Mel Tucker DID get fired. With cause.

Donate To GopherHole
WindyCityGopher said:
He signed the contract that included those generic terms, so if he wanted more specificity about potential fireable offenses, he and his agent should've written them in. They didn't, so this is their painful lesson.
Click to expand...
that "lesson" would also require it holding up in court, which he certainly will take them to court over that money amount
 

I would be surprised if every P5 contract doesn’t have some basic boilerplate about being able to be fired for cause for bringing “irreparable harm to the University” or some such.

I mean, what if a coach really does some heinous act that is caught on video and goes public, but perhaps isn’t a crime?
 

MplsGopher said:
I would be surprised if every P5 contract doesn’t have some basic boilerplate about being able to be fired for cause for bringing “irreparable harm to the University” or some such.

I mean, what if a coach really does some heinous act that is caught on video and goes public, but perhaps isn’t a crime?
Click to expand...
A lot of contracts have instances where you can be fired for cause even if a crime isn’t committed already. Not really a new idea.
 


GopherTheJugular said:
Yeah, and we'll see how long this sticks. I mean, they have a hearing in October to "decide whether Tucker violated university policy". So if that isn't decided, then they're going with the excuse that he brought public disrespect and ridicule on the university, per the ESPN story?

Gimme a break, such vague crap like that could be used to get out of any coaching contract then. I mean, what our own coaches allowed to happen in the 4th quarter at NW certainly rises to the charge of "public ridicule" for crying out loud.

And if MSU is going to fight on that take, the public ridicule stuff, and fight that all the way through the court proceedings that Tucker is likely to take up, what coach
Click to expand...
Ones smart enough to go on Pornhub and use the free videos.
GopherTheJugular said:
would want to work for an administration/university that uses such generic terms to get out of "guarantees"?
Click to expand...
 



WindyCityGopher said:
He signed the contract that included those generic terms, so if he wanted more specificity about potential fireable offenses, he and his agent should've written them in. They didn't, so this is their painful lesson.
Click to expand...
Sure those words are in there, but that doesn't mean the University is the one to make the final determination on "meaning". A jury will do that, if a settlement isn't reached first.
 





MplsGopher said:
I would be surprised if every P5 contract doesn’t have some basic boilerplate about being able to be fired for cause for bringing “irreparable harm to the University” or some such.

I mean, what if a coach really does some heinous act that is caught on video and goes public, but perhaps isn’t a crime?
Click to expand...
Like maybe crashing on your motorcycle with a young staffer riding with you?
 


upnorthkid said:
that "lesson" would also require it holding up in court, which he certainly will take them to court over that money amount
Click to expand...
He will. But I would imagine there will be a settlement long before it reaches court. And I imagine the settlement will be much closer to 0 than the full contract. (Unless there are things found in discovery that currently are unavailable).

If the only facts are the ones we currently know. He is getting 0 dollars. I am sure there are facts we don’t currently know.
 




Great Plains Gopher said:
Notice, though, that women who use sex to get ahead - in business, entertainment, even government, are never accused of anything, never get the "Me Too" treatment, but enjoy their ill-gotten gains.
Click to expand...
So, you're still on Match.com then, huh?
 

Some guy said:
He will. But I would imagine there will be a settlement long before it reaches court. And I imagine the settlement will be much closer to 0 than the full contract. (Unless there are things found in discovery that currently are unavailable).

If the only facts are the ones we currently know. He is getting 0 dollars. I am sure there are facts we don’t currently know.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. And Tuck will receive 40 million + settlement in about 2 years
 


No known fact I’m aware of shows that Tucker did an action that was without the consent of the other adult. She just alleges that.

If the MSU T9 office investigation decides there isn’t sufficient evidence to support such an allegation, then it’s entirely her word against his in a court of law on if the circumstances reasonably warrant the execution of the clause.

That will depend on the language of the clause and on the particular jury that is seated (or judge if it’s just a judge that decides it).

Not at all as slam dunk for MSU as being presented by some here.
 


Gopher_In_NYC said:
Sorry Louis that your comedy career took a hit😉
Click to expand...
louis-ck.gif
 



No way this could possibly blow up in Michigan State's face /s

www.espn.com

Tucker letter sent to MSU alleges 'new evidence'

Former Michigan State coach Mel Tucker's lawyers sent a 106-page letter that claims "new evidence" to the school's interim president and board of trustees.
www.espn.com www.espn.com

From the article:
"I'm filing a formal complaint with MSU... [My lawyer] said after that we can let him know that we want to come to an agreement then it doesn't have to go to a hearing or anything unless he wants it to."
According to the messages provided by Tucker's lawyers, she later added: "Money is my only recourse to make him feel like there is a punishment," and "when they do the money I should make him pay me 10k directly."
 

