Jump to content

Belichick Caught In A Weird Legal Type Thing


The_Dude
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is weird.

A bit more (since it is paywall, and a large article, I will only post a few paragraphs for context)
 

According to court papers filed by Bielema, the Foundation subpoenaed Bill Belichick, head coach of the Patriots, the team that employed Bielema in 2018 and 2019 after he was fired from his head coaching position at Arkansas. Under terms of his nearly $12 million buyout, Bielema was obligated to make reasonable efforts to find employment that would mitigate or offset the amount.
 

Bielema took the job with the Patriots as a consultant to Belichick for ultimately $125,000 annually, meaning none of the buyout was reduced because his pay was less than the minimum the contract set as shielded from the offset. Bielema in 2019 became the Patriots’ defensive line coach, and he is currently the New York Giants’ outside linebackers coach/senior assistant.
 

</snip>
 

“The Counter-Defendants fraudulently obtained, with Cornrich’s assistance, buyout payments that Bielema used like ‘unemployment benefits’ to support his affluent lifestyle for more than a year while he built an NFL resume so that he could obtain a high paying NFL position job once the Release Agreement (and his corresponding obligation to offset the Foundation’s buyout payments) expired.”
 

</snip>
 

While from the outside it appears that Belichick gave a fired college football coach a low-impact consultant job, the Foundation sees it differently. Belichick and Bielema share an agent, Neil Cornrich, and the Foundation alleges that Bielema, Belichick and Cornrich conspired to get Bielema a job that intentionally wouldn’t pay him enough to reduce Arkansas’ buyout payment.
 

</snip>
 

The Foundation continued that it chose not to also make Belichick and the Patriots counter-defendants “in a conscious effort to go no further than necessary to defend the claim against it and to pursue its claims.” The Foundation in its motion noted it had subpoenaed 11 third parties and received no responses. The Patriots did not reply for comment.
 

</snip>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ann said:

While from the outside it appears that Belichick gave a fired college football coach a low-impact consultant job, the Foundation sees it differently. Belichick and Bielema share an agent, Neil Cornrich, and the Foundation alleges that Bielema, Belichick and Cornrich conspired to get Bielema a job that intentionally wouldn’t pay him enough to reduce Arkansas’ buyout payment.

 

Even if this was true....is it a crime?  Difficult to see how Belichick would be responsible for protecting the interests of Arkansas in a contract to which he was not party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Even if this was true....is it a crime?  Difficult to see how Belichick would be responsible for protecting the interests of Arkansas in a contract to which he was not party.

 

B2Q2.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Even if this was true....is it a crime?  Difficult to see how Belichick would be responsible for protecting the interests of Arkansas in a contract to which he was not party.

Could it be considered fraud if he knowingly paid him below market value for the position he was hired for specifically so the guy could avoid the severance reduction? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Even if this was true....is it a crime?  Difficult to see how Belichick would be responsible for protecting the interests of Arkansas in a contract to which he was not party.

 

My take on this as well.. I don't see it as BB being liable at all (which is why they didnt include him in the case) but rather is a witness to whether or not this other guy was intentionally earning less to double dip... I'd be curious to see if there exists similar positions around the league wherein they could do a salary comp and see if he was undercutting. 

 

19 hours ago, Chandemonium said:

Could it be considered fraud if he knowingly paid him below market value for the position he was hired for specifically so the guy could avoid the severance reduction? 

 

Not a lawyer, but I don't see how it's possible for that to be BB's fault... the contract is between Arkansas and Beilema, BB and the *Patriots aren't beholden to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue isn't whether or not Belicheat is liable for anything (he is not), it's whether or not the other coach intentionally took a job at below-market rate specifically to violate the provision of his contract that he must seek to mitigate the money Arkansas was to pay him. Belicheat's being issued a subpoena is just to have him testify about what role, duties, etc. the guy was given, and (I'd guess) what other coaches with similar duties make.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

leh-nerd skin-erd
11 minutes ago, Koko said:

The issue isn't whether or not Belicheat is liable for anything (he is not), it's whether or not the other coach intentionally took a job at below-market rate specifically to violate the provision of his contract that he must seek to mitigate the money Arkansas was to pay him. Belicheat's being issued a subpoena is just to have him testify about what role, duties, etc. the guy was given, and (I'd guess) what other coaches with similar duties make.

What about spygate, Koko?  Can we set up some sort of perjury trap vis a vis legalese?  What about double jeopardy, is precedent notwithstanding?  

 

I so coulda killed being a legal lawyer, I know all the words you guys use.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

What about spygate, Koko?  Can we set up some sort of perjury trap vis a vis legalese?  What about double jeopardy, is precedent notwithstanding?  

 

I so coulda killed being a legal lawyer, I know all the words you guys use.  

 

Res ipsa loquitur, mother&#%$er!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

leh-nerd skin-erd
3 minutes ago, Koko said:

 

Res ipsa loquitur, mother&#%$er!

Omg I would so sue you if I was legal.

 

...wait, as I read that something about that doesn't seem right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Koko said:

The issue isn't whether or not Belicheat is liable for anything (he is not), it's whether or not the other coach intentionally took a job at below-market rate specifically to violate the provision of his contract that he must seek to mitigate the money Arkansas was to pay him. Belicheat's being issued a subpoena is just to have him testify about what role, duties, etc. the guy was given, and (I'd guess) what other coaches with similar duties make.

So even if the guy specifically asked to be paid below market, and Belichick knew why he was asking and still honored the request, that would not make Belichick liable as an accomplice? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chandemonium said:

So even if the guy specifically asked to be paid below market, and Belichick knew why he was asking and still honored the request, that would not make Belichick liable as an accomplice? 

 

Belicheat was never a party to the contract; he owed no duty to Arkansas to do anything. There is no such thing as accomplice liability in contract law.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Koko said:

 

Belicheat was never a party to the contract; he owed no duty to Arkansas to do anything. There is no such thing as accomplice liability in contract law.

Thanks. Learn all sorts of stuff at this place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These things are why I hate lawyers.  School signs dude to huge contract.  School fires dude fully knowing the still have to pay him everything they owe him.  Dude takes a lower salary to get a job he might not have gotten otherwise to pad his resume for the future.  School wants money back because...well...money.

 

Friggin' lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

These things are why I hate lawyers.  School signs dude to huge contract.  School fires dude fully knowing the still have to pay him everything they owe him.  Dude takes a lower salary to get a job he might not have gotten otherwise to pad his resume for the future.  School wants money back because...well...money.

 

Friggin' lawyers.

 

saul.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Guidelines