Walk-ons can get NIL, so we don't even need a scholly open.
Pat Fitzgerald Suspended...NOW FIRED....Has Hired a High-Profile Attorney to Fight Back
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
I'm curious who you'd put in the category of teams we've beaten that we had no business beating since OSU six years ago. With how Phil and LeVar's units have performed I think it's their business to beat anyone in the big ten if the offense shows up. Now if you're just talking recruiting rankings I'll give you that
If it is true about the kid saying these things about embellishment I hope he sues the kid as well. Bankrupt the little prick. Allegations like his destroy people and keep others suffering real abuse from coming forward.
Go after the reporters as well. Our media needs a couple court cases to work through thr system to force actual ethics onto their reporting
"We're going to suspend you for 4 weeks"
"I completely disagree"
"Ok, but we have to do something, someone has to take a hit - 2 weeks"
"Alright, I don't agree but let's put this to rest"
See, negotiated, orally.
So as an actual attorney I’m going to go with whatever @AuroraHawk says here vs what anyone else has to say. 👍
Broadly speaking, contract law dictates that, for a contract to be enforceable (either written or oral), there must be an arms length agreement and consideration given up by both sides.
For those thinking that there is a binding oral contract and that Northwestern "gave up" its right to terminate Fitzgerald for cause . . . what exactly did Fitzgerald "give" to Northwestern in exchange?
Now . . . perhaps there are disciplinary procedures dictated in his employment contract that give rise to him being able to challenge his termination. I wouldn't have any idea about that.
My comments are directed to those who claim that the original "you are going to be suspended 2 weeks" statement constitutes a binding and enforceable oral contract. Unless Fitzgerald can show that there was a mutual exchange of consideration and that Fitzgerald "gave up" something of value for Northwestern to "give up" its right to terminate him for cause, I'm having a hard time concluding that a binding oral contract was formed.
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the Northwestern president's announcement included the following: according to Illinois law the oral agreement they had with Fitz was a binding contract.
It would be helpful to read the northwestern rivals page. Majority consensus seems to be Fitz was unaware, the qb in question had an ax to grind and likely embellished, NU president Schill has put the univ in a bad spot legally and Fitz will likely get a large sum of money, Fitz on field performance was bad and last couple of years and they are ready to move on. donations and the program are going to take a huge hit for several years over this.
there are attorneys and program insiders who post over there so I think this is credible. One claims some current players have a recording of the qb whistleblower stating he had a plan to get Fitz fired and was willing to embellish, twist the truth.
there are attorneys and program insiders who post over there so I think this is credible. One claims some current players have a recording of the qb whistleblower stating he had a plan to get Fitz fired and was willing to embellish, twist the truth.
looks like his patella tendon & MCL are fully healed
Once again, as I’ve said on here, and privately… I don’t like Pat Fitzgerald I don’t like Northwestern beating us, and I give him as the primary reason why…
I also believe, like Kirk Ferentz they had poor program oversight, and they certainly aren’t in the “clear”..,,but Pat Fitzgerald, like KF is not racist, nor do I think he was condoning mask wearing football players dry humping the freshman in the showers…
I am no lawyer, but in my mind both parties are going to get a big settlement and the university is going to look extremely stupid…
Just going to show that everybody that hates our program hates KF & thinks Barta et al, effed everything up…
The elite of the elite universities looks like they have not faired any better!!
Last edited:
There are several different groups of people or rather combinations...in there.
For ex: plenty of people love the program but know Barta effed up (on several occasions)
Yes, and I didn’t mean it to be quite as snarky as I know it came off… But I live my life very much on the premise of we all screw shit up so I probably shouldn’t look down my nose at the scenario. I should probably just be damn glad I wasn’t involved!
I’ve been involved with a couple things on an employment note that really frustrated me and I try pretty hard to be a model employee and yet I still screwed up a couple things or said things that I still think about to this day!!
Not to mention all northwestern needs to do is demonstrate more information came out that made his continued employment impossible.
The real issue here isn't employment it is whether he gets paid or whether northwestern gets to walk out without payment.
Will definitely be interesting and I'm guessing a payout less than what is in his contract for more money than the vast majority of people will make in a lifetime.
Schill has pretty much admitted that he learned no new information beyond what was in the report. He said that he just decided that he had erred by focusing too much on what Fitz didn’t know and not enough on what he should have known. In other words, he just changed his mind after the media and social media backlash. Moreover, merely learning new information from a third party would not support abrogation of the contract. That would require learning that Fitz had misrepresented something. No such evidence has come to light.
Regarding consideration to support an oral contract, Fitz reportedly met with the administration on the day the suspension was announced, agreed to accept and not to challenge the suspension, and even issued a statement through the university consistent with this agreement.
Like when Chryst got fired by Wis his buyout was north of 20 million but he got a lump sum around 11 million..ie present value of sum of payouts over a number of years.
So Fits will end up with lump sum of 15-20 million.
Screw fitz .glad he is gone.
So Fits will end up with lump sum of 15-20 million.
Screw fitz .glad he is gone.
