The Hypocrisy Is Breathtaking

Without singling out anyone by name it is quite amusing how some of the same commentators on this board who bash Pat Haden for not going balls to the walls against the NCAA with legal action several years after the fact are recommending USC bend over for Sark instead of fighting his questionable lawsuit in court.

 

Probably because Sark may try and throw dirt on the USC brand in an effort to blackmail them and force them to settle.

If anyone seems like they would pull a shady move like that it seems as though it would be Sark.

 

They should crush Sark. Ridiculous lawsuit. He didn't perform his job duties, didn't seek an accommodation, and they can't just have a substitute teacher for months at a time.

 

When one is addressing accommodation how in the hell can this be applied to a head coaching position for a major university football program?

 

Let me be the first to mention the Golden State Warriors and Steve Kerr.

 

Doesn't look hypocritical, IMO. Apples and Oranges. Timing and facts and circumstances are entirely different, as are the reasons and potential extent of the damages in each case and the ease of mitigating that damage in the case of Sark. The damage done by the NCAA is not even in the same class as this nuisance suit brought by Sark. The NCAA cost USC years of millions of dollars of lost revenues, potential championships, recruiting ability and on and on.

 

We have the tough talkers out there puffing out their chests bashing Haden for not taking on the NCAA in a lawsuit that would be extremely costly with a very low potential of success. Many of these same posters want to bend over and get out the checkbook to pay Sark millions even though this case is quite defensible.

 

USC should sue the NCAA for putting them in the position of having to hire a coach like Sark. Without the sanctions, we may have had an entirely different coaching path.

 

Settling is not always a sign of weakness but sometimes a sign of prudence.

Is it prudent to protect the brand of USC from more negative spotlight?

I would think substantial consideration is being given toward the public relations aspect of this case as much as the contractual facts.

In that regard the tangibles involved are hard to measure.

 

Protecting the brand of USC from more negative spotlight? Seriously? Despite the flowery words packaged in settlement agreements and releases that a settlement is not an admission of guilty, the public perception is just the opposite. Settling with a stumble bum drunk like Sark with no resistance will give the impression that USC clearly did something wrong and could even result in making Sark a sympathetic character.

In this situation it is best to force Sark to open up his credibility to public scrutiny. Called witnesses such as other coaches, players including his ex wife are not likely to paint a pretty picture of him.

Paying this prick off to go away is the coward's way out.

 

USC has already started walking down the path of settlement. It's widely accepted there has been negotiations for a settlement. The University must have felt some benefit in making the offer. So I would think the question is how far will they will go? So far, not enough, hence the lawsuit.

I like the idea of crushing the drunk also. He has not earned the money and failed in the most humiliating manner. Jesus Sark, really?

But...there are dollars and reputations at stake. USC will need to measure the negative press on a settlement versus the negative press in an ongoing, drawn out jury trial. And, with the possibility of losing to boot.

While I agree with you go right at the prick, my guess is they will settle.

 

That perception is already well cemented in the minds of football fans who aren't Trojan fans. These employment lawsuits are common enough that people understand settling is not admitting. I wonder how committed to a trial you would be if it were your own money being spent on defending this lawsuit. Easy to make a call for trial when you have no monetary skin in the game.

Who cares? His 15 are almost up and nobody will care.

I don't see how his ex would be involved and frankly I don't think she would be willing to testify against him when they have 3 children who wouldn't understand.

Ironic really. You have no problem calling some people out (aimeedee for instance) on certain issues but now you cast a general aspersion and don't want to call out any specific posters. Is that an internet coward's way out?

 

That perception is already well cemented in the minds of football fans who aren't Trojan fans. These employment lawsuits are common enough that people understand settling is not admitting. I wonder how committed to a trial you would be if it were your own money being spent on defending this lawsuit. Easy to make a call for trial when you have no monetary skin in the game.

