Losing 8 home games in 2 seasons is enough cause for me.
Wolken on this UK team
- Thread starter Smashcat
- Start date
Losing 8 home games in 2 seasons is enough cause for me.
UK would have a better chance of firing Calipari for lower attendance or not doing his radio show than they would "cause" as it relates to on court performance. Its been discussed at length in the past.
The program in writing his contract was more concerned about him not getting UK in any trouble with the NCAA than it was about winning (what does that say about the relationship between Cal and Barnhart really?)
presumably they *didn't* have to talk about Calipari in regards to winning, just not cheating to make it happen.
Its just another short sighted issued with Barnhart who , just like with Gillespie, is a single issue AD and doesn't think down the line.
To write a contract making him the highest paid coach in the nation devoid of any requirement for on court performance is absurd. I'm sure Calipari's lawyer had a hand in writing it.
The program in writing his contract was more concerned about him not getting UK in any trouble with the NCAA than it was about winning (what does that say about the relationship between Cal and Barnhart really?)
presumably they *didn't* have to talk about Calipari in regards to winning, just not cheating to make it happen.
Its just another short sighted issued with Barnhart who , just like with Gillespie, is a single issue AD and doesn't think down the line.
To write a contract making him the highest paid coach in the nation devoid of any requirement for on court performance is absurd. I'm sure Calipari's lawyer had a hand in writing it.
Last edited:
If Calipari was convicted of armed robbery, are you telling me we’d still owe him his millions? Where did you get your law degree?
Actually yes. It's right here.
But even if I hadn't, for cause has never meant not winning enough or allegedly not having the correct priorities.
UK and Cal will work out a deal, especially if this season ends anything like I think it will.
It's not enough for the courts, and that's all that matters.
I don't totally disagree...but that's not something that would allow for him to be terminated "for cause" contractually
WOW. That's a straw man if I've ever seen one.
The guy said nothing Cal has done gives UK Cause. And people wanting to claim cause are wrong.
"IF" Calipari were convicted of armed Robbery, then sure, they would have cause. But ya know, he hasn't. So you're just throwing crp at the wall rather than discussing the original point--there currently is no caus.e
For cause is a legal term that refers to the following actions1:
- Gross negligence or gross neglect
- The commission of a felony or gross misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, fraud, or dishonesty
- The willful violation of any law, rule, or regulation (other than a traffic violation or similar offense)
- An intentional failure to perform stated duties
- A breach of fiduciary duty involving personal profit
Lol. Convicted of armed robbery would be a felony, which is one of the specific examples his contract gives of something that would be enough to fire him for cause.
(d) The word “cause,” as used herein shall mean the occurrence of any of the following:
(iii) Acts of misconduct including, but not limited to, conviction of a felony…
OK now you’re just making shit up. There are plenty of reasons for Cal to go but just randomly saying he’s getting kickbacks is bullshit.
"I am the victim of a hate crime. Stanley knows what I'm talking about."
"That's not what a hate crime is."
"Well, I hated it, a lot, okay"
Well for one thing, it's a pretty easy task to click and see that I've posted with this account for what is now going on 4 years. So not only was that a weird attempt at a burn, it was just dumb.
And for another, nobody on here is defending Calipari - I would assume most of us actually would like him gone. But in this thread there are just folks like myself who are simply educating the ignorant on what "for cause" actually entails. I think we all can figure out which of those two categories you would fall under.
I swear you would think poor results would be included in the cause stipulations. He literally can get canned for doing anything but losing.
Imagine if losing games were "cause" for firing a coach. Next up: not covering the spread.
Yeah, I was a little confused on it. Maybe it’s about Robic? Sure as hell isn’t about guys like Justus or Barbee.
He can absolutely be fired for losing, he would just still be owed whatever the contract buyout is at that time. But if he were fired “with cause” then he wouldn’t be owed another dime.
Unfortunately the requirement of maintaining a certain winning % is not written in his contract.
Exactly and definitely unfortunately
Obviously I’m in the group who want Calipari gone yesterday but even I recognize legally our hands are tied
His contract was very carefully written. All Barnhart wanted was for him to keep it clean…Calipari had the upper hand there because he was able to have the contract written in such a way to give him a long leash yet adhere to the terms
Barnhart truly screwed the university and fan base for allowing this to happen
That's the problem. It should be. Coaches get bonuses for so many wins, tournament wins, final fours and such. They should get dinged for not winning the SEC, 30 wins and the like.