It all seems really convenient doesn't it? A magic answer to getting rid of a long time coach that has delivered unprecedented success in football while also having a losing record the last few years. Great way to get put of a 42m obligation to have a scandal of this nature sourced by student journalists. Not that seasoned reporters would t exaggerate things because we know they would but it just seems so nice and tidy. Athletic director out of the country as well and apparently can't conduct business or grab a flight home from wherever he may be.
The suspension and oral contract doesn't matter. Fitzgerald will never coach again. He is done forever and anything goof he did as a coach is now stained with this. Perhaps he deserves it and we will see more actual evidence that would make this story have more foundation to it. Perhaps he knew everything and arranged it all or simply turned a blind eye. Maybe this has been exaggerated and contrived. 42m is sure a lot of incentive isn't it?
If Fitzgerald simply rolls over and goes away quietly with a sum of money that will tell me he could have some level of guilt. If he gets nothing and the university refuses to budge on a dismissal with cause he is likely guilty unless ge forces things to court. If things do go to a trial that would be truly interesting.
I can think of millions of reasons Fitzgerald takes a settlement. Then again he already has a ton of money and his entire character and career has now been destroyed. It really would be amazing for him to go scorched earth and refuse to settle.... assuming he didn't do these things and there isn't evidence of course
Fitzgerald's statement after the suspension:
Fitzgerald's statement after termination, including the reference that he engaged legal counsel:
Note the difference.
After his suspension, Fitzgerald wrote that "I have spoken to University officials and they informed me of a two week suspension, effective immediately."
After his termination, Fitzgerald wrote that "Northwestern and I reached a mutual agreement regarding the appropriate resolution . . ."
Prior to retaining counsel, Fitzgerald identifies that the University informed him of the two week suspension. After retaining counsel, Fitzgerald shifts gears and attempts to portray the situation as a "mutual agreement."
As far as whether there was "new information" learned, the suspension was publically announced on July 7th. The whistleblower and the whistleblower's family talked with Northwestern officials on July 8th. The whistleblower and the whistleblower's family met with Northwestern officials on July 9th. Later that day, Northwestern officials announce that they are re-considering the two week suspension. On July 10th, a current football player meets with Northwestern officials and claims that the whistleblower is not being truthful and is trying to "take down" Fitzgerald. On afternoon of July 10th, the Northwestern newspaper reports another player who confirmed the whistleblower's allegations. Fitzgerald terminated on July 11th.
Two week suspension imposed upon Fitzgerald on June 7th.
A fair amount of add'l communication between Northwestern officials and players who are both "pro" and "against" Fitzgerald on June 8th, 9th and 10th.
Fitzgerald fired on July 11th.
Fitzgerald, after being terminated and retaining counsel, changes characterization of two week suspension being "handed down" to a "mutual agreement."
Setting aside the issue of whether it was handed well by administration . . . I'm leaning strongly towards "it was not" . . . no one posting here (myself included) has a full and complete story.
With that written, I simply am not seeing the "breach of oral contract" claim having much, if any, viability. I'm not buying the argument that Northwestern's decision to suspend Fitzgerald can be equated to foregoing/waiving/giving up the ability to reconsider its position or barring it from terminating Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald possesses the ability to challenge the termination for cause and, quite frankly, the suspension announcement can be used offensively by him. His attorney can claim that, upon a thorough review of the situation, officials felt that termination for cause was not appropriate and that they concluded that a 2 week suspension was the appropriate punishment. If, as other suggest, nothing else "came to light," his attorney can argue that no "cause" existed.
IMO - if the matter proceeds to litigation, whether "cause" existed, will be the linchpin of the dispute. I really don't see Fitzgerald evading that particular issue by arguing that the announcement of the two week suspension constitutes a legal bar to a determination of cause.
I agree with everyone who has posted that there will be a mutually agreed settlement which ends the dispute between the parties. It is in both Northwestern's interests and Fitzgerald's interests to do so. The quicker they reach the end of their divorce, the better it will be for both. Latest results on the field aside, Northwestern had a fair amount of momentum when it came to fund-raising and facilities improvement. That has taken a hit and need to be remedied. Fitzgerald needs to move to the next chapter of his life.
Fitzgerald's statement after termination, including the reference that he engaged legal counsel:
Note the difference.
After his suspension, Fitzgerald wrote that "I have spoken to University officials and they informed me of a two week suspension, effective immediately."
After his termination, Fitzgerald wrote that "Northwestern and I reached a mutual agreement regarding the appropriate resolution . . ."
Prior to retaining counsel, Fitzgerald identifies that the University informed him of the two week suspension. After retaining counsel, Fitzgerald shifts gears and attempts to portray the situation as a "mutual agreement."
As far as whether there was "new information" learned, the suspension was publically announced on July 7th. The whistleblower and the whistleblower's family talked with Northwestern officials on July 8th. The whistleblower and the whistleblower's family met with Northwestern officials on July 9th. Later that day, Northwestern officials announce that they are re-considering the two week suspension. On July 10th, a current football player meets with Northwestern officials and claims that the whistleblower is not being truthful and is trying to "take down" Fitzgerald. On afternoon of July 10th, the Northwestern newspaper reports another player who confirmed the whistleblower's allegations. Fitzgerald terminated on July 11th.
