-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter 3yardsandacloud
- Start date
bkochmc
Assistant Coach
$240,000-$36,000 = $205,000, not $206,000... not a substancial difference but someone can't do math or reported a number incorrectly.
EDIT: After reading the story in the Dispatch with the exact numbers the amount gained in interest does round to $206,000...
EDIT: After reading the story in the Dispatch with the exact numbers the amount gained in interest does round to $206,000...
Upvote
0
OSUBasketballJunkie
Never Forget 31-0
Dispatch
8/19/06
8/19/06
OSU wins small victory over O’Brien
Interest owed to ex-coach less than sought
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Bruce Cadwallader
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Jim O’Brien had asked for $306,553 in interest but will receive $241,353, minus $35,609 for bonuses already paid.
For what it’s worth, a judge finally agreed with Ohio State University in its court battle with former basketball coach Jim O’Brien.
The same judge who ordered Ohio State to pay O’Brien $2.25 million in a breach-ofcontract lawsuit gave him an additional $205,769 yesterday in "prejudgment interest" payments plus a filing-fee credit.
That’s the interest on the salary and other compensation the coach would have been paid between the time he was fired June 8, 2004, and the date he won the judgment.
O’Brien had asked Judge Joseph T. Clark of the Ohio Court of Claims for $306,553 in interest. Ohio State countered with $241,353, but asked Clark to reduce that by $35,609 for bonuses O’Brien received for winning Big Ten co-championships in 2000 and 2002.
Clark did not award attorney fees to the former coach. That must be paid out of the settlement. It was unknown how much O’Brien’s attorneys will be paid. Ohio State spent $1 million fighting the lawsuit and NCAA sanctions.
"The court normally does not award attorney’s fees," said Myles Durfey, the clerk of the court. "This is the end of the case for us."
However, as the losing party, Ohio State still must pay court costs, which are expected to be only a few hundred dollars.
Clark’s order yesterday said the total judgment in O’Brien’s favor amounts to $2,459,388.83, "which includes the $25 filing fee paid by plaintiff."
The university is appealing Clark’s Aug. 2 ruling, in which he said the university did not have sufficient reason to fire O’Brien.
Clark had already awarded O’Brien $2,253,619.45, saying Ohio State breached its contract with the coach and did not have sufficient cause to fire him on June 8, 2004.
The decision yesterday was to award an additional $241,353 — minus $35,609 in bonuses O’Brien already received for winning Big Ten co-championships in 2000 and 2002. The total amount increases O’Brien’s final award to $2,459,388.83.
Cases against state agencies are only filed and resolved in the Court of Claims. Its decisions are appealed to the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Durfey said.
Ohio State spokesman Jim Lynch said the university will appeal the award to the Franklin County Court of Appeals . OSU has 30 days to file, Durfey said.
Former Athletics Director Andy Geiger fired O’Brien after learning he had loaned the mother of a potential recruit $6,000. O’Brien sued for breach of contract and the NCAA ruled that Aleksander Radojevic was ineligible for college play because he had played as a professional athlete in the former Yugoslavia.
Clark agreed that the loan was improper, but called it a "single, isolated incident," not a material breach of the coach’s contract with the university.
[email protected]
Upvote
0
Link
Ohio State appeals O'Brien award
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Ohio State has filed an appeal in a bid to overturn a judge's decision awarding $2.4 million to fired former men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien.
The school filed the appeal Friday with the 10th District Court of Appeals.The Ohio Court of Claims ruled last month that Ohio State improperly fired O'Brien in 2004 after learning that he had given $6,000 to a recruit. The judge in the case said that O'Brien broke NCAA bylaws but that the university did not follow the terms of O'Brien's contract in terminating him.
Judge Joseph T. Clark said the contract that Ohio State lawyers drew up to entice O'Brien to stay as coach was heavily weighted in O'Brien's favor in case of any NCAA problems, requiring the university to follow a lengthy investigative and disciplinary procedure. He said it failed to follow that procedure.
O'Brien was awarded $2.2 million and more than $200,000 in interest in early August.
No payment will be made by the university while the matter is in the courts, said Ohio State spokesman Jim Lynch. The appeals process could take several months or even a year, he said.
In its filing, the Ohio Attorney General's office - which represents the university in such matters - said a prehearing settlement conference would not be helpful.
No court date was set for the appeal.
A message seeking comment was left Saturday with Joseph Murray, an attorney for O'Brien.
Ohio State appeals O'Brien award
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Ohio State has filed an appeal in a bid to overturn a judge's decision awarding $2.4 million to fired former men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien.
The school filed the appeal Friday with the 10th District Court of Appeals.The Ohio Court of Claims ruled last month that Ohio State improperly fired O'Brien in 2004 after learning that he had given $6,000 to a recruit. The judge in the case said that O'Brien broke NCAA bylaws but that the university did not follow the terms of O'Brien's contract in terminating him.
Judge Joseph T. Clark said the contract that Ohio State lawyers drew up to entice O'Brien to stay as coach was heavily weighted in O'Brien's favor in case of any NCAA problems, requiring the university to follow a lengthy investigative and disciplinary procedure. He said it failed to follow that procedure.
O'Brien was awarded $2.2 million and more than $200,000 in interest in early August.
No payment will be made by the university while the matter is in the courts, said Ohio State spokesman Jim Lynch. The appeals process could take several months or even a year, he said.
In its filing, the Ohio Attorney General's office - which represents the university in such matters - said a prehearing settlement conference would not be helpful.
No court date was set for the appeal.
A message seeking comment was left Saturday with Joseph Murray, an attorney for O'Brien.
Upvote
0
CPD
OSU MEN'S BASKETBALL
O'Brien appeals after school does
Saturday, September 23, 2006 Doug Lesmerises
Plain Dealer Reporter
Columbus- Fired men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien, already awarded $2.4 million from Ohio State, might yet get more money from his former school.
In a statement released by his attorney on Friday, O'Brien said he is appealing a judge's decision, but only because Ohio State appealed it first.
"I had no intention of appealing until I learned that the University initiated an appeal," O'Brien said in the statement. "Until then, I had hoped that both the University and I would finally be able to put the matter behind us and move forward."
The original ruling, handed down in August by the Ohio State Court of Claims, gave O'Brien $2.2 million plus another $200,000 in interest over what was ruled as his improper firing in 2004. O'Brien was let go after giving $6,000 to a recruit, and judge Joseph T. Clark found Ohio State's dismissal process in violation of O'Brien's contract. Eight days ago, Ohio State's lawyers filed paperwork with the 10th District Court of Appeals. The university already has spent more than $1 million in legal fees on O'Brien's trial and the NCAA investigation into the payment.
O'Brien is now seeking an additional $1.3 million, the difference between the full worth of his contract and what he's already been awarded.
"I sincerely hope that the appeal process and whatever decision comes from it will not be a distraction for the men's basketball program, as it appears that it has an opportunity to have a great season," O'Brien said.
OSU MEN'S BASKETBALL
O'Brien appeals after school does
Saturday, September 23, 2006 Doug Lesmerises
Plain Dealer Reporter
Columbus- Fired men's basketball coach Jim O'Brien, already awarded $2.4 million from Ohio State, might yet get more money from his former school.
In a statement released by his attorney on Friday, O'Brien said he is appealing a judge's decision, but only because Ohio State appealed it first.
"I had no intention of appealing until I learned that the University initiated an appeal," O'Brien said in the statement. "Until then, I had hoped that both the University and I would finally be able to put the matter behind us and move forward."
The original ruling, handed down in August by the Ohio State Court of Claims, gave O'Brien $2.2 million plus another $200,000 in interest over what was ruled as his improper firing in 2004. O'Brien was let go after giving $6,000 to a recruit, and judge Joseph T. Clark found Ohio State's dismissal process in violation of O'Brien's contract. Eight days ago, Ohio State's lawyers filed paperwork with the 10th District Court of Appeals. The university already has spent more than $1 million in legal fees on O'Brien's trial and the NCAA investigation into the payment.
O'Brien is now seeking an additional $1.3 million, the difference between the full worth of his contract and what he's already been awarded.
"I sincerely hope that the appeal process and whatever decision comes from it will not be a distraction for the men's basketball program, as it appears that it has an opportunity to have a great season," O'Brien said.
Upvote
0
Dispatch
Other conferences, colleges join OSU in fighting O?Brien ruling
By Kathy Lynn Gray
The Columbus Dispatch
Monday, November 20, 2006 3:42 PM
File Photo Jim O'Brien
The Big Ten, the Pacific 10 and the Big 12 conferences as well as 18 universities rallied around Ohio State University today, asking an Ohio court to make OSU the victor in its battle against former basketball coach Jim O'Brien.
The athletic conferences and schools filed a brief supporting OSU's appeal of a $2.46 million award for O'Brien in his breach-of-contract lawsuit against Ohio State.
OSU fired O'Brien in 2004 after learning that he had loaned a potential recruit's mother $6,000 in the late 1990s when he was the men's basketball coach. O'Brien sued, arguing that the school couldn't fire him unless the NCAA ruled that his loan was a violation. Ohio Court of Claims Judge Joseph T. Clark ruled in favor of the coach in February and awarded him damages in August.
Every step of the way, Ohio State has appealed the case, especially after the NCAA concluded in March that O'Brien's loan was a violation. The NCAA punished the school's basketball team for O'Brien's infraction and for other violations it found.
Now the case is in the 10th Appellate District of the Franklin County Court of Appeals, where the conferences and schools are arguing in an amicus brief that Clark's ruling limits a school's ability to adhere to NCAA rules and to discipline employees who break those rules.
?NCAA member institutions must now choose between taking meaningful action to correct NCAA rule violations and avoid further violations, and avoiding contract damages to a coach? who has broken those rules, the brief says.
Clark found that OSU could have fired O'Brien under his contract if the NCAA found that he'd committed a major infraction. But because OSU fired the coach before the NCAA's finding, Clark ruled in O'Brien's favor, saying that the wording of the coach's contract demanded it.
OSU's brief argues that Clark was wrong when he concluded that O'Brien's loan was not a major contract violation. Clark also should have allowed OSU to use as evidence in the case information gathered after O'Brien's firing, the brief says.
The filings are the latest maneuvers in the 2 ?-year battle between O'Brien and Ohio State.
The schools who filed the amicus brief are the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Arizona, Southern California, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas as well as Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Arizona State and Stanford universities.
Ironically, the University of Michigan submitted the brief.
Other conferences, colleges join OSU in fighting O?Brien ruling
By Kathy Lynn Gray
The Columbus Dispatch
Monday, November 20, 2006 3:42 PM
The Big Ten, the Pacific 10 and the Big 12 conferences as well as 18 universities rallied around Ohio State University today, asking an Ohio court to make OSU the victor in its battle against former basketball coach Jim O'Brien.
The athletic conferences and schools filed a brief supporting OSU's appeal of a $2.46 million award for O'Brien in his breach-of-contract lawsuit against Ohio State.
OSU fired O'Brien in 2004 after learning that he had loaned a potential recruit's mother $6,000 in the late 1990s when he was the men's basketball coach. O'Brien sued, arguing that the school couldn't fire him unless the NCAA ruled that his loan was a violation. Ohio Court of Claims Judge Joseph T. Clark ruled in favor of the coach in February and awarded him damages in August.
Every step of the way, Ohio State has appealed the case, especially after the NCAA concluded in March that O'Brien's loan was a violation. The NCAA punished the school's basketball team for O'Brien's infraction and for other violations it found.
Now the case is in the 10th Appellate District of the Franklin County Court of Appeals, where the conferences and schools are arguing in an amicus brief that Clark's ruling limits a school's ability to adhere to NCAA rules and to discipline employees who break those rules.
