say no contract was formally reached and the MOU only operated as a contract for “at will” employment until the formal contract was agreed upon and signed.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Matt, in hindsight could the MOU have been worded better to protect UK’s behind? I am sure they honestly didn’t think they would never not get a signed contract from Clyde. Do you think they have learned their lesson going forward? I would think that the MOU is a standard form that is used in all walks of life, not just for athletic departments. I must admit I am really intrigued by this whole argument of whether or not the MOU is a contract.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:56 pm
26- Maybe I’m just using too much common sense, but even if Billy won the course of performance argument, would that not still be considered “at will” employment, protecting each party as long as Billy was employed but not binding either party to the employment itself? It seems that the MOU was in place because the parties couldn’t agree to how each side would be bound to the employment, leaving that issue to be settled in the final contract. I thought the MOU outlined the terms of employment, but didn’t guarantee the employment to either party. Kind of like when BCG gets his next job at Denny’s and they make him fill out all of the paperwork, but still point out that either party can end the employment “at will” at any time, but he’ll get paid for doing his job until that happens.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
30- I was typing post 32 as you typed…seems we are thinking the same thing about “at will” employment.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Ha, durn Matt. I was hoping to ask Judge if she had converted to Judaism.
May 31st, 2009 at 11:58 pm
30- Also, I’m in Chicago, too. What part of town? (Or have we already had this discussion? lol)
June 1st, 2009 at 12:02 am
35 - Old Town. You?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:04 am
Ooo…as long we’re having this discussion, I’m Lakeview until the end of June. Then it’s back to beautiful Kentucky after 6 years away.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:06 am
Rob–I agree! Let’s get it out there for everyone to see. Outside of UK fans, no one knows
about the behind the scene problems.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
BCG is definitely a Taker.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
UK should pay him the six million….in monopoly money.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:08 am
Lived in Lakeview and LP for a while, now I’m in Roger’s Park (closer to work and MUCH cheaper). Originally from western Kentucky (all my family still thinks I’m nuts for moving to Chicago, but it’s been 5 years now, and I’m still loving it!) Maybe we can get a Wildcat/KSR meeting together sometime…seems there are quite a few KSR readers from the area.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:08 am
i lost my job the same day that Gillispie did and have yet to get another. My birthday is today (June 1st) and all I want is a job for my birthday. So I could give two ****s about this. I think the write-up was a good job so no offense to the blogger but in these times I just don’t care who wins. Perhaps at some point they will settle but I’d take just my salary again.
again good post so as not to sound too down. Cheers and I am more concerned about those that read the blog than the parties in this case.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:09 am
38- No one knows or no one chooses to report on that? I’m not so sure that if the laundry started getting aired that the national media wouldn’t pick up on it as UK vilifying someone that “just wanted to come coach the basketball team” and was so clearly an excellent coach so none of this could be true…
June 1st, 2009 at 12:12 am
I for one am a happy Catfan that all of this “bunk” was dropped on UK at one time. Call me naive for listening to proverbial wisdom, but it seems a good thing that (Billy G / Memphis situation / John Wall house shopping) will not be lingering on into the seasons to come at UK. I know the court proceedings will go on for some length of time, but the media blitz will cool down on the negatives for a while. Like pulling a Band-Aid off, it stings at first, but look at how much we have going for us in the future. I;m just glad one of these situations isn’t coming later to knock us again.
Go Cats and lets win this one. I wanna see picket signs out in Triangle Park if this is brought back to Kentucky.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:13 am
43- My understanding is that the information is being withheld to prevent any embarrassment to the players under Gillispie…some of the things he did were apparently pretty embarrassing (at least that’s what Matt has said in the posts asking him to give up what he knows).
June 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am
44- Good call…PR 101- Get it ALL out there, and do it quickly! I’m also glad that all of this didn’t have time to let people start a lot of speculating, etc. Let’s get it over with.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:15 am
45- Granted but any time laundry like that is being aired, it’s not necessarily the person that did the deeds that is made to look bad. Think all the articles vilifying Sypher, I know there’s the blackmail thing too, but this one involves money on the same level just slightly more legal.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:17 am
Cliffs?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:18 am
48- It’s a coin flip on the important issues, punitive damages would be unlikely.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:18 am
43-I meant the general public does not know.