Agreed 100%. We need to be holding Mitch’s feet to the fire the same way we hold Cal’s
Board is full of homers. We lose, facts are spit. We beat some scrub team.
“This team has turned the corner”
“defense looks good”
“Ugo is anthony davis”
“Kentucky could win at auburn”
Then we lose and the cycle repeats.
Just to be clear, this isn't a Mitch issue or a Kentucky issue.
This is how coach firings work. Coaching contracts stipulate that coaches can be fired without cause. In order to avoid law suits, there are agreed upon financial settlements. The coach agrees to this when signing the contract. If Kentucky upholds their end, Calipari has agreed not to take them to court.
So Kentucky doesn't NEED cause to fire Calipari. I don't know why everyone is so worried about it. They can write him a check and send him on his way.
The only reason to want "cause" is to avoid the payout. We're not avoiding the payout. If we fire him with cause--he's taking the University to court. UK will spent a lot of time, energy, and money they don't want to spend.
This is how coach firings work. Coaching contracts stipulate that coaches can be fired without cause. In order to avoid law suits, there are agreed upon financial settlements. The coach agrees to this when signing the contract. If Kentucky upholds their end, Calipari has agreed not to take them to court.
So Kentucky doesn't NEED cause to fire Calipari. I don't know why everyone is so worried about it. They can write him a check and send him on his way.
The only reason to want "cause" is to avoid the payout. We're not avoiding the payout. If we fire him with cause--he's taking the University to court. UK will spent a lot of time, energy, and money they don't want to spend.
Last edited:
He went to Cats Illustrated law school. He knows what he’s talking about.
Y’all owe Dan Wolken an apology. He’s been saying we were trash for over a decade now and y’all argued with him. Hit him up on twitter and tell him he was right.
You're arguing semantics. Yes, "for cause" won't be the reason if it's used to justify firing him for poor performance, but he will indeed be fired for poor performance.
Semantics? They’re two totally different things with two totally different outcomes. It’s only semantics because you can’t defend the ignorance of being fired for cause.
It’s not semantics. When you’re fired for cause you’re not owed the rest of your money. When you’re fired for poor performance you are. Maybe the person who first said Cal should be fired for cause doesn’t know that, but he can’t be fired for cause right now.
I don't think it's semantics.
1. Calipari can be fired for poor performance. When they do it, the paper work will say "without cause."
The "with cause" or "without cause" matters. And it has nothing to do with semantics. If they say with cause, they owe Calipari zero dollars, and they better have an iron clad case they did he did something. Because he can take them to court and challenge it. And it will cost them a fortune. And they can lose if it's not an appropriate "cause."
Without Cause: They've written the contract to be able to fire Calipari without cause. They have written a settlement into the contract. By signing it, Calipari agrees not to sue them for wrongful termination. They have promised him so much money should they decided to fire him without cause.
I concur. I will say winning SHOULD be in a coach's contract however. I mean, almost every other job on the planet has performance metrics. It's wild that a sports job, where the primary objective is to WIN GAMES, is not held to that account.
This is just wishful happenings on your part. You can cherry pick statements Cal has made, and he says a lot of goofy things, but there is no way to prove what you just posted. The BBN does not pay him. How do you prove he doesnt have the best interest of the BB program in mind? His goals may not mesh with yours but , that doesn't violate anything in his contract. JMO
I've always had an issue with the term "hate crime". Like I understand legally why it exists, but you usually don't do crime to people because you love them.
"Hey man, you just killed that dude!"
"Yeah, cause I loved him too damn much!"
I appreciate your opinion and I'm actually not going to call you names, unlike others. I think we all know that Cal was hired because of the success he demonstrated over his career. Today, he's not only off the rails but he's out in the weeds. I'm pretty sure the man we see today isn't the man that was hired to lead this program. He's changed because his priorities have changed, IMO. Are his priorities today going to maintain the Program standards historically? Each one of us will have to make that decision. It seems many of us are only left scratching our head with decisions he makes after disappointing results. We're now seeing the national media scratching their heads as well. It's embarrassing for many except maybe for Cal. I wish it were different.
I'll read it, thanks. Just seems strange to me that a coaching contract wouldn't have some sort of performance expectations in it.
Bingo. That is precisely the reason Kenny Payne is going to get fired, no matter what convenient reason they give.
And Kenny Payne will be paid every penny he's owed in his contract. That's the different between firing for cause and firing not for cause. We can fire Cal for any reason we want, but if it's not for cause we owe him every dollar his contract entitles him to unless he agrees to take a lesser amount.
....speaking of "Cal nut huggers".