?NCAA member institutions must now choose between taking meaningful action to correct NCAA rule violations and avoid further violations, and avoiding contract damages to a coach? who has broken those rules, the brief says.
Clark found that OSU could have fired O'Brien under his contract if the NCAA found that he'd committed a major infraction. But because OSU fired the coach before the NCAA's finding, Clark ruled in O'Brien's favor, saying that the wording of the coach's contract demanded it.
OSU's brief argues that Clark was wrong when he concluded that O'Brien's loan was not a major contract violation. Clark also should have allowed OSU to use as evidence in the case information gathered after O'Brien's firing, the brief says.
The filings are the latest maneuvers in the 2 ?-year battle between O'Brien and Ohio State.
The schools who filed the amicus brief are the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Arizona, Southern California, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas as well as Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Arizona State and Stanford universities.
Ironically, the University of Michigan submitted the brief.
Upvote
0
Dispatch
Other universities get behind Ohio State in O?Brien appeal
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Kathy Lynn Gray
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The universities and athletic conferences helping Ohio State University battle its former men?s basketball coach apparently don?t understand the crux of the war, the coach?s attorney said yesterday.
Brian Murphy said a friendof-the-court brief supporting Ohio State?s appeal of Jim O?Brien?s successful lawsuit doesn?t address the real issue in the case: a contract dispute.
Yesterday, the University of Michigan filed the brief on behalf of 18 universities and the Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Big 12 conferences. Ohio State also filed a brief in the case.
"We find it curious indeed that Ohio State University has decided to turn to the University of Michigan to provide its defense in this matter, and it?s clear from the brief submitted that the University of Michigan has not, or apparently cannot, read the contract at issue in this case," said Murphy, one of two attorneys for O?Brien.
OSU is appealing the $2.46 million award that O?Brien won this year in the Ohio Court of Claims in his breach-of-contract lawsuit.
The university sacked O?Brien in 2004 after learning that he had loaned a potential recruit?s mother $6,000 in the late 1990s. O?Brien sued, arguing that the school couldn?t fire him unless the NCAA had ruled that the loan was a violation and a major breach of his contract.
Judge Joseph T. Clark ruled in favor of O?Brien in February and awarded him damages in August.
Ohio State has appealed the case every step of the way, especially after the NCAA concluded in March that O?Brien?s loan was a violation. The NCAA punished the school?s basketball team for O?Brien?s infraction and for other violations it found.
Now the case is in the Franklin County Court of Appeals. The friend-of-the-court brief argues that Clark?s ruling limits a school?s ability to adhere to NCAA rules and to discipline employees who break those rules.
"NCAA member institutions must now choose between taking meaningful action to correct NCAA rule violations and avoid further violations, and avoiding contract damages to a coach" who has broken those rules, the brief says.
Clark found that Ohio State could have fired O?Brien if the NCAA had found he committed a major infraction. But because the university fired O?Brien before the NCAA?s finding, Clark ruled in the coach?s favor.
Ohio State said Clark was wrong when he concluded that O?Brien?s loan was not a major contract violation, one significant enough to fire the coach before the NCAA ruled. The university also said Clark should have allowed it to use information gathered after O?Brien?s firing as evidence in the case.
The briefs were the latest salvos in the 2?-year battle between O?Brien and Ohio State.
The schools that filed the amicus brief are the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Arizona, Southern California, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas as well as Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Arizona State and Stanford universities.
Jim Lynch, OSU spokesman, said the brief shows that many universities are concerned about Clark?s decision, "which seeks to undermine the rulemaking authority of collegiate athletics."
[email protected]
Other universities get behind Ohio State in O?Brien appeal
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Kathy Lynn Gray
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The universities and athletic conferences helping Ohio State University battle its former men?s basketball coach apparently don?t understand the crux of the war, the coach?s attorney said yesterday.
Brian Murphy said a friendof-the-court brief supporting Ohio State?s appeal of Jim O?Brien?s successful lawsuit doesn?t address the real issue in the case: a contract dispute.