Gopher_In_NYC said:
Ones smart enough to go on Pornhub and use the free videos.
Click to expand...
Sir, and I mean this respectfully, these clauses are very common in contracts. "DISREPUTE" clauses. They're enforceable as well. You can find many articles on the web that cite cases where the court rules in favor of the employer for firing an employee who brought "disrepute" to the organization. In Tucker's case, MSU would likely win. But, Im sure they'll settle to save money, as usual.
 

MplsGopher said:
No known fact I’m aware of shows that Tucker did an action that was without the consent of the other adult. She just alleges that.

If the MSU T9 office investigation decides there isn’t sufficient evidence to support such an allegation, then it’s entirely her word against his in a court of law on if the circumstances reasonably warrant the execution of the clause.

That will depend on the language of the clause and on the particular jury that is seated (or judge if it’s just a judge that decides it).

Not at all as slam dunk for MSU as being presented by some here.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it was consensual does not matter to what Michigan state is arguing
 

Some guy said:
Whether or not it was consensual does not matter to what Michigan state is arguing
Click to expand...
yeah it's an interesting argument with his clause
"engages in any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the university’s reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule upon the university"

phone intercourse is reasonably common so that may come into the consensual portion prior poster is mentioning because if deemed consensual or not able to be determined, does that make an act that 1/10 of people engage in "morally reprehensible" or worthy of ridicule or against the rules of society? Think that may be the angle of that, if consensual, this is a common enough thing between adults.
 

upnorthkid said:
yeah it's an interesting argument with his clause
"engages in any conduct which constitutes moral turpitude or which, in the university’s reasonable judgment, would tend to bring public disrespect, contempt or ridicule upon the university"

phone intercourse is reasonably common so that may come into the consensual portion prior poster is mentioning because if deemed consensual or not able to be determined, does that make an act that 1/10 of people engage in "morally reprehensible" or worthy of ridicule or against the rules of society? Think that may be the angle of that, if consensual, this is a common enough thing between adults.
Click to expand...
The fact that she was a vendor for the university is their entire case

I do not know Michigan state law or Michigan State University employee code of conduct well enough to know how good their case is.
 

An allegation was made, and a national tabloid let it out.

That’s not good enough on its own to qualify legally for “bring public disrespect”.

Prove me wrong.


Awful, awful path to walk down if we’re going to say otherwise.


If MSU T9 investigation concludes that “it probably happened the way she claims it did”, that’s at least something. We’ll know that outcome this month.


Direct or indirect MSU employee shouldn’t really matter at all. If it had been an assistant prof at MSU, I don’t think anything changes.
 

Some guy said:
The fact that she was a vendor for the university is their entire case

I do not know Michigan state law or Michigan State University employee code of conduct well enough to know how good their case is.
Click to expand...
I don't think interactions between a vendor and client could possibly be wrapped into employment or labor law. As far as the Michigan State employee code of conduct, potentially.

I think MSU is in a really tough situation here and that they will have to settle for large portions of Tucker's contract. We all knew that they were hoping for a situation where they could fire him with cause (tons of jokes about it on this thread). I have a hard time believing there are not tons of emails, texts, messages, between higher ups their desire to get rid of Tucker and likely potentially get out from under his contract. They better hope there are not any examples of people working at MSU who have had romantic relationships with any vendor, fellow employee, or anyone who had some sort of contractual relationship with the university.

If the jury/judge think MSU used this as a pretext to get out from under the contract. . . woof.
 

Allshade said:
Sir, and I mean this respectfully, these clauses are very common in contracts. "DISREPUTE" clauses. They're enforceable as well. You can find many articles on the web that cite cases where the court rules in favor of the employer for firing an employee who brought "disrepute" to the organization. In Tucker's case, MSU would likely win. But, Im sure they'll settle to save money, as usual.
Click to expand...
It was a joke kiddo😉. I thought was obvious, my bad.

We’re discussing an adult male fired for stroking his Sparty - if any subject deserves to be lampooned it’s this one.

“Life is too short to be taken seriously,” Oscar Wilde.
 
Last edited:

Bob_Loblaw said:
I don't think interactions between a vendor and client could possibly be wrapped into employment or labor law. As far as the Michigan State employee code of conduct, potentially.

I think MSU is in a really tough situation here and that they will have to settle for large portions of Tucker's contract. We all knew that they were hoping for a situation where they could fire him with cause (tons of jokes about it on this thread). I have a hard time believing there are not tons of emails, texts, messages, between higher ups their desire to get rid of Tucker and likely potentially get out from under his contract. They better hope there are not any examples of people working at MSU who have had romantic relationships with any vendor, fellow employee, or anyone who had some sort of contractual relationship with the university.

If the jury/judge think MSU used this as a pretext to get out from under the contract. . . woof.
Click to expand...
And do vendor relations go into perpetuity? This is too messy, Tucker will get a settlement, not sure about Tracy as it was proven that the claim was financial shakedown.
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom