Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Rich:

Larry has to contact Stern first. He's the one with a grievance.

No. The Knicks aren't going to pay a garaunteed contract. They want to get out of it. Larry's money is garaunteed. The Knicks are the ones who have to contact Stern.

They fired him "for cause." If Larry wants his money, he has to initiate the process.

The Knicks have to prove the "cause" aspect of it. They took the initiative, Larry's money is garaunteed until the Knicks prove otherwise to Stern. It's the Knicks with the grievance not Larry.

Do you have proof of that, because that's not how any legal process works.

Employers often claim they had "just cause" for terminating someone's employment. If you can prove that you had a legally sufficient reason to fire an employee, you will not have to give the notice set out in the Employment Standards Act, reasonable notice of termination , or severance pay in lieu of notice.

http://www.lawyers-bc.com/wrongdis/articles/cause.htm

[Edited by - joec32033 on 06-28-2006 10:15 AM]

Posted by nyk4ever:

Larry playing the rookies and the guys they drafted this year would have pleased alot of people on this forum that have a problem with him not playing younger players.

Posted by Rich:

He doesn't address the most critical issue: the allegation that he undermined Isiah by negotiating with other teams' GMs and Asst. GMs.

Posted by djsunyc:

larry can't talk b/c he has his arbitration hearing set up. dolan and isiah wanted brown to sign a document admitting his mistakes so they can fire him and then have proof of "just cause". there was no intention of retaining brown's services. secondly, with their barbara walters special, dolan laid out many reasons why they wanted to get rid of lb yet he also said that he had a plan to bring him back. if he did all those things, then why even entertain the thought of bringing him back?

there are more holes to their "presentation" but that's for another thread. and i won't even get into the absolute disgusting and pathetic way they treated francis and jalen in this situation.

here's the word out of the garden - isiah didn't want lb gone. but isiah thought he was going to be able to hire another coach (hence the donovan rumors). dolan making him coach caught him COMPLETELY off guard and when dolan announced PUBLICLY he had one year, he was shell shocked. that's why he looked totally dumbfounded and castrated on sportsdesk and sounded so depressed on stephen a. smith's interview.

this was not part of the plan - something isiah has repeatedly said. and dolan is working off the major anti-isiah sentiment from the fanbase. they've been telling him for months and months what the feedback from season ticket holders were (how pretty much everyone wanted isiah gone) and that's where the isiah "demotion" came about. (resulting in isiah saying he was "ticked") he's also hedging his bets b/c of the anucha thing. you see, they figure the anucha case will take a year to wrap up and they feel they would be in a rock and hard place firing isiah, not only b/c of the anucha case (where dolan and mills are both cited) but also that would give lb's appeal some legs. if not, isiah would've been fired as well.

and with dolan firing him for "just cause", and lb appealing it, there's a chance whatever insurance the garden put on lb's contract could pay the remaining balance b/c a claim was brought against it.

dolan is a dummy, but he has smart lawyers.

as for what really happened between lb and isiah/dolan? nobody will really know but lb will tell his side of the story after the arbitration and then we're left to pick sides. many already believe everything isiah and dolan fed them on monday even before lb gets a chance to talk. and i think that's a bit hypocritical b/c if lb is a snake and liar, isiah and dolan is every bit a snake and liar as well.

Posted by fishmike:

its so obvious that Larry was offered or told thing that didnt happen. When they didnt he acted like all spoiled kids do, he threw a temper tantrum and carried on.

Posted by fishmike:

its so obvious that Larry was offered or told thing that didnt happen. When they didnt he acted like all spoiled kids do, he threw a temper tantrum and carried on.

Posted by Rich:

Posted by joec32033:

ok...now you give me prrof, I gave it to you.

Having gone to law school, I know that's the way the law works. If you're my employee, and I fire you for "for cause," no court is going to come to me and ask me to justify the dismissal. The plaintiff must file a law suit for wrongful termination.

Now perhaps the NBA has different rules, but I haven't see that.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix244794492jun24,0,5128081.story?coll=ny-knicks-print

[...]

"A clause in Brown's contract gives Brown the right to ask NBA commissioner David Stern to arbitrate any dispute, and it's up to Brown's agent, Joe Glass, to pursue that appeal."


[Edited by - Rich on 06-28-2006 10:27 AM]

Posted by Rich:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Rich:

Posted by joec32033:

ok...now you give me prrof, I gave it to you.

Having gone to law school, I know that's the way the law works. If you're my employee, and I fire you for "for cause," no court is going to come to me and ask me to justify the dismissal. The plaintiff must file a law suit for wrongful termination.

Now perhaps the NBA has different rules, but I haven't see that.

http://www.greenwichtime.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix244794492jun24,0,5128081.story?

[...]

"A clause in Brown's contract gives Brown the right to ask NBA commissioner David Stern to arbitrate any dispute, and it's up to Brown's agent, Joe Glass, to pursue that appeal."


[Edited by - Rich on 06-28-2006 10:27 AM]

I view that as if it was Larry being the one that wanted out of his contract, then that course of action is on Larry. Larry then would be responsible for that(LB was the one who usually wanted out-he was never fired). The Knicks want out of a recognized garaunteed contract, the burden of porof is on them. That is why al the talk of them building a case, because they have the burden of proof on them. They have to prove LB didn't do his job, in order for them to accomplish this.

[Edited by - joec32033 on 06-28-2006 10:48 AM]

It's a guaranteed contract unless Larry breaches it. That's the Knicks position, i.e., firing him "for cause." ("Recognized" has no legal meaning, so I don't know what your point is.)

The burden of proof would normally (in a court of law) be on the plaintiff, which would be Larry (that is beyond dispute), unless Stern has is own rules. Neither you nor I know what process he will use.

Either way, it only becomes an issue once Larry starts the process by appealing the Knicks decision to Stern, as the article I linked states.

Then we can just agree to disagree because there is not one place, source, or reporter that I had read regarding Glass contacting Stern. Every single outlet seems to believe it is up to the Knicks to build it's case and contact Stern...Either or it's really just semantics....it is going to happen, no matter who is gonna contact Stern first.