Former Players v. Football Program *** Thread

[obfuscating]

So now that it is dropped, will Doyle get his job back? Can he sue the players, the U of I, the board of regents, etc for costing him his job?

This is what I mean by accusations costing people their jobs (and future employment) with no repercussions to the accuser for doing so.

Claims against Hawkeye coaches dismissed in Univ. of Iowa discrimination lawsuit

With these dismissals, the Iowa Board of Regents remain the only defendants in the lawsuit.

www.kcrg.com

 

[Steamboat529529]

So now that it is dropped, will Doyle get his job back? Can he sue the players, the U of I, the board of regents, etc for costing him his job?

This is what I mean by accusations costing people their jobs (and future employment) with no repercussions to the accuser for doing so.

Claims against Hawkeye coaches dismissed in Univ. of Iowa discrimination lawsuit

With these dismissals, the Iowa Board of Regents remain the only defendants in the lawsuit.

www.kcrg.com

Haven’t read the separation document for awhile, but he most definitely signed away his right to sue iowa or the bor. He could probably sue the players but won’t get very far, let alone to a favorable verdict or result, let alone recovering any damages.

 

[kceasthawk]

Counter sue for damages to which there are many. These young men should have to take responsibility for their lies and embellishments.

Certainly Chris Doyle you would think. It made him basically unhireable the last three years. I wonder if all the hacks on ESPN will follow up on this story, now that ALL the coaches have been dropped from the suit. Nah.... Not the story their looking for....

 

[kceasthawk]

Haven’t read the separation document for awhile, but he most definitely signed away his right to sue iowa or the bor. He could probably sue the players but won’t get very far, let alone to a favorable verdict or result, let alone recovering any damages.

No doubt. Blood from a turnip as it is.......

 

[gojojo]

Well look for them to settle then

I wouldn't give them change for their expiring parking meter.

Fug em, and hope they never step foot back on campus. Not a smart play, Akrum,

 

[Steamboat529529]

I wouldn't give them change for their expiring parking meter.

Fug em, and hope they never step foot back on campus. Not a smart play, Akrum,

My personal over/under for the total settlement amount would be about 100k. If there are seven guys, and taking out attorney fees and all else, maybe the plaintiffs get half of that. Seems like a lot of work and drama to make 7k. 🤷‍♂️

 

[IowasLaw]

So now that it is dropped, will Doyle get his job back? Can he sue the players, the U of I, the board of regents, etc for costing him his job?

This is what I mean by accusations costing people their jobs (and future employment) with no repercussions to the accuser for doing so.

Claims against Hawkeye coaches dismissed in Univ. of Iowa discrimination lawsuit

With these dismissals, the Iowa Board of Regents remain the only defendants in the lawsuit.

www.kcrg.com

From what I recall, Doyle accepted a sweetheart deal whereby he "resigned" (it expressly stated the resignation was not in lieu of a termination) and took a huge payout of over $1,200,000 just for leaving the program. He can't now come back and sue and say never mind, I didn't really resign, I was unfairly fired.

While Doyle may have been dropped from the suit, that doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of. To the contrary. One of the biggest law firms in the country, one i work with, confirmed there was racial bias in the program. This law firm was hand picked by Iowa to investigate. That’s a fact.

My guess is the alleged "victims" simply want to go after the deeper pockets (i.e. the University). That way they can reach a settlement without any individual having to admit guilt and destroy his career...because Kirk would have never let that happen.

 

[obfuscating]

From what I recall, Doyle accepted a sweetheart deal whereby he "resigned" and took a huge payout of over $1,000,000 just for leaving the program. He can't now come back and sue and say nevermind.

I thought he was let go, makes a difference that he resigned. Too bad as it has cost him future employment, once the name is associated with such a case it is pretty hard to clear it (imho).

Any grounds for defamation against the players, from the U of I et al?

 

[pistachio1999]

I thought he was let go, makes a difference that he resigned. Too bad as it has cost him future employment, once the name is associated with such a case it is pretty hard to clear it (imho).

Any grounds for defamation against the players, from the U of I et al?

Doyle was paid out his existing contract. The U always had the right not to renew for whatever reason they wished.

 

[pistachio1999]

My personal over/under for the total settlement amount would be about 100k. If there are seven guys, and taking out attorney fees and all else, maybe the plaintiffs get half of that. Seems like a lot of work and drama to make 7k. 🤷‍♂️

Probably get some Pancheros.

 

[Hendy hawk]

So now that it is dropped, will Doyle get his job back? Can he sue the players, the U of I, the board of regents, etc for costing him his job?