The press isn’t going to say that.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:19 am
47- I know it would help our image as fans (a lot of people might rethink the old “UK fans are unreasonable and you have to go to the Final Four every year to keep them happy” argument) but I’d prefer it be kept a secret if the alternative is to humiliate 18 & 19 year old kids who were the victims of this psycho’s actions. I’ll take the hate in order protect the integrity of the players.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:21 am
50- The press could spin this stuff just like the memphis allegations. Not hard to portray the administration as letting the coach run amok, continure the story that it’s about winning at all costs, show that there is no institutional control, discuss what this means with a “scoundrel” like Calipari running the show, and then we’re always a phone call away from the NCAA death penalty to every recruit in the country. The fallout could be ugly, unfairly so, but ugly.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:22 am
has anyone spotted bcg in lex since the lawsuit? if he was still in town i thought for sure i would have seen him at the opening of drake’s this weekend.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:28 am
52-Valid points. Logically, I don’t see how Cal gets tied in to this but nothing would surprise
me.
I’m not sure Billy is playing with a full deck so the fact that he would be in the national
spotlight scares me more than the press.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:29 am
uhm … if G isn’t a resident of Texas, UK won’t try to get it moved to a Federal Court in KY, they will have it tossed out for lack of diversity jurisdiction. This is where his sudden change of address is important. He was attempting to establish that he was physically in Texas with the intent to stay there. Of course, that’s called forum shopping, and forum shopping is bad (well, at least this kind anyway).
if the court in Texas does happen to grant diversity jurisdiction in this suit, the reason billy filed in Texas has little to do with a single claim (being that he would have to go for supplemental on all the rest). Whatever agreement the parties did have was negotiated with Billy G while he was in Texas, ergo, establishing the minimum contacts necessary for Texas to assume jurisdiction over UK since the claim arises out of that event. It may have been executed in Lexington, but that is only one event of many in this situation, and the negotiations are certainly as substantial if not more so.
While it may be cute to think that a Kentucky judge will ignore the laws of KY and grant a lenient verdict, much more plausible is that UK filed in Kentucky because that’s where the suit should have been brought in the first place. When it comes time to actually file that 12(b)(6) motion, UK will certainly point this out, and having filed helps that argument.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:39 am
Can I get “The Law for Dummies” version of what you all are talking about
please. Cliff Note version
June 1st, 2009 at 12:43 am
So is it possible that the Texas judge could grant diversity of jurisdiction and still find that the matter should be settled in a federal court in Kentucky’s jurisdiction, since it is obvious that a vast majority of the issues being argued took place in Kentucky? I understand that it only takes one party’s presence to cross the jurisdictional boundaries, but that’s the only factor that took place in Texas. ALL of the other factors are Kentucky-centric, and I would think that any reasonable person would logically place the suit in the blugrass/
June 1st, 2009 at 12:50 am
56- BCG is trying to get the case heard in Texas, because he thinks he has a better chance there.
His argument for that is because he was in Tx when they talked about his contract on the phone.
BCG thinks he had a binding contract (MOU), but UK says that it was just in place until a real contract was signed.
UK filed a counter-suit in Ky, trying to get a judge to say it wasn’t a contract (before the Texas judge can make a ruling)
The only real case BCG has is about whether or not the MOU functioned as a contract.
He’s also charging UK with fraud, saying that the NEVER intended to pay him the money (yeah, right!)
He also says that they interfered with his contract with Texas A&M and “conned” him into leaving (haha)
June 1st, 2009 at 1:01 am
Did someone hack the KSR Twitter account? Some bizarre stuff today.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:20 am
It’s on! Texas vs. Kentucky a red-state duel for dollars!
June 1st, 2009 at 1:35 am
“To get there, he added the “tortious interference claim”, arguing that he was just minding his poor little business in Texas when evil Kentucky came down there and manipulated his naive self.”
