What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Should Al Davis pay Kiffin (1 Viewer)

T

tomur2

Footballguy
After listening to many radio and tv reporters discuss the firing, i'm undecided about whether Kiffin is getting a fair deal. I was totally confused with his (Davis's) tv interview. in one sentence he said i talked with Kiffin about this or that and 2 sentences later he said he didn't have contact with Kiffin. Then he says he handed Kiffin a letter and then a sentence later he said he Fed-Xed Kiffin the letter. Then Davis said Kiffin didn't agree with him about drafting Russell. He said that was insubordination. Is that insubordination? Davis seems to think so. I guess he just wants people around him that will totally offer no imput of their own. I agree that Davis as owner can do whatever to the team he wants, but it sure sounds to me he's trying to buiild a bogus case against Kiffin so he won't have to pay him. Davis pulled the same thing on Mike Shanahan and stiffed him.

 
without knowing everything, I'd bet Davis is ethically wrong but, especially if he has gotten away with it in the past, he'll probably get away with it again.

Kiffin is better off however it ends up.

 
from Andrew Brandt:

By Andrew Brandt

Posted October 1, 2008

Kiffin Firing With Cause?

The other shoe finally dropped in Oakland. Mercifully, Al Davis put Lane Kiffin out of his misery and showed him the exit door from the Raiders. Kiffin has been a Dead Man Walking for quite some time, appearing to many as waiting and hoping to get fired. Being fired from a coaching position in the NFL, of course, means that the remaining term of the contract must be honored, meaning the fired coach continues to be paid.

Or does it? As with a lot of things, Davis sees the matter differently. Davis had a press conference yesterday to explain the decision to fire Kiffin. This was more than a press conference, however. It was a sample deposition and Exhibit A in the inevitable case against Davis by Kiffin to enforce the payment of the remaining $2.6M left on the three-year contract Kiffin signed in early 2007.

Coaching contracts typically are terminated “without cause,” meaning there has been no breach, egregious behavior, or conduct detrimental to the organization by the coach that would preclude ongoing payments due under the contract. In rare cases, contracts are terminated “with cause” alleging the above behavior and ending the obligation of the employer to continue payment. Davis is making his case in laymen’s terms that this contract was terminated “with cause.”

What then, are Davis’ arguments? Davis opined that Kiffin had “disgraced” the organization, citing everything from conflicts over personnel moves to outright lies to the media. Kiffin, Davis alleges, was no fan of JaMarcus Russell from the beginning as he opposed the selection. He further called Kiffin both a “flat-out liar” and a “professional liar,” all part of his case for a “with cause” termination.

Kiffin will lay out his side of the story today. Again, this will be his Exhibit A and sample future deposition in the coming case of Lane Kiffin vs. the Oakland Raiders.

Meanwhile, the Raiders move on to a new coach. Kiffin will eventually coach again and has a duty to mitigate the damages, meaning to find other appropriate work and salary that offsets what he is due from the Raiders, which Davis says is nothing.

Strange day in the Bay. And there will be more to come….
Click to expand...
some of the comments are also worthwhile.http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2008/1...ing-with-cause/

 
If Kiffin wanted his money he should have sack'd, shut up up and coached.

Instead he became a whiney little #####.

 
Regardless of who is right and wrong in the Kiffin-said-Crypt Keeper-said debate...

The Raiders would have been better off if Davis just paid him and didn't make this big deal out of it. Whether Davis is in the right or in the wrong, the way he is going about this will just further damage their chances of getting an effective coach by showing Davis is an owner you don't want to work for.

 
GregR said:
Regardless of who is right and wrong in the Kiffin-said-Crypt Keeper-said debate...The Raiders would have been better off if Davis just paid him and didn't make this big deal out of it. Whether Davis is in the right or in the wrong, the way he is going about this will just further damage their chances of getting an effective coach by showing Davis is an owner you don't want to work for.
Click to expand...
I was actually just about to post this very thing - in my opinion, whether or not Al Davis is in the right is irrelevant; if prospective coaches think that they're going to get this same kind of treatment then they won't exactly be prospective coaches. I can't imagine any coach (except for unknowns) wanting a job with this organization
 
A must admit, even as sick as this sounds, this is simply the most fascinating story in football since the superbowl. I don't know if Davis is off his rocker or if Kiffin is a idiot for thinking he could take on Davis or what. I'm not sure who's right or if anyone is right, even. I do know that the Davis presser was better than a new episode of The Office without the commercials. Simply put it was must see TV.