This is what I mean by accusations costing people their jobs (and future employment) with no repercussions to the accuser for doing so.

Claims against Hawkeye coaches dismissed in Univ. of Iowa discrimination lawsuit

With these dismissals, the Iowa Board of Regents remain the only defendants in the lawsuit.

www.kcrg.com

Yes, No and No
Just my opinion.

 

[kceasthawk]

From what I recall, Doyle accepted a sweetheart deal whereby he "resigned" (it expressly stated the resignation was not in lieu of a termination) and took a huge payout of over $1,200,000 just for leaving the program. He can't now come back and sue and say never mind, I didn't really resign, I was unfairly fired.

While Doyle may have been dropped from the suit, that doesn't mean he didn't do what he was accused of. My guess is the alleged "victims" simply want to go after the deeper pockets (i.e. the University). That way they can reach a settlement without any individual having to admit guilt and destroy his career...because Kirk would have never let that happen.

It also doesn't mean he DID do what he's accused of either does it? Or are we no longer living in America?

 

[Steamboat529529]

Exactly! Although we are in times where you can identify as whatever, boys are girls, and you can take out debt and the government force everyone else to pay for it...

I think that last one got shut down today, at least for the time being. 🤷‍♂️

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Counter sue for damages to which there are many. These young men should have to take responsibility for their lies and embellishments.

If I had a heart it would say hit those ****ing race baiting grievance hustlers so hard they'd never again enter the boarders of the state of Iowa. But I'm a lawyer so no heart. Let them slither off, with the warning the next problem they cause the University, or the state of Iowa will bring massive retaliation.

To add, I would also say an abuse of process suit by the University appears much stronger now than a year ago. Still, better to let 'em leave with their head down.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

My guess is the alleged "victims" simply want to go after the deeper pockets (i.e. the University). That way they can reach a settlement without any individual having to admit guilt and destroy his career...because Kirk would have never let that happen.

That makes no sense as a litigation strategy. What you characterize as deeper pockets were already Defendants. It further complicates the Plaintiff's trial proof.

The University cannot be liable for a hostile environment or any theory of respondeat superior, like negligent supervision, without Plaintiffs proving the underlying discriminatory conduct by the former individual Defendants. All of the individual former Defendants can still testify so the trial still comes down to the words of a legendary figure against this collection of malcontents. The "Never Ferentz" bitter enders might struggle to grasp the ocean of credibility attached to the name Ferentz in the larger Iowa general population. That ocean grows larger when it's seen against the backdrop of the Plaintiff's dubious and insubstantial stories.​

 

[KFsdisciple]

That makes no sense as a litigation strategy. What you characterize as deeper pockets were already Defendants. It further complicates the Plaintiff's trial proof.

The University cannot be liable for a hostile environment or any theory of respondeat superior, like negligent supervision, without Plaintiffs proving the underlying discriminatory conduct by the former individual Defendants. All of the individual former Defendants can still testify so the trial still comes down to the words of a legendary figure against this collection of malcontents. The "Never Ferentz" bitter enders might struggle to grasp the ocean of credibility attached to the name Ferentz in the larger Iowa general population. That ocean grows larger when it's seen against the backdrop of the Plaintiff's dubious and insubstantial stories.​

Are the plaintiffs gambling a bit that it’s more in the university’s interest to have this thing go away in a sealed settlement vs the coaches who have a much more vested interest in fighting to the bitter end? Not to mention the school has a more liberal mindset than maybe the coaching staff does?

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Are the plaintiffs gambling a bit that it’s more in the university’s interest to have this thing go away in a sealed settlement vs the coaches who have a much more vested interest in fighting to the bitter end? Not to mention the school has a more liberal mindset than maybe the coaching staff does?

The individual former Defendants were controlled by the same defensive strategy. I think that is being directed by the University. Doyle is the only guy with any free agency in the matter.

 

[LampoonYou]

It’s over. Time to retire this thread

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

If I had a heart it would say hit those ****ing race baiting grievance hustlers so hard they'd never again enter the boarders of the state of Iowa. But I'm a lawyer so no heart. Let them slither off, with the warning the next problem they cause the University, or the state of Iowa will bring massive retaliation.

To add, I would also say an abuse of process suit by the University appears much stronger now than a year ago. Still, better to let 'em leave with their head down.

Let the lawyers who went after that perceived opportunity take a financial loss on that ... hopefully they make sure there is a better case before leaping next time. Seems pretty irresponsible ... if you ask me. I hope they get burned for it.