Two week suspension imposed upon Fitzgerald on June 7th.
A fair amount of add'l communication between Northwestern officials and players who are both "pro" and "against" Fitzgerald on June 8th, 9th and 10th.
Fitzgerald fired on July 11th.
Fitzgerald, after being terminated and retaining counsel, changes characterization of two week suspension being "handed down" to a "mutual agreement."
Setting aside the issue of whether it was handed well by administration . . . I'm leaning strongly towards "it was not" . . . no one posting here (myself included) has a full and complete story.
With that written, I simply am not seeing the "breach of oral contract" claim having much, if any, viability. I'm not buying the argument that Northwestern's decision to suspend Fitzgerald can be equated to foregoing/waiving/giving up the ability to reconsider its position or barring it from terminating Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald possesses the ability to challenge the termination for cause and, quite frankly, the suspension announcement can be used offensively by him. His attorney can claim that, upon a thorough review of the situation, officials felt that termination for cause was not appropriate and that they concluded that a 2 week suspension was the appropriate punishment. If, as other suggest, nothing else "came to light," his attorney can argue that no "cause" existed.
IMO - if the matter proceeds to litigation, whether "cause" existed, will be the linchpin of the dispute. I really don't see Fitzgerald evading that particular issue by arguing that the announcement of the two week suspension constitutes a legal bar to a determination of cause.
I agree with everyone who has posted that there will be a mutually agreed settlement which ends the dispute between the parties. It is in both Northwestern's interests and Fitzgerald's interests to do so. The quicker they reach the end of their divorce, the better it will be for both. Latest results on the field aside, Northwestern had a fair amount of momentum when it came to fund-raising and facilities improvement. That has taken a hit and need to be remedied. Fitzgerald needs to move to the next chapter of his life.
Wow so glad you contributed with this. So insightful… wonder how long it took for you to come up with something so clever. way to reply to a comment made a week ago before he was even fired.
Unless the accusers allegations And subsequent media firestorm were embellished and things fall apart under oath. Then Fitz may back up the brinks truck. Rumored that a recording exists of disgruntled qb threatening to get Fitz fired and willing To be untruthful to get it done.
Yikes, Francis!😆
Everyone loves a good WOB. Nothing personal.
FWIW, it took maybe 5 seconds.😉
For what it’s worth, it doesn’t bother me that much, but it is a little irritating simply because many if not most of us voice text and yes it’s lazy. We don’t catch it but holy smokes. There are so many redundant words in the English language the owners are to be on it because come on man how many ****ing there’s theirs a there can there be….
But all the same, I don’t believe you were ****ing with him!
Just having some fun. I think that’s still allowed in the US these days. Maybe not.
Ed Orgeron in Evanston would be as hilarious as Trump becoming Mayor of Portland or Seattle.
"Media" and "ethics" don't belong on the same page, let alone the same sentence.
Fitzgerald agreed not to receive pay for two weeks. Is that consideration enough for you?
You'd be hard-pressed to find a profession that has fallen further over the last generation or so.
Last edited:
No, I'm saying the NW President stated an agreement was reached to suspend Fitz, unpaid, for two weeks.
The fact he publicly announced "reconsidered"...AFTER ESPN announced the whistle-blower said the punishment wasn't "enough"...well, maybe you and the other lawyer types on here can rehash for another five pages..
I won’t and can’t go in to specific details, but my real life Persona is fairly similar to my online persona. I can be abrupt and in your face, but generally I’m a lover, I like to open doors for people. I’d like to say kind things to them, I like to lift them up in all manners, no matter who they are, and I recently found myself in a situation with HR for saying something that I thought was completely uplifting and had absolutely no Inappropriate connotations whatsoever and yet…
We live in a strange world, and for the record in the above scenario, I’m not mad about it. In fact, I was devastated. I felt horrible that what I said was misconstrued, but all the same I don’t get the right to defend myself or even explain myself, it’s now just a thing… And yes, it breaks my heart, so yes, I like to be witty, yes, I can be a little over-the-top and yes, even sometimes in the right setting I can even be a little inappropriate, but I am generally extremely conscientious and yet the world gets to decide, you don’t!!
Nothing new came to light except the whistle-blower telling ESPN the suspension wasn't "enough", and the NW President "reconsidering". He received more "pressure", but no new info. He has already said no "new" info came to light. And if new info DID come to light, he is all but admitting he and the investigator are epic-level incompetent, OR, whistle-blower, and probably others, are lying and making it up as they go along.
Your last paragraph said it all: Fitz's character and career has been destroyed, even AFTER an investigation said there was no proof he knew what was--ALLEGEDLY--happening.
He should absolutely go scorched earth. They have potentially ruined his life, unjustly so. A university he helped return to football competitiveness, with no recruiting issues, no probation issues, etc. Hell, yes, he should go scorched earth.