People understand settling is not admitting? Cue the laugh track. Michael Jackson paid out millions in a civil suit settlement accusing him of child molestation. Although he was found not guilty in the criminal case the general perception of Jackson is he did engage in improper behavior with children. He had the financial resources to fight this lawsuit in court. Most people would say if they were accused of such heinous activities they would fight tooth and nail. If a person was accused of child molestation was your neighbor and they settled rather than fight the case would you give that person the benefit of the doubt and allow tht person around your children? Your statement regarding whether I would defend such a lawsuit is ridiculous. USC is heavily insured for such matters. Nearly every employer is insured. Plaintiffs and their attorneys sue because they are aware of the deep pockets. If Sark had been a burger flipper for a small mom and pop shack that for some reason was insured it is doubtful any attorney would take the case.

I don't see how his ex would be involved and frankly I don't think she would be willing to testify against him when they have 3 children who wouldn't understand.

If she is subpoenaed to testify the ex will have no choice. She will be compelled to testify or be in contempt.

Your final comment about calling people out is a non starter. I stated in general paying Sark off is the coward's way out. Your weak attempt to turn that comment into some type of personal attack is again ridiculous and shows your personal bias against me which I do not give one rip about. I never even brought up AD2 in this discussion. Thanks for playing.

 

Keep in mind plaintiffs and defendants look differently at lawsuits.

 

Did you miss the part where I said EMPLOYMENT lawsuits? And selecting a case that involves a well-known entity with a subject matter that is highly emotional is an exception, not the rule.

Spousal testimonial privilege....."With respect to the marital communications privilege, as long as there was a valid marriage at the time of the confidential communication between the spouses, the privilege may be raised by either spouse even after the marriage has ended." Thanks for playing.

It's not a personal attack as I don't know you. It was an observation. You have no problems calling out certain posters, even using vulgar commentary when doing so, but in this instance you choose to make a general criticism while calling out their cowardice. Such complete irony.

 

Right or wrong it is cheaper to settle. This is merely a business decision.
If you don't like it then think twice about the crap you vote for. The laws have long been stacked against anyone who owns something and there are many slimy individuals who seek to part you from it.
It doesn't mean guilt or innocence all it means is the University would rather spend a lower sum of millions rather than pay a team plus damages if they were to lose. Purely economics.

 

What baffles me is that the level of anger on this board appears to be as much, if not more than if he were suing each one of you personally. This Sark situation is a far cry from the ridiculous sanctions imposed us on back in 2010. The sanctions were something to be pissed about. This isn't.

Let's not forgot, Sark's actions will not place the program on probation, will not cost us any scholarships, will not cause us to vacate any victories, will not cause us to relinquish trophies or awards, and will not result in any bowl bans. At worst, USC will have to pay out big money because Haden made a bonehead decision. At best for USC, the case settles for a fraction of the demand and the school moves on.

Once the case concludes, Sark will probably take a QB coach job at some place like San Diego State and maybe climb his way back up the ranks. College football folks have short memories and will forgive what happened in the past. Look at Skippy Neuheisel. He sued UW after the betting pool fiasco and ended up coaching in the NFL for a couple of years before taking over the reigns at his alma mater.

I am not a Sark fan. I thought it was a stupid hire in the first place. We put together this grandiose campaign and ended up with someone lackluster. This didn't stop Haden from spending $1 million for a background check. Which is laughable given all the receipts the LA Times dug up right after Sark's termination. If you're gonna blame anyone, blame Haden.

Let's focus on the positive. We seem to have a great football coach in Helton. He loves being the head guy at USC, adores his players, and enjoys being a Trojan. He's focused on leading the troops into battle.

Stepping off soapbox now.

 

Indeed. And, screw Sark. We tried to help him and he shit on us. Stiff arm his ass into oblivion and even if he does get a red cent from some stupid libtard judge's interpretation of what constitutes applicable employment law, we should make him pay the whole goddam thing in legal fees so he derives no benefit and just gets so many years older without enjoying the fruits. The man had a contract that was tailored to his problem and then he violated it 6 ways to Sunday.

 

OP I think we are just all sick of lawsuits and legal crap and problems with the program not related to football. Been going on since 2006.

just do whatever needs to be done to make him go away and drink his tequilla and not come back

 

What can an alcoholic drunkart do that people will believe?

 

huh??? just padding your post total today?