But...after seeing the Kiffin interview on NFL Live, he does come across as a bit of a sissy.

 
Davis does not refer to the disagreement about Russell as insubordination, he talks about

his treatment of the players and coaching staff, he also talks about how he suspended a coach without due cause.

Davis was rambling for sure, but I believe he has a case.

Kiffin was a cancer and Davis needed to cut the cancer from the organization.

Kiffin won't see a dime of the money.

Kiffin is a little boy, a piece of piss who will never get another sniff of a head coaching gig in the NFL.

 
I suspect that one of the reasons Al did it - right or wrong - is because had he simply fired Kiffin and not said a word, we might've thought "there goes Al again, another coaching change." But by tacking on all these claims of insubordination, he probably thinks that this firing is not like Shell, Bugel, White, etc. and that he should essentially be given a mulligan.

 
As a litigation attorney, that press conference was absolutely hilarious for it being such a blatant and transparent attempt to build a case - and yes, I mean "case" as in a court case - for "cause". That presser was not a presser, it was meant to be a spoken legal brief with everything but legal authority in it.

Al Davis is a crook, plain and simple. It's also clear that he still runs things, still has all his faculties (and all of his delusions of grandeur about his organization as well), and is THE reason why the organization operates the way it does.

Davis doesn't want to pay Kiffin money, so he spent all of this year sabotaging him within the organization to try to induce him to quit, and when that failed he fired him supposedly "for cause". It should be an embarrassment to every Raiders fan out there that their owner operates in this fashion.

Criticisms of Kiffin in the face of this blatant corruption on the part of Davis amounts to rationalizing and sophistry. Save it. There's nothing that Kiffin did that deserves this sort of treatment.

I hope Kiffin plays it classy himself, but then hires the biggest, loudest pit bull of a lawyer and shoves this approach right down Davis' throat, with plenty of press conferences (by the lawyer) thrown in about how Davis is corrupt, deceitful, and gone-'round-the-bend as an owner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was obvious that the extended press conference and letter 'show and tell' was to prove Kiffen had broken their contract, fired for 'cause', and not to be paid.

But, as you mentioned, the arguments were all over the place, and I don't think you can prove 'cause' unless he was trying to tank the team or something.

What is 'cause'...? Legal persons...a little help here?

 
Ron_Mexico said:
Davis does not refer to the disagreement about Russell as insubordination, he talks abouthis treatment of the players and coaching staff, he also talks about how he suspended a coach without due cause.Davis was rambling for sure, but I believe he has a case.Kiffin was a cancer and Davis needed to cut the cancer from the organization.Kiffin won't see a dime of the money.Kiffin is a little boy, a piece of piss who will never get another sniff of a head coaching gig in the NFL.
Click to expand...
If what you got from ALTV was that Kiffin is the problem, you are truly lost.
 
Black said:
What is 'cause'...? Legal persons...a little help here?
Click to expand...
This is as good of a summary of the concept as I can quickly find:
What is cause?

It is impossible to outline all the activities that would constitute cause and each case turns on its

facts. But, as a generalization, where an employee has engaged in any of the following it has

been held to be cause for discharge:

1. Serious misconduct: Theft, dishonesty and assault are generally held to be serious

misconduct. Conduct such as absenteeism, lateness and poor performance is usually

not serious misconduct unless there has been some form of progressive discipline.

2. Habitual neglect of duty or incompetence: For this to be cause, the employee has

to clearly understand the requirements of the job, the requirements have to be

reasonable and despite the problems being brought to the employee’s attention,

assistance offered. A reasonable time period must be given for improvement.

3. Conduct incompatible with the employee’s duties or prejudicial to the

employer’s business: Engaging in activities during the workday that interfere with

employment obligations or that compete with an employer’s business is generally

considered cause.

4. Willful disobedience to the employer’s orders: When a clear instruction has been

given by a manager and the instruction has been challenged or disobeyed by an

employee, in certain situations this can be cause.

In terminating an employee for cause, the onus is on the employer to prove the existence of just

cause beyond the balance of probabilities. The finding of cause must be based on real

incompetence or misconduct, rather than simple dissatisfaction with performance or concern as

to a potential misconduct. Where the employer is unable to demonstrate cause, an employee

will be entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.
Click to expand...
 