 

[The Deplorable Sleeping Dog]

Let the lawyers who went after that perceived opportunity take a financial loss on that ... hopefully they make sure there is a better case before leaping next time. Seems pretty irresponsible ... if you ask me. I hope they get burned for it.

Sadly they just got a lot of free publicity. They have eaten a huge amount of time on this concoction. After reading the depo testimony I think sanctions are on the table and the lawyers could take a hit.

But, as I said above, the U and the AG just want it over. Rear view mirror kind of decision.

 

[pistachio1999]

It’s over. Time to retire this thread

Not quite over.

 

[AuroraHawk]

Exactly! Although we are in times where you can identify as whatever, boys are girls, and you can take out debt and the government force everyone else to pay for it...

You mean like anyone who files bankruptcy?
And companies who get sweetheart tax deals?
And farmers who receive subsidies?

 

[Steamboat529529]

You mean like anyone who files bankruptcy?
And companies who get sweetheart tax deals?
And farmers who receive subsidies?

It should go through Congress, like most of the items you listed above. Unlike student loan forgiveness, which did not and why it rightly should be stopped.

 

[515Clone]

You mean like anyone who files bankruptcy?
And companies who get sweetheart tax deals?
And farmers who receive subsidies?

Farmers are the biggest recipients of welfare and whine the most about low income people getting food stamps etc. This thread got super political.

 

[iowahaha1]

could any consequences ever come to Robert T Green? He was sure strong on the notion of not sending your athletes to Iowa. He kind of jumped the gun and stated Iowa was a racist university, but then most of the players retracted their statements. I have not seen Robert T Green retract any of his statements.

 

[Steamboat529529]

Farmers are the biggest recipients of welfare and whine the most about low income people getting food stamps etc. This thread got super political.

Again. Congress.

 

[bdcolt45er]

Are the plaintiffs gambling a bit that it’s more in the university’s interest to have this thing go away in a sealed settlement vs the coaches who have a much more vested interest in fighting to the bitter end? Not to mention the school has a more liberal mindset than maybe the coaching staff does?

I could be wrong but my understanding is that a sealed settlement is not an option.

 

[pistachio1999]

It should go through Congress, like most of the items you listed above. Unlike student loan forgiveness, which did not and why it rightly should be stopped.

Holy heck we agree on something!

 

[Steamboat529529]

Holy heck we agree on something!

You and I are the same person pistachio!

 

[AuroraHawk]

It should go through Congress, like most of the items you listed above. Unlike student loan forgiveness, which did not and why it rightly should be

First, this isn't the thread for this debate.
Second, that's not the argument to which I was responding. The post to which I was responding claimed that we "now" live in a country where people can take out debt and the government will force others to pay for it. A clear reference to student loan forgiveness debate.

The point is simple. Government frequently "bails" out others who have taken out debt. The bankruptcy code is designed to wipe clean the debt of others. Society as a whole pays for that. For God's sake, the previous occupier of the White House thrived on not paying voluntarily incurred debt and subsequently going into bankruptcy to forgive those financial decisions. Society as a whole paid for that person's personal financial benefit.

Farmers take on debt every year as part of their business and the government uses our tax money to assist them to keep their businesses afloat. Governments give companies tax deals all the time, foisting greater cost upon regular taxpayers because those companies aren't paying what other companies are paying.

I've got no problem with anyone claiming that the process to forgive a certain amount of student debt was flawed. Setting aside my feelings about whether it is good policy, I firmly believe that a large part of the effort, if not the entire effort, will be stricken down.

I've got a huge problem with anyone claiming that student loan forgiveness is somehow a watershed moment in this nation's history in which the general citizenry is for the first time being asked to assist/bail out (pick your verb) others' financial decisions. Give me a freaking break.

 

[obfuscating]

You mean like anyone who files bankruptcy?
And companies who get sweetheart tax deals?
And farmers who receive subsidies?

Sick of being the hook for other peoples debt, period.

 

[pistachio1999]

Sick of being the hook for other peoples debt, period.

The whole system is perverse. Legislators rail against entities that pay little tax. Who the heck wrote and passed those tax laws? Never was a truer statement uttered by an individual than when it was stated "we have to pass the legislation to see what's in it". That's totally f'ed up.

 

[pistachio1999]

First, this isn't the thread for this debate.
Second, that's not the argument to which I was responding. The post to which I was responding claimed that we "now" live in a country where people can take out debt and the government will force others to pay for it. A clear reference to student loan forgiveness debate.

