Very smart move by the front office if the report from this, regarding the team refusing to pay Haley the last year on his contract for cause.
The Babb article was built on the Haley "unquote" that he thought his personal cell phone was tampered with by the team. If the team is using this as an individual under contract speaking negatively about the team to a member of the media to void Haley's remaining contract, it may force Haley to publically deny that he ever said that if he wants to be paid for that last season.
Pretty smart move by the Chiefs brass, again, if this is in fact true they are denying Haley his last payment.
4 months ago
RememberDelaney37
41 comments
2 recs |
Comments
hmm interesting take...
I believe this makes the most sense
Arrowhead pride addict
by groundedchevy on Jan 26, 2012 8:45 PM CST via mobile reply actions
It makes the most sense to me
I’m not sure what other “cause” could be justified to not paying out a binding contract.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 8:50 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Agree, BUT...
I’m not sure Haley would come out and publicly say he Lied because it could hurt his coaching career and then he may never have a good coaching job again, def not a head coaching gig prolly.
I don't think denying a quote is saying he lied to the media
It is just saying I was misquoted or misunderstood. Happens all the time.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 8:49 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
yea but...
this would be a pretty hard one to misunderstand.
Its not like a WR saying ther QB blows and then saying I was was mis quoted, what I said was I wish the QB would have thrown my way more this year.
He wouldn't have to really do any kind of clarifying technically
There were no actual quotes from Haley in the article. He would just have to deny anything like that ever happened.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 8:59 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Just blame the media...
I Todd Haley never said anything like this to anyone and it never happened…its that simple
Arrowhead pride addict
by groundedchevy on Jan 26, 2012 9:16 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
& McGraw.
Tough times never last, but tough people do.
by MadMartigan816 on Jan 26, 2012 10:28 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Uh. Yeah.
Really smart.
Makes the FO look really good.
Doesn’t make them look like more of a laughing stock at all.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
It is smart
If you can get a person involved in this article (unwillingly or not) to deny the most scathing and possibly illegal part of the article, it is a genius PR move.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 8:52 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
If Haley thinks they are true and he is right...
Why would he come our publicly and say he lied? Don’t see him doing that.
If he wants to be paid that last bit of the contract, he may have to
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 10:07 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
OK...
Let’s pretend for a minute that this scenario of “They aren’t paying Haley to make him publically deny the Babb article, even though Haley wasn’t quoted in it” is even possible. Which it’s not, because they didn’t fire Haley over that article, because it didn’t come out until a month and a half after he’d been fired.
And if they’re refusing to pay him, it means they fired him “with cause”. That’s something decided up front. Teams don’t get to come back months later and claim they fired someone “for cause” when they didn’t. The entire idea of the Babb article retroactively giving them “cause” is a deluded fantasy.
But let’s pretend it’s possible.
Let’s pretend it’s also possible that the Chiefs would devise a plan to get Haley to kowtow to them in order to get paid for the last year of his contract, even though there were reports that Haley was considering resigning from the team. Because if he resigned from the team, see, he would have walked away from that money. And if he gave even a slight consideration to walking away, do you really think he’d give in to this master plan and sell himself out for that last paycheck? Knowing Haley, the odds seem far better that he’d say “F YOU” and embarass the Chiefs even worse.
But again, we’ll pretend that’s possible.
Even with all that stuff possible (not really), it’s still an incredibly stupid PR move because, once again, it makes the team look like a total laughing stock. The Babb article was finally fading into the background and then this happens? They put themselves in the same disfunctional breath as Al Davis and Lane Kiffin by trying not to pay Haley? Are they TRYING to make themselves look as bad as possible? Who the hell is going to want to come work here with all this crap going on?
And to what end? To make Haley deny an allegation that nobody believed in the first place? What’s that going to accomplish? Is it going to wipe out all the damage from Babb’s article, which contained NUMEROUS people talking about the miserable experience of working for Scott Pioli’s Chiefs? Of course it’s not.
Trying to get out of paying Haley would be a foolish and downright embarrasing move for this team. The only thing worse are the fans who are burying their heads in the sand and trying to justify it all.
by SlipperyPete on Jan 27, 2012 9:00 AM CST up reply actions 5 recs
No one is saying the "cause" for his firing is the same "cause" to not pay him the last year of his contract
There are many legitimate reasons he was released, which would have had nothing to do with what was reported in the Babb article.
