[fullmetal]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous.  If Stanford really does owe Dawkins the money, then fine, pay up, and count it as a strike against Muir.  If Stanford doesn't...then Dawkins owes Stanford all costs associated with this suit.  I'm sure Dawkins easily has the cash from his current and former employers to cover the bill.

[fullmetal]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous.  If Stanford really does owe Dawkins the money, then fine, pay up, and count it as a strike against Muir.  If Stanford doesn't...then Dawkins owes Stanford all costs associated with this suit.  I'm sure Dawkins easily has the cash from his current and former employers to cover the bill.