[BostonCard]

True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.

You never know.  It may be that the whole affair will be settled.  Since Dawkins backloaded his contract, it may well be that the difference they are arguing over is fairly small (on a relative basis, it almost certainly is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot for a lot of people).  As Terry noted, the lawsuit is asking for punitive damages that would require "tortious ingredients" above and beyond breach of contract.  So either Stanford did something really bad, or Dawkins is just filing a headline grabbing suit that is unsupported by the facts.  Could be he is fishing for a settlement.

BC

[BostonCard]

True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.

You never know.  It may be that the whole affair will be settled.  Since Dawkins backloaded his contract, it may well be that the difference they are arguing over is fairly small (on a relative basis, it almost certainly is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot for a lot of people).  As Terry noted, the lawsuit is asking for punitive damages that would require "tortious ingredients" above and beyond breach of contract.  So either Stanford did something really bad, or Dawkins is just filing a headline grabbing suit that is unsupported by the facts.  Could be he is fishing for a settlement.

BC