There was no report of the team possibly not paying out the remainder of Haley’s contract until this Babb article came out.
So, if it was a clause in Haley’s contract that he was not to speak negatively about the team to the media in any capacity while with the team, once it was determined that Haley said what was written by Babb while with the team, that was a breach of contract by Haley.
Now, it puts the burden of confirming (breach of contract) or denying (proves article was false) the potential illegal actions claimed in this article.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 27, 2012 9:38 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
this
but I must just have my head in the sand again
by Steve_in_RI on Jan 27, 2012 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
You're clearly very confused
Anytime someone gets fired, there’s a reason for it. However, in NFL lingo, when someone is said to be fired “with cause” or “for cause”, it means that person did something particularly bad that allows the team to void his contract and get out of the remaining payments.
If the Chiefs are trying not to pay Haley, it means that WHEN THEY FIRED HIM, they fired him “for cause”. Do you note the capital letters? It would have happened WHEN THEY FIRED HIM.
It would not have happened a month and a half later after Babb’s article came out. As I already stated in my last post, they don’t get to come back and claim they fired someone “for cause” well after the fact. Either Haley was fired “for cause” AT THE TIME or he wasn’t.
If Haley was not fired “for cause” at the time, Babb’s article does not retroactively allow the Chiefs to claim they fired him “for cause”. It doesn’t work that way. And if Haley WAS fired “for cause”, then it has nothing to do with Babb’s article.
Do you understand these points? Do you see that the argument you’re trying to make is nonsense?
And are you still trying to suggest that this is all a brilliant PR move by the Chiefs, as NFL fans all over the league are laughing and comparing us to the Raiders at the height of their disfunction? Or did you give up on that?
by SlipperyPete on Jan 27, 2012 6:07 PM CST up reply actions
This isn't rocket science, bud
The team doesn’t have to pay out the final year of his contract until that league year starts. What ever “cause” they discover over the course of going into the next year doesn’t matter one bit when it comes to light over that course. Once again, the “cause” for the initial firing and the “cause” for denying him his last year of pay DO NOT HAVE TO BE FOR THE SAME REASON. Why are you choosing to ignore this?
Look at it like if a suspect for a crime is arrested, and in the process of prosecuting said suspect, it is discovered the suspect committed other crimes, the suspect doesn’t just get off for those crimes because they were arrested for another crime entirely.
If you signed a guaranteed contract contingent in specific clauses and were terminated for just reasons that didn’t violate any clause initially and it was later discovered you did in fact violate a clause in your contract before being termed, like stealing for the company, then you are damn right the company will try to deny you any guaranteed money they haven’t paid you for breach of contract, or “CAUSE”!
Man, I can’t understand how some people just can’t put two and two together because they just outright and blatantly don’t agree with the during of Haley initially. Too often does rash judgment cloud reason. Sad.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 27, 2012 7:07 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Good lord...
“Once again, the "cause" for the initial firing and the "cause" for denying him his last year of pay DO NOT HAVE TO BE FOR THE SAME REASON.”
YES
THEY
DO
How many different ways do I have to explain this to you?
Every contract for every NFL coach contains language that says his yearly salary is guaranteed unless he’s fired “FOR CAUSE”. The “for cause” exception does not cover things like having a bad season, or not making the playoffs, or because a new GM was hired and wants his own coach. It’s for more serious things, usually the coach’s conduct somehow making the team look bad.
The “for clause” exception is hardly ever used. The Broncos didn’t even fire Josh McDaniels “for cause” after his staff was caught videotaping another team’s practice, although they reportedly investigated the possibility.
For the Chiefs to get out of paying Haley, they would have had to specifically invoke that they were firing him “for cause” WHEN HE WAS FIRED.
They could not claim they were firing him “for cause” because of Babb’s article BECAUSE IT HADN’T BEEN WRITTEN YET.
They can not turn around two months after firing him and claim that Babb’s article now retroactively gives them a reason to invoke the “for cause” exception BECAUSE IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY.
