• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

No buyout. Fired for cause

could it have been a failure to timely report activities regarding the Jones case?
 
Currie is not a novice and has access to heavy weight legal counsel. I suspect he has his bases covered.
 
wakelaw13 said:
Hypothesizing about the terms of a contract none of us have ever seen is pretty useless. The decision makers at Wake, the general counsel’s office, and outside counsel would have thoroughly reviewed the issue before taking a position like that.

On second thought, maybe Ron was senile and didn’t have the capacity to contract!
Click to expand...

Safe assumption given the contract.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
A quick look at some law review articles on the topic show there are at least three normal provisions in a for cause termination section: 1) material breach of a contractual provision without remedy in a set time period 2) NCAA violation 3) criminal conduct.

I don’t think...barring odd provisions in the contract, that we are going to be successful here about for cause. Then again we have no idea what provisions Wake normally has in coaching contracts as a private university.
Click to expand...

perhaps this is simply a tactic to force Manning to take a lower buyout now than go through a long legal battle

jaybone said:
This worries me. A lot. What will other coaches think about the job if we are trying to fire Manning without paying him? What specifically is the cause? Not being good at his job won't cut it? Do we have to admit to some recruiting violations we have buried??? Me no comprende....
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about potential coaches' perception of Wake's tactics to rid itself of one of the worst coaches in ACC history who signed an extension with a lame duck AD widely agreed to be one of the worst contracts in the history of the sport
 
Maybe something happened with Chaundee. That was strange.

Manning is a staff member so maybe code of conduct...bullying?...who knows??? Would we ever know???

Agree Jamil Jones is kind of attenuated, like really attenuated.
 
jaybone said:
This worries me. A lot. What will other coaches think about the job if we are trying to fire Manning without paying him? What specifically is the cause? Not being good at his job won't cut it? Do we have to admit to some recruiting violations we have buried??? Me no comprende....
Click to expand...

I accept that this worry is valid and correct, but I don’t understand it. Any other profession except tenured faculty and college coaches it is perfectly acceptable to fire someone who simply sucks at their job.
 
mebanedeac said:
Currie is not a novice and has access to heavy weight legal counsel. I suspect he has his bases covered.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but still worried in regards to what the next coach is going to think ... this will come up in the vetting process. Vetting goes both ways. Now, it IS true that Currie didn't write Manning's contract, but still ... these are very careful waters to tread IMO.

I also agree with an above poster that it COULD be connected to the Jones case - what did Jones tell Manning and when? How quickly did Manning relay that news to the AD? If on university phones, could Currie have legally received those texts and set a timeline that would allow him to argue that Manning breached his contract by not contacting his superior of a potential crime committed by one of his own subordinates in a timely manner? And did he attempt to cover for him? All obvious speculation ...
 
Last edited:
LOL. if currie shows up in a neck brace we'll know drew has been advising
 
Wake wouldn't take a firing for cause without some solid position for doing so, even if it is a position Manning can dispute.
 
Complacent Deac said:
Maybe something happened with Chaundee. That was strange.

Manning is a staff member so maybe code of conduct...bullying?...who knows??? Would we ever know???

Agree Jamil Jones is kind of attenuated, like really attenuated.
Click to expand...

No more attenuated than holding the head coach responsible for recruiting violations committed by their assistants.
 
Since none of us has seen the contract and the for cause is all speculation, I’d still guess that this would be a move to force a settlement and reduced buyout. Even if it’s 90 cents on the dollar that’s real money.
 
scooter84 said:
No more attenuated than holding the head coach responsible for recruiting violations committed by their assistants.
Click to expand...

That’s not right. Recruiting violations are committed while acting as an agent of the university. Punching a drunk guy is not related to your employment.
 
scooter84 said:
No more attenuated than holding the head coach responsible for recruiting violations committed by their assistants.
Click to expand...

Major difference legally speaking. Recruiting is part of the primary job coaches perform and is core to their employment (where Danny is responsible for overseeing the process). Committing assault (an independent crime itself) is obviously outside of this and not part of his employment.

Clear distinction. It’s like saying a boss is no more responsible for an employee cooking the books at work than he is an employee killing someone not at work.
 
scooter84 said:
No more attenuated than holding the head coach responsible for recruiting violations committed by their assistants.
Click to expand...

Coaches are often held accountable for recruiting violations of their assistants, unless the are at KY, KU, UNC or a couple of other places.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
This post by BabyDeac deserves its own thread instead of being buried in a long ass salty pinned thread.

7d301e6b97b2defc99326b792e95d853.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks for starting a new thread. This is a really interesting statement.
 
mebanedeac said:
Currie is not a novice and has access to heavy weight legal counsel. I suspect he has his bases covered.
Click to expand...

Hence the refusal to discuss men's basketball in any capacity prior to announcing Manning's dismissal - almost certainly legally motivated. Plus it's unlikely Wake or Manning disclose anything while it's hashed out. Some media reporting the buyout happened, some the opposite - nobody will know for years while it's debated, or Manning will want to move on in a coaching capacity and take a reduced payoff under a nondisclosure.

Seems pretty shrewd, maybe a little cut-throat, and pulled off during a complete National shutdown. Kinda badass actually, definitely thought we were stuck until next season's existence was cleared up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top