That is the absolute DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heared.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:48 am
Didn’t mention this earlier, but this picture is perfect.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:59 am
I just hope it all gets settled in a KY court.. These Texas cowboys are no joke.. good example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td-KKmcYtrM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efac ebook%2Ecom%2Fhome%2Ephp&feature=player_embedded
June 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
Anakanalopolis is probably just like them..
June 1st, 2009 at 2:22 am
LOL this is seriously too good
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/189481-turning-the-tables-pat-forde -meets-the-press/show_full
June 1st, 2009 at 2:47 am
Evertthing is bigger in Texas, including the imagination.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:48 am
Here is my two “sense” but I am no lawyer.
The MOU is an agreement that final contract will be signed at later date and only acts as a groundwork for the contract. It is not a working contract.
While discussing the particulars of “the contract”, UK obviously is going to honor the agreement from a pay standpoint as to not set back progress of the discussions.
The venue will changed from Texas to Kentucky even though it is filed in Federal Court. The ruling in Texas could effect Kentucky law and no Texas judge would want that responsibility without knowing Kentucky law.
The argument from Billy that Kentucky interfered with his agreement with A&M is bogus. Coaches do this all the time when they get a raise out their current school. Difference is, A&M would have never paid Billy G. what UK was offering so he had no choice but to jump ship. Billy took the offer without the details of the MOU or contract being worked out while on the phone in Texas but never saw the MOU until arriving in Kentucky.
My understading of the MOU since the beginning is that it was a work in progress until both sides could reach an agreement. The agreement was suppose to be finalized within 60 days or a reasonable amount of time. Two years into it, it was obvious they were not going to reach an agreement. Throw in the fact that BCG was not doing his part on the court and off and he was let go. If I am not mistaken, it mentions all of this in the MOU as well as an evaluation of the of position two years into the contract. I live in AZ which is an “at will” state. I believe Kentucky is as well and his employment can be terminated without the contract.
In the end, BCG will be owed something and it will likely be somewhere between the 2-3 Million. Difference is, instead of taking the offer that UK put up, his attorney will get a large portion of that and he will end up with less than if he would have accepted it. Throw in the fact that it will damage him professionaly and BCG is exactly what we learned over time–a stubborn, hard-ass that has no sense and it is not smart enough to get out of his own way.
Tell me where I am wrong on this one counselor.
June 1st, 2009 at 3:58 am
Go back to Texas you drunken hillbilly!!!!!!!!!!!
June 1st, 2009 at 6:40 am
If Matt is right about the 3M offer from UK….then BCG is a total idiot for not accepting.
One thing that Matt did not mention that I think will hurt BCG is his past history of not signing contracts.
It took him forever at A&M to sign….this past history could hurt his argument.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:57 am
I still say, if this case is in KY, we got this one.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:10 am
#65 - That “interview” was hilarious!
June 1st, 2009 at 7:23 am
[...] Matt Jones of Kentucky Sports Radio breaks down the Billy Gillispie lawsuits. [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 7:47 am
On the Xavier Henry issue, would that mean another player would have to go if he came here, or is Cal no longer interested. I would say, that with Meeks seeming more and more interested in staying in the draft, that Xavier Henry would be nice to have. If Meeks stays in the draft, it would be real nice to have Henry.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:53 am
He’s Gay and its going to come out in this Case.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:53 am
so at the end, Billy may get 6 million on top of the millions he already has been paid, and won’t have to/be able to work anymore … weighed against dirty laundry that not everyone will think is even that big a deal, and probably forgotten outside of UK BB circles w/i a few yrs … if i’m Billy, i like those odds
June 1st, 2009 at 8:11 am
CUSTOM CORNHOLE BOARDS.. HOLY SNAP
June 1st, 2009 at 8:22 am
Hey Matt, Ben Wallace just said that when he retires he is going to get a law degree…..Do ya’ll need another partner? He would be TERRIFYING in court
June 1st, 2009 at 8:34 am
Well, if he is gay that will make us look worse. Then the media will say that played a part in his MOU being terminated. I think this is a very dark period for UK, I should have known the good vides were not going to last. Starting with JJ case, this has gone down hill fast. The fact is the media will be all over the hearing on Wed, and unless the case is dropped (which it wont be) the media will be all over this until the punishment comes out. Then if Memphis is stripped of its games/runner up banner, that will just add more to it. And throughout it all, UK will be linked and questioned in the eyes of the public. Every time you wear UK stuff people will ask about the cheater etc…its already started. “Well you may win a National Championship in 4 years and be on probation in 6.”