Yesterday, the University of Michigan filed the brief on behalf of 18 universities and the Big Ten, Pacific-10 and Big 12 conferences. Ohio State also filed a brief in the case.
"We find it curious indeed that Ohio State University has decided to turn to the University of Michigan to provide its defense in this matter, and it?s clear from the brief submitted that the University of Michigan has not, or apparently cannot, read the contract at issue in this case," said Murphy, one of two attorneys for O?Brien.
OSU is appealing the $2.46 million award that O?Brien won this year in the Ohio Court of Claims in his breach-of-contract lawsuit.
The university sacked O?Brien in 2004 after learning that he had loaned a potential recruit?s mother $6,000 in the late 1990s. O?Brien sued, arguing that the school couldn?t fire him unless the NCAA had ruled that the loan was a violation and a major breach of his contract.
Judge Joseph T. Clark ruled in favor of O?Brien in February and awarded him damages in August.
Ohio State has appealed the case every step of the way, especially after the NCAA concluded in March that O?Brien?s loan was a violation. The NCAA punished the school?s basketball team for O?Brien?s infraction and for other violations it found.
Now the case is in the Franklin County Court of Appeals. The friend-of-the-court brief argues that Clark?s ruling limits a school?s ability to adhere to NCAA rules and to discipline employees who break those rules.
"NCAA member institutions must now choose between taking meaningful action to correct NCAA rule violations and avoid further violations, and avoiding contract damages to a coach" who has broken those rules, the brief says.
Clark found that Ohio State could have fired O?Brien if the NCAA had found he committed a major infraction. But because the university fired O?Brien before the NCAA?s finding, Clark ruled in the coach?s favor.
Ohio State said Clark was wrong when he concluded that O?Brien?s loan was not a major contract violation, one significant enough to fire the coach before the NCAA ruled. The university also said Clark should have allowed it to use information gathered after O?Brien?s firing as evidence in the case.
The briefs were the latest salvos in the 2?-year battle between O?Brien and Ohio State.
The schools that filed the amicus brief are the universities of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Arizona, Southern California, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas as well as Indiana, Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue, Arizona State and Stanford universities.
Jim Lynch, OSU spokesman, said the brief shows that many universities are concerned about Clark?s decision, "which seeks to undermine the rulemaking authority of collegiate athletics."
[email protected]
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
I fear this amicus brief, noble though it might be in its intent, will not get OSU of the hook for O'Brien's retirement and condo fund.
It is not the court's business to clean up contractual language between a coach and and his employer. Nor do they have any direct power to take the blinkers off the NCAA; so member schools can better run the maze between the regulations emanating from Indianapolis and simultaneously live within the law that applies in the real world.
It is not the court's business to clean up contractual language between a coach and and his employer. Nor do they have any direct power to take the blinkers off the NCAA; so member schools can better run the maze between the regulations emanating from Indianapolis and simultaneously live within the law that applies in the real world.
Upvote
0
smith288;667294; said:
I think if you construct a set of the top 50 teams out there, the subset that would hire Jim O'Brien probably is now mathematically defined by one of these three equivalent terms:
?
{ }
the empty set
Upvote
0
tsteele316
Mr. Such and Such
sandgk;667513; said:
probably so. however, had osu waited for the ncaa to hand down it's ruling before firing obrien, matta likely would not be the coach here. oden, conley, cook and lighty would not be here. who knows if any of the commits in the upcoming classes would be here either. hard short term costs to eat, but the long term profit will more than make up for it.
Upvote
0
LightningRod
Legend
OB has been cleared by the NCAA. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.
Upvote
0
If I'm reading that correctly - the NCAA became aware of the $6,000 on May 14th, 2004. And because they sent notice of to the University on May 13th, 2005, but it didn't arrive until May 16th, 2005, O'Brien's violation on the matter was rescinded since the University received notification more than 1 year after the NCAA learned of the matter.
But didn't the University tell the NCAA to begin with? What an inane technicality.
But didn't the University tell the NCAA to begin with? What an inane technicality.
Upvote
0