One said:
footballnerd said:
CalBear said:
Kiffin will sue and win.
Click to expand...
Al's lies damage his chances of getting another coaching job. He should also sue for defamation and collect a little extra.
Click to expand...
link?
Click to expand...
"For example, with the exception of Gibril Wilson, you were involved in recruiting all free agents and determining salaries for them and you were explicit about your desire to sign Javon Walker and DeAngelo Hall amongst others. All were a must to sign in your eyes, Hall, in particular, because he played for Greg Knapp in Atlanta and Knapp gave him high grades. Do not run from that now."Come on dude, everyone knows Al calls the shots when it comes to signings. Dude has total control over the organization for years. He's trying to blame his horrible contracts on Kiffin.

See this link if you need some insight on Al's total control of the organization.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-t...o&type=lgns

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tatum Bell said:
As a litigation attorney, that press conference was absolutely hilarious for it being such a blatant and transparent attempt to build a case - and yes, I mean "case" as in a court case - for "cause". That presser was not a presser, it was meant to be a spoken legal brief with everything but legal authority in it.Al Davis is a crook, plain and simple. It's also clear that he still runs things, still has all his faculties (and all of his delusions of grandeur about his organization as well), and is THE reason why the organization operates the way it does. Davis doesn't want to pay Kiffin money, so he spent all of this year sabotaging him within the organization to try to induce him to quit, and when that failed he fired him supposedly "for cause". It should be an embarrassment to every Raiders fan out there that their owner operates in this fashion. Criticisms of Kiffin in the face of this blatant corruption on the part of Davis amounts to rationalizing and sophistry. Save it. There's nothing that Kiffin did that deserves this sort of treatment. I hope Kiffin plays it classy himself, but then hires the biggest, loudest pit bull of a lawyer and shoves this approach right down Davis' throat, with plenty of press conferences (by the lawyer) thrown in about how Davis is corrupt, deceitful, and gone-'round-the-bend as an owner.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right, the conference was all to build a case to not pay kiffin. Why do you think it took him so long to do it? He didn't have enough of a case put together yet. His lawyers were probably working day and night to get all the "facts" straight with no holes. Guess it took them two weeks because they kept pushing back his firing.
 
Bright side for Oakland taxpayers: I expect this latest round will kill any talk about giving Davis more money for another new stadium.

 
Mookie Blaylock said:
Tatum Bell said:
Black said:
What is 'cause'...? Legal persons...a little help here?
Click to expand...
This is as good of a summary of the concept as I can quickly find:
The finding of cause must be based on real

incompetence or misconduct, rather than simple dissatisfaction with performance or concern as

to a potential misconduct.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Oops. Looks like Al forgot to read this part.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Al's general dissatisfaction over how Kiffin called plays, or managed the clock is not for cause. If that was the case, many NFL coaches would not see the remainder of their contract after termination. Kiffin needed to do something far more than what Al laid out yesterday to get fired for cause. Frankly Al's best chance to fire him for cause probably was (if true) when Kiffin was spending time trying to get the Arkansas job instead of spending time trying to coach the Raiders during the season. That would be directly undermining the organization. Al never took any action after finding out about that though which means that ship has long since sailed as relying upon it as a reason that the termination was for cause.I am sure the precise definition of for cause is laid out in Kiffin's contract although I am sure some variation of the definition posted above is what was included.

 
I would also add that even if Al is right and did the proper thing from a legal perspective, I don't think it was a good business decision to not pay Kiffin after firing him. It is only going to scare legitimate coaching candidates from taking the position, which in the end only serves to hurt the Raiders' interests in the short and long term. Plus, I may be wrong but I don't think Kiffin made that much money in his deal given that he was a rookie head coach and didn't have a lot of leverage to make Al pay him boatloads of cash to hire him.

 
skillz said:
I would also add that even if Al is right and did the proper thing from a legal perspective, I don't think it was a good business decision to not pay Kiffin after firing him. It is only going to scare legitimate coaching candidates from taking the position, which in the end only serves to hurt the Raiders' interests in the short and long term. Plus, I may be wrong but I don't think Kiffin made that much money in his deal given that he was a rookie head coach and didn't have a lot of leverage to make Al pay him boatloads of cash to hire him.
Click to expand...
$2 mil per year.
 