The point is simple. Government frequently "bails" out others who have taken out debt. The bankruptcy code is designed to wipe clean the debt of others. Society as a whole pays for that. For God's sake, the previous occupier of the White House thrived on not paying voluntarily incurred debt and subsequently going into bankruptcy to forgive those financial decisions. Society as a whole paid for that person's personal financial benefit.

Farmers take on debt every year as part of their business and the government uses our tax money to assist them to keep their businesses afloat. Governments give companies tax deals all the time, foisting greater cost upon regular taxpayers because those companies aren't paying what other companies are paying.

I've got no problem with anyone claiming that the process to forgive a certain amount of student debt was flawed. Setting aside my feelings about whether it is good policy, I firmly believe that a large part of the effort, if not the entire effort, will be stricken down.

I've got a huge problem with anyone claiming that student loan forgiveness is somehow a watershed moment in this nation's history in which the general citizenry is for the first time being asked to assist/bail out (pick your verb) others' financial decisions. Give me a freaking break.

You don't see the argument that it is basically the President authorizing new spending unilaterally without Congressional authorization? That's what I have the most problem with. If this is cool somehow then watch what future Presidents do.

 

[ItsAllBallBearingsNowadays]

Farmers are the biggest recipients of welfare and whine the most about low income people getting food stamps etc. This thread got super political.

Farmers deserve whatever they get so the rest of us desk jockeys don’t have to have 8 kids for a subsistence living anymore. They’re only second to military in my respect.

 

[pistachio1999]

You and I are the same person pistachio!

The left and ride side of the brain.

 

[Steamboat529529]

First, this isn't the thread for this debate.
Second, that's not the argument to which I was responding. The post to which I was responding claimed that we "now" live in a country where people can take out debt and the government will force others to pay for it. A clear reference to student loan forgiveness debate.

The point is simple. Government frequently "bails" out others who have taken out debt. The bankruptcy code is designed to wipe clean the debt of others. Society as a whole pays for that. For God's sake, the previous occupier of the White House thrived on not paying voluntarily incurred debt and subsequently going into bankruptcy to forgive those financial decisions. Society as a whole paid for that person's personal financial benefit.

Farmers take on debt every year as part of their business and the government uses our tax money to assist them to keep their businesses afloat. Governments give companies tax deals all the time, foisting greater cost upon regular taxpayers because those companies aren't paying what other companies are paying.

I've got no problem with anyone claiming that the process to forgive a certain amount of student debt was flawed. Setting aside my feelings about whether it is good policy, I firmly believe that a large part of the effort, if not the entire effort, will be stricken down.

I've got a huge problem with anyone claiming that student loan forgiveness is somehow a watershed moment in this nation's history in which the general citizenry is for the first time being asked to assist/bail out (pick your verb) others' financial decisions. Give me a freaking break.

From an executive order standpoint, it’s a pretty watershed moment for bailing out other’s financial decisions. But I hear you.

 

[Hendy hawk]

Wow, this thread has slipped from racism to govt politics.

 

[KFsdisciple]

Wow, this thread has slipped from racism to govt politics.

what a tangled web we weave...

 

[squeezebox]

I have had Taco Bell shits after a case of Busch Latte that smell/look better than this and the Doyle thread.

 

[AuroraHawk]

You don't see the argument that it is basically the President authorizing new spending unilaterally without Congressional authorization? That's what I have the most problem with. If this is cool somehow then watch what future Presidents do.

Again . . . go back to @obfuscating 's post. Read the words that he wrote. Then read my response. Then read @Steamboat529529 's post and my response to it.

There are two separate issues:
1. Whether it is sound policy to forgive a certain amount of student loan debt.
2. Whether the grant of power provided by HEROES Act of 2003 (approved by Congress and signed into law by George Bush) to the Secretary of Education encompasses forgiving student loan debt as a result of Donald Trump's declaring a state of national emergency because of COVID-19.

The first is a policy question. The second is a procedural question.

I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . as for #2, I don't believe that the HEROES Act should (or will) be interpreted as broadly as the Biden Administration wants it to be interpreted.

That written, the Biden Administration's interpretation of a Congressional Act from 2003 (Bush was President) which authorized the Secretary of Education to take action with respect to payment of student loans after a declaration of a state of National Emergency (declaration was made by Trump) is a far cry different than the National Emergency that was declared solely for the purpose of freeing up funds for building a border wall when Congress specifically refused to provide the funding that Trump wanted.

We've seen what a President will do to authorize spending . . . and it was cheered loudly by a significant %age of the population - most of whom seem outraged over Biden trying to use an Act of Congress and Trump's National Emergency Declaration to forgive a certain percentage of student loan debt.