Jump to content

ajusf16

Member
  • Posts

    2,558
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ajusf16

  1. Problem with this is there is not a good faith clause. The only clause I see is the 7b one discussed ad nauseaum earlier
  2. It's not always that simple. Initially could have been a small concern that was "no problem, we can iron that out in person" and proven to be a much larger concern in the long run.
  3. Opportunity is there but doesn't look like all our intentions will be with pursuing Strong
  4. Remains the same. Unable to come to terms on the buyout concerns.
  5. People let emotions cloud their business sense.
  6. He filed suit to argue he didn't. It's clear he lost out on positions because of what they said about him. So there will need to be some proof he knew. And if he did know, why file the case?
  7. Yes. Says so in the contract. In state court but UT could change to Federal and Strong agreed to this
  8. Then you would be like the majority of today's posters.
  9. The only thing is I haven't seen a good faith clause. Have you found one?
  10. I actually would strongly disagree that it's straight forward. Open to interpretation in my opinion. Was not clearly conveyed and would be a point that is muddying up the conversations.
  11. It's catered. Foods there. Just need to eat
  12. I just don't know that Woodie walks into another program and is DC immediately. He is from the area and short of WT taking him. If given the opportunity to stay here and learn, if they work Strong out, I feel career wise it's his best option
  13. Ok. What I am hearing is the buyout issue is two fold. Part of it is an issue with what happens because of TX but also what terms are acceptable on the new contract. So the answer is yes it does in part have to do with what he asked.
×
×
  • Create New...

It appears you are using ad blocking tools.  This site is supported through ads.  Please disable in order to enjoy full access to The Bulls Pen.  Registration is free and reduces ads.