Autumn Wind said:
skillz said:
I would also add that even if Al is right and did the proper thing from a legal perspective, I don't think it was a good business decision to not pay Kiffin after firing him. It is only going to scare legitimate coaching candidates from taking the position, which in the end only serves to hurt the Raiders' interests in the short and long term. Plus, I may be wrong but I don't think Kiffin made that much money in his deal given that he was a rookie head coach and didn't have a lot of leverage to make Al pay him boatloads of cash to hire him.
Click to expand...
$2 mil per year.
Click to expand...
Yep. Kiffin was pretty highly paid, especially considering his credentials. IIRC John Fox (or some other small market and fairly successful head coach - Del Rio?) a year or two ago was only making $750k. Regardless, for an NFL team that's well under 1% of its revenue. This is being done out of spite.
 
skillz said:
I would also add that even if Al is right and did the proper thing from a legal perspective, I don't think it was a good business decision to not pay Kiffin after firing him. It is only going to scare legitimate coaching candidates from taking the position, which in the end only serves to hurt the Raiders' interests in the short and long term. Plus, I may be wrong but I don't think Kiffin made that much money in his deal given that he was a rookie head coach and didn't have a lot of leverage to make Al pay him boatloads of cash to hire him.
Click to expand...
:tinfoilhat: Regardless of the legal aspect (and I'm an amateur at best, but it would seem Al has next to no real case against Kiffin), this type of a move is just a horrible choice. They Raiders have had only 2 experienced HCs in Davis' history of owning a team - and they are probably considered 2 of the worst in recent memory in Joe Bugel and Norv Turner.Even before Kiffin, it's not like legit coaches were interested in coaching for the Raiders. Now they know that Davis might not even honor the contract they sign.I would think that any coach with a history of winning is going to have multiple offers. And I can't imagine how any offer is going to look worse then a Raiders offer at this point. They Raiders will essentially only have candidates that are considered roundly undesirable available to them for HC until Davis dies or retires.I feel for you Raider fans. Al Davis has ruined a great organization.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This has probably already been mentioned by others but the answer to this question largely depends upon information not generally known; the specific wording of the contract. That said, it is practically impossible to imagine the contract allowed early termination without financial obligations ambiguously "for cause." Every single firing is for some "cause," and its typically failure to win. I would guess this is an area of a coach's contract which would typically provide very specific wording. That wording was no doubt reviewed and negotiated by Kiffin's counsel. Whether Kiffin's actions met whatever definition was used for "with cause" is probably open to some interpretation. If the piddly things Davis is complaining of meet the contractual definition of "for cause" then I'd hope Kiffin's agent has major malpractice insurance.

The bigger question to me is whether anyone would be stupid enough to sign a multi-year contract to coach for Davis in the future given this same occurence with both Shanahan and Kiffin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I used to hate the Raiders as a team. I no longer hate them...I pity them. One of my best friends is a devout Raider fan, and it pains me to see him wince because he knows his once great team has been reduced to the absolute joke of the entire sports world. I can't think of any team in any other sport that has been held hostage by a deluded egocentric raving mad megalomaniacal two bit low class punk like Al Davis more than the Raiders. If you took Jerry Jones, Mike Brown, and Daniel Snyder and rolled them into one person they still wouldn’t be half the slimy repugnant maggot ridden filth that Al Davis is.

Lane Kiffin should take him to court and harass him on principle alone.

I hope for the NFL’s sake, for the Raider fans sake (and they are without a doubt some of the best fans in sports), and for the AFC West’s sake, Al Davis would just step aside and let somebody remotely competent take over and give the Raiders some respectability again. If he had and common decency he would pay Kiffin what HE AGREED TO PAY HIM. It is called a contract for a reason.

 
From what I've seen? Yeah, Kiffin should get paid. I'm sure it goes to court. Jokes on Davis if he pisses away 2008 trying to save a few bucks and gets bent over anyway. What a joke.

 
Mookie Blaylock said:
Ron_Mexico said:
Davis does not refer to the disagreement about Russell as insubordination, he talks abouthis treatment of the players and coaching staff, he also talks about how he suspended a coach without due cause.Davis was rambling for sure, but I believe he has a case.Kiffin was a cancer and Davis needed to cut the cancer from the organization.Kiffin won't see a dime of the money.Kiffin is a little boy, a piece of piss who will never get another sniff of a head coaching gig in the NFL.
Click to expand...
If what you got from ALTV was that Kiffin is the problem, you are truly lost.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: If its between the players and the owner on who I am going to believe, I will take the players all day. Unfortunately they dont pay the coach or fire him. As I stated in another thread Asomugha has already said the players believed in and respected Kiffin, that speaks volumes coming from the best player on the team. Al is an old lieing fart that needs to be removed from his position for ruining a great franchise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

EBF
2024 Rookie Thoughts
Replies
29
Views
3K
Gjallarhorn
Gjallarhorn
ignatiusjreilly
TE draft strategy
2
Replies
69
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
K
Zero RB Targets and Rankings (PPR)
Replies
2
Views
743
kyoun1e
K

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top