This isnt going away.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:36 am
Just for Matt - courtesy of — http://www.supremedicta.com/2009/02/worst-brief-ever.html
Another fantastic story out of Wisconsin, but unfortunately not from Sheboygan (sorry Seth).
A jazz musician who filed a legal brief in a child custody dispute with rap lyrics won his appeal and will get out of paying nearly $4,000 in fees.
Gregory Royal, a trombone player, represented himself and spent three days writing his legal brief in rap form. Here’s a selection of lyrics (using that term loosely):
* “Regarding frivolous filings, one thing is clear. Notice to show cause and proper service before you appear.”
* “And if Industrial vs. Marquardt is any measure, it’s the frivolous allegations, not the venue of your endeavor.”
* “A domestic relations exception, I was supposed to know. Appellee would know too, so why did he spend so much doe?”
* “Appellee dissed 814.04 for his 3 grand justification. But he forgets that 977.08 puts the brakes on his compensation.”
Good Lord, where do I begin? You spent three days working on that? Stick to playing the damn trombone.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:37 am
I think UK’s problem is they pissed off BCG. How could they have fired him and not pissed him off I don’t know. I guess if they just offered up the 6 mil he might have not been as pissed. I liked BCG. I guess I identified with a hard ass no-nonsense workaholic type of personality. I think it would take someone like that to build a great program. I like Cal too and I really wish Barnhart would have hired him two years ago instead of BCG. I think BCG belongs somewhere where basketball isn’t the state sport and under the microscope 24-7. I also think Barnhart should catch a WHOLE lot more shit for hiring BCG than he has. He’s the “golden boy” now for the Cal hire, but HELLO? Why didn’t you even ask him two years ago???
Whether we have a coach who’s considered “shady” by everyone else but UK fans and has little dark clouds of possible wrong doings always following behind him or we have a coach who supposedly made a player go sit in a bathroom stall or threaten to make them walk from the arena to the hotel(how far was that walk anyway? It doesn’t matter to me. Matt even said that if you’re winning like Bobby Knight in the 70s, it doesn’t matter. That right there says it’s ok to me. If it’s ok when you’re winning, it’s nothing to go apeshit about if you’re not.
I like BCG, I like Cal. I think BCG should have stayed in Texas and flourished there and MB should have pursued Cal two years ago. I bet he wishes he did too.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:40 am
and just one more from Supremedicta — (Matt, you need a blog like theirs)
Why you shouldn’t piss off the IRS…
This has to be the most interesting IRS sting operation in its history: a hidden camera set up in a freight elevator, charges filed that could carry 10 years in the slammer, and thousands of dollars of damage inflicted.
What do you think the charge is: tax evasion, racketeering? No way (if it were it wouldn’t be on this blog)! Thanks to the good folks over at the Smoking Gun:
A Michigan man was actually named yesterday in a U.S. District Court complaint charging him with urinating in the freight elevator of an Internal Revenue Service building in Detroit.
As a result of his behavior, the IRS had to spend over $4,000 to clean the elevator and the elevator shaft. This upstanding citizen, who was an IRS contractor, was charged with destruction of government property, which is a felony carrying up to ten years in prison. Here’s some good news: at least he doesn’t have to list himself on a sex offender registry, which is a consequence of being convicted of public urination in several states.
The key to peeing in an IRS elevator is the same one for cheating on your taxes - do it in very small amounts so you don’t get caught!
June 1st, 2009 at 8:43 am
80–Honestly, I’m not sure some of the things he did *would* have been “okay” had he won more.
His personality aside, I didn’t like his coaching. The methods, the demeanor, the communication skills, the recruiting, the results. None of it. All of the coaching inadequacies, to me, make the personality unbearable.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:03 am
It is well BEYOND me to understand how anyone could accept Gillispie’s “method” of coaching. He was no more suited to coach at UK than I would have been, but I swear, I don’t think I could have done any worse. The days of the “Knight” approach are over–and rightly so. Throwing chairs, choking players, threatening players–what does that prove? Billy G was in WAY over his head: he knew, we knew it, and so did everyone else. And now he comes up with this “shucks, ma’am; I was just minding my own business when THEY came along” defense goes beyond theh pale. No one (at least the last time I checked) held a gun to his head and forced him to come to UK. I say good riddance to bad trash, and I hope he doesn’t get one penny.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:05 am
[...] Matt Jones of Kentucky Sports Radio breaks down the Billy Gillispie lawsuits. [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am
As long as the agreement stated that he had 2 years to sign a contract. Would Mitch be wrong in stating we have an agreement as good as a contract until the 2 years were up. Then it becomes a contract dispute.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:34 am
“for the reasons showed above”
Really, Matt?
June 1st, 2009 at 9:42 am
Matt,
I agree with you on the venue issue. ALL of the witnesses are going to be in Kentucky, and with the application
of Kentucky law, I think a transfer based on forum non conveniens is almost required — assuming the case isn’t
tossed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. Although, I don’t think there is a time requirement on citizenship, just
a move and intent to stay there. Since he may not own an actual residence there, that may be hard to prove.
More importantly, I think you and several others are overlooking an important argument regarding the MOU’s buy-out
clause. There is no doubt that the MOU was some type of binding agreement, both in its terms and the parties’ course
of dealing. The question is “What are the terms of the MOU”? It has two sets of terms. The first set seems pretty
binding. The second set, however, which includes the buyout provision, is worded in terms of what would ultimately
be in the employment contract — not what is included in the MOU. That second set of terms shouldn’t be binding on
the parties. Sets up nicely for a Motion to Dismiss. UK agrees that the MOU is a contract, agrees it was bound by the first set
of terms, lets judge decide that second set of terms (including buyout) wasn’t binding, and sends Clyde on his way …
June 1st, 2009 at 9:44 am
Someone stated that the Lawsuit would make U.K. look bad? The only way it’ll make U.K. look bad, is that more people will find out what a idiotic hire we made with Waterboy. U.K. won’t get off with the $2 Mill, they’ll end up paying more than that, but probably not the 6.
And oh yea, Xavier Henry, COME ON DOWN…..Love that left handed jump shot.
June 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
do you think Tom Brady calls his wife ‘Gizz’ for short?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:01 am
If after 2 years of this agreement a contract could not be reached. Would this allow Billy a buyout to coach another team?
June 1st, 2009 at 10:16 am
#89- Of course not, that would be awful. I am sure he calls here Gizzie as to not upset her.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
78. Saul is that you.??
June 1st, 2009 at 10:42 am
To me it sounds like the MOU, for Billy at least, was a sweet deal. That being the case, why would he ever sign a contract? All that would do would eliminate the buy-out by giving the university the “for cause” out. Seems like if I were one to sign an MOU, there would need to be some sort of major incentive to then sign the actual contract.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
1) Secretariat- could u post anymore on this subject in a row?
2) I cant help thinking about BCG doing the Hoosiers thing and coming back to lead a no name high school team to a state championship. that would be the funniest movie ever. he would be knocking up high school girls, getting drunk and partying with the team, fighting everyone in his path.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:11 am
This is the only case in which I have ever heard of a coach and University failing to sign a contract. I still say there was motive in one direction or the other, but who ever heard of a deal like this? This thing was screwed up from jump street. Call it Karma or whatever. Had Barnhart not landed Cal this time, he would have not survived the Clyde dibocal.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
How do you educate an entire state on finer points of civil law? Apply it to Kentucky basketball. Awesome.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am
Saul,,, did you see my post in refernce to what he said. Its called being realistic about the situation.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pm
On #2 under UK’s argument, i would think that Mitch was talking about the actual contract that Billy had in his possession but never signed. I don’t remember him ever talking about the MOU and stating that is the contract.
Whatever the outcome UK needs to be a lot more clear in it’s contracts or temporary agreements with future coaches. You would think that UK would cover it’s ass better.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Props to Matt for an accurate and entertaining legal analysis. The litigation will be a tossup on the merits, but will sadly result in more Pat Forde smirks and anti-UK press even while exposing BCG’s dark and sophomoric sides. How could Barnhart/Todd have allowed the situation to continue when BCG refused to sign a contract during his first season? They are to blame for creating this debacle.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
It is amazing how of 97 comments on this only about 10 have anything to do with the topic. 55 is right. Billy was a Kentucky Resident up till the day before the suit was filed. Forum shopping is not permitted. Billy will probably be bounced on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Even if he is not, the proper Venue is probably in Kentucky. The tortious interference claim is bogus, bordering on stupid. The fraud fails to state a claim. False statements of a future act are not fraud in most jurisdictions. Billy has a hard time staying in court in Texas at all. At the very least, Venue is in Kentucky. Probably both parties will be Kentucky residents for the purpose of the contract and out of Federal Court.
On the contract merits, Kentucky law requires all long term contracts to be in writing. They are interpreted as to their terms not oral representations.
The terms of this written agreement were that the annual pay rate was established and an expression of intent to have a seven year deal once a new writing was executed with a buyout of the 7 year deal (when without cause) and execution of a long term agreement with removal for a variety of undisclosed cause language suitable to both parties. As a result the MOU is probably not by its own terms a/the long term contract under KY law while it does provide sufficient information to make salary payments on an at will basis.
Interestingly, if this does come back to Kentucky Court one could ask, if the intent was to have a 7 year deal with a buyout if no cause was stated, was there cause to remove Billy under any of the terms submitted to Billy as “cause” in negotiations? Would he have been better off if he had signed? Will the courts imply that there is a 7 year deal, look at the cause that Kentucky was concerned with and determine that the terms that were not agreed to were not relevant to the situation.
I doubt that a Kentucky Court will look past the fact that there is an agreement to agree and determine the agreement is merely an at will hire. The lack of the “but for” situation is interesting.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
HEY Matt,
UK offered the last contract in Feb of this year. BCG again crossed out all sorts of stuff.
To me, not being a lawyer, it would seem as though there was not a “meeting of the minds” (heard that on Judge Judy) I would think that UK could argue that since they were still working on a contract, they did not consider the MOU a contract.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The MOU was a time limited binding agreement (60 days). Billy was at UK for 23 months. Does anyone know how many MOUs were actually signed? And to be more specific, when was the last MOU signed?
June 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
First of all Matt, it’s called “Aggieland”, not “Aggieville”! I did my undergrad at Texas A&M (played soccer for the Ags) while BCG was there, then followed him on up here to UK where I am now attending medical school, so I’ve seen him first hand in both settings…interesting to say the least. Anyway, BCG’s third argument about UK interfering with him and his contract with A&M is complete crap. AD Bill Byrne had been trying to get him to sign his contract for months, but surprise surprise, he kept putting it off. When questioned by the media, he would say that he has a verbal commitment with A&M, which is just as real to him as signing a piece of paper. This commitment thing has been a problem with him for a long time. I am guessing his ex-wife would agree also.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Can’t we just give him Mitch as his houseboy or pool boy and a couple hundred bucks and call it even. Two very bothersome birds, one very useful stone. I agree with one of the other comments, whatever skeletons are buried in the closet, our dumb@** AD should have known about them, if not before hiring him (as he should have) then at least after doing so. It will be an unpleasant experience for both parties, but in the end UK will be UK, Billy Clyde on the other hand most likely carries the scarlet letter a bit longer, but then again, even Hal and Clyde got job’s after their time here so anything is possible. That being said I don’t think Billy Clyde wants to coach at N.E. Louisiana Tech A&M School for the Blind Underwater Basket Weavers.