Whatever grounds they think they had to fire Haley “for cause” had to be known at the time they were firing him, and those grounds are what they’re using to get out of paying him.
DO
YOU
UNDERSTAND?
I’m not explaining this again. You’re on your own now.
by SlipperyPete on Jan 27, 2012 8:03 PM CST up reply actions
REC'd
For a great argument….
Arrowhead pride addict
by groundedchevy on Jan 27, 2012 10:12 AM CST up reply actions
wow...
Right or wrong…you really prove your point well…
Arrowhead pride addict
by groundedchevy on Jan 26, 2012 9:17 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
You may actually be on to something here
Haley’s supposed comments about thinking his cell phone had been tampered with by the Chiefs certainly seem like possible “cause.” This could force some sort of resolve on what is the biggest headline to come out of the Babb piece. Either Haley has to defend it and admit that he gave “cause,” or say the conversation never happened/he was misinterpreted and the Chiefs come out cleaner. They may look a little dickish, but not “tap your cell phone” dickish, you know?
Um, not sure if you guys realize this
But the “Cause” has to have been the reason behind the firing.
Haley’s quote CAN’T have been the cause since it wasn’t published til after he was fired.
"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.
Thank you.
But it could still be something to do with the NDA, which has nothing to do with his firing.
"Be an analyst. Don’t be a douchebag." - Terrell Suggs to Skip Bayless
I thought the NDA was part of the firing.
I’m not sure the Chiefs couldn’t go back and add “cause” after the fact if something that happened during Haley’s employ comes to light.
When you gotta go in the lion's den, you don't go quiet. You go in loud, kick the door down and say WHERE IS THE SONUVABITCH. -B. Billick
No...
Not if the said “allegations” were before the Jets game and then he signed it after the Jets game in which he was fired.
Ah true.
However, if there was something in his contract regarding what he says about the team even while still hired, that would still apply.
I would have to believe that if the team is using this angle
It would have to have been in his contract that while with the team, he could not be reported of saying anything negative to the media, on record or not.
His firing may be on grounds of one thing that didn’t violate anything specific in his contract, then the Babb article comes out, claiming he did in fact violate a clause in his contract while with the team.
This in fact makes Haley come out publicly to say whether he did in fact say that (he violated a clause in his contract, and doesn’t get paid) or didn’t say that (proves the most scathing part of the article was not true).
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 26, 2012 11:23 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Yes I agree.
The “clause” would have to have been in his original contract stating he couldn’t negatively reflect the organization, or whatever lingo they might have used. Once he was fired (based likely on performance) and the babb article comes out they could say he violated it without their knowledge.I think that would be a long shot, but at this point who knows.
If you think back about the way Haley acted towards the media
He was always very standoffish and seemed purposefully cryptic. That tells me one of two things: either he may have said this because he was genuinely worried that someone would hear him say something negative and it would affect his standing with the team due to a clause in his contract or he didn’t because he would have never given that much info to the media.
I'm so overrated, I'm underrated.
by RememberDelaney37 on Jan 27, 2012 1:43 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
What I mean is.
The NDA is still in effect after he is fired, and that could be possible grounds for his not being paid.
"Be an analyst. Don’t be a douchebag." - Terrell Suggs to Skip Bayless
Well he likely wouldn't have signed a NDA until he was fired.
He probably didn’t sign the NDA when he was hired because generally a NDA is part of a settlement which is what Haley and the Chiefs agreed to. So I think that’s an unlikely scenario, but as I said maybe they did beforehand.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!
For constantly playing Palko, Haley needs to be fired
by ArrowheadHunter on Jan 26, 2012 10:52 PM CST reply actions
couple things on this
On the argument that he couldn’t have been fired for saying those things because the article came out after he was fired – what if the room he told Babb this in WAS bugged and they fired him for saying it? Just a thought – though I don’t know how much I buy into Babb’s article.
Next thought – if they don’t pay him he has no reason to NOT come out and tell all – we could end up hearing his side of this issue. – I would love for that to happen – get it straight from the horses mouth.
They're probably just trying to free up more money
to get Bowe and Carr back. This is a new twist that people might like.
Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985























