M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
I have no particular love for Penn State, Paterno or any of the plaintiffs. I just loathe the NCAA and view them as morally equivalent to slave traders, and welcome all opportunities to bring about their messy ruin. So at least I'm consistent with what I posted early on in this thread.
Just, you know, while we're confessing our biases and all.
OK. You're a lawyer and I'm not. Let's see if you're right. If you're right that this is weak, it'll get tossed by summary judgment, and if it's worthless except for the lawyers, then the parties funding it will drop it rather than pay for appeal, or cave as soon as a piddling settlement offer comes in the door, right? Let's get a wager for the jimmy fund in here - I'm a sucker, since I don't know how to set the odds on this one.
I think this suit is about what it says it's about: that the NCAA "tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual relations, and defamed and commercially disparaged Plaintiffs". Scroll down in the Complaint to paragraph 103 if you want to hear the details about what interests they're claiming here.
I'm not sure how they'd show actual damages and I doubt that, even if shown, they'd be substantial enough to merit a significant judgment. So I'm offering my opinion that this is more about clearing the name of Penn State (and thus indirectly all of the above, A-E) and sticking it to the organization who has stuck it to them.
Perhaps the long game here is to use a court judgment to go after the NCAA more broadly as an abusive monopolist.
Just, you know, while we're confessing our biases and all.
WayBackVazquez said:Yes, I've read the (really, really weak) Complaint.
I was asking you whose reputation you think this suit is motivated to protect. You really think somebody believes this suit is going to redeem PSU's reputation? The complaint's main gripe is with the findings of Freeh report, which was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees.
This suit is quite literally worthless for everyone except the lawyers.
OK. You're a lawyer and I'm not. Let's see if you're right. If you're right that this is weak, it'll get tossed by summary judgment, and if it's worthless except for the lawyers, then the parties funding it will drop it rather than pay for appeal, or cave as soon as a piddling settlement offer comes in the door, right? Let's get a wager for the jimmy fund in here - I'm a sucker, since I don't know how to set the odds on this one.
I think this suit is about what it says it's about: that the NCAA "tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs’ contractual relations, and defamed and commercially disparaged Plaintiffs". Scroll down in the Complaint to paragraph 103 if you want to hear the details about what interests they're claiming here.
103. Other substantial harms suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’ conduct include, among many other things, the following:
a. Joe Paterno suffered damage to his good name and reputation, resulting in irreparable and substantial pecuniary harm to the current and long-term value of his estate and causing other substantial harms to his family and estate.
b. William Kenney and Jay Paterno have suffered damage to their reputation and standing as football coaches, and have been unable to secure comparable employment despite their qualifications and the existence of employers who would otherwise be willing to hire them.
c. The Members of the Board of Trustees, as fiduciaries of the University, are responsible for the governance and the welfare of the institution. They have been rendered unable to fully carry out their administrative and other functions in managing and governing the University because of the NCAA’s interference, and have suffered substantial injuries due to a negative impact on Penn State’s budget and the University’s ability to attract high-caliber students and faculty, whether associated with the football program or not.
d. The considerable achievements of the former student athletes have been wiped out by the NCAA’s unjustified and unlawful sanctions, which vacated all of Penn State’s wins during the athletes’ careers. This has injured their reputations, negatively affecting their professional careers in football and in other fields.
e. Current members of the faculty have been injured by the Consent Decree’s disparaging statements about the entire Penn State community, as well as the decree’s punitive measures, which have diminished the resources available to fund grants, departments, and programs. The Consent Decree has interfered with the administration of Penn State, and limited
the faculty’s ability to attract and retain high-caliber faculty, administrators, staff, and students, which has reduced the value of the faculty’s own positions and their ability to compete within their fields.
I'm not sure how they'd show actual damages and I doubt that, even if shown, they'd be substantial enough to merit a significant judgment. So I'm offering my opinion that this is more about clearing the name of Penn State (and thus indirectly all of the above, A-E) and sticking it to the organization who has stuck it to them.
Perhaps the long game here is to use a court judgment to go after the NCAA more broadly as an abusive monopolist.