Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

    Larry Brown is seeking a $53.5-million payoff from the Knicks for firing him after only one season as the team's coach. Along with the $41 million that remained on the original five-year contract he signed last summer, Brown is asking for an additional 25 percent of the original value of the $50-million contract - an additional $12.5 million - as "liquidated damages" as a result of the firing.

    That information was revealed Thursday in a 10-Q form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Knicks' parent company, Cablevision. The Sports Business Journal originally reported the story Friday on the Internet, but Newsday also obtained the 10-Q form, which is a public document.

    Commissioner David Stern is expected to serve as an arbitrator between the sides Friday in Manhattan. A decision will not be immediately rendered.

    Brown, who considered the Knicks his "dream job," was fired June 22 after a controversial season and was replaced by Knicks president Isiah Thomas. Garden chairman James Dolan reportedly attempted to buy out Brown's contract before he fired him, but Brown declined the buyout. In hindsight, it was to ensure he got the entire amount of the deal.

    Under a heading that reads "Contract Disputes," Cablevision says Brown was "terminated with cause pursuant to his employment agreement with the Knicks" and that "in the event that Mr. Brown prevailed, the Knicks could be liable for $41 million pursuant to the employment agreement ... In addition ... Mr. Brown has requested an additional 25 percent of the total compensation as 'liquidated damages,' as well as attorneys' fees."

    The section concludes with Cablevision stating its view that "no portion of this amount is owed to Mr. Brown and therefore no provision for any severance cost has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements."

    Brown's lawyer, Joe Glass, did not return a phone call for comment. The Knicks declined comment. Commissioner David Stern is expected to serve as an arbitrator between the sides Friday in Manhattan. A decision will not be immediately rendered.

    http://www.newsday.com/sports/printe...y-sports-print


    ****Now how can Stern be unbiased in this. Hmm. He's hired by the owners, paid by the owners (indirectly), takes the owners side in labor disputes with players.... Bottom line, Larry Brown is screwed.

    Not saying if Brown is right or wrong but I am saying the he is screwed!
    Two=the number 2
    Too=means "also"
    To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

    Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
    They're=they are
    There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

    Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

  • #2
    Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

    After this, can you imagine any team in its right mind hiring Larry Brown again? I'd probably rather have Ron Artest back as one of the Pacemates than hire Larry Brown back as coach.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

      Originally posted by BigMac View Post
      Larry Brown is seeking a $53.5-million payoff from the Knicks for firing him after only one season as the team's coach. Along with the $41 million that remained on the original five-year contract he signed last summer, Brown is asking for an additional 25 percent of the original value of the $50-million contract - an additional $12.5 million - as "liquidated damages" as a result of the firing.

      That information was revealed Thursday in a 10-Q form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the Knicks' parent company, Cablevision. The Sports Business Journal originally reported the story Friday on the Internet, but Newsday also obtained the 10-Q form, which is a public document.

      Commissioner David Stern is expected to serve as an arbitrator between the sides Friday in Manhattan. A decision will not be immediately rendered.

      Brown, who considered the Knicks his "dream job," was fired June 22 after a controversial season and was replaced by Knicks president Isiah Thomas. Garden chairman James Dolan reportedly attempted to buy out Brown's contract before he fired him, but Brown declined the buyout. In hindsight, it was to ensure he got the entire amount of the deal.

      Under a heading that reads "Contract Disputes," Cablevision says Brown was "terminated with cause pursuant to his employment agreement with the Knicks" and that "in the event that Mr. Brown prevailed, the Knicks could be liable for $41 million pursuant to the employment agreement ... In addition ... Mr. Brown has requested an additional 25 percent of the total compensation as 'liquidated damages,' as well as attorneys' fees."

      The section concludes with Cablevision stating its view that "no portion of this amount is owed to Mr. Brown and therefore no provision for any severance cost has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements."

      Brown's lawyer, Joe Glass, did not return a phone call for comment. The Knicks declined comment. Commissioner David Stern is expected to serve as an arbitrator between the sides Friday in Manhattan. A decision will not be immediately rendered.

      http://www.newsday.com/sports/printe...y-sports-print


      ****Now how can Stern be unbiased in this. Hmm. He's hired by the owners, paid by the owners (indirectly), takes the owners side in labor disputes with players.... Bottom line, Larry Brown is screwed.

      Not saying if Brown is right or wrong but I am saying the he is screwed!
      Well he would only be screwed if it was binding arbitration. But it is weird that the commissioner would be doing this instead of an independent.
      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

        Im pretty sure I read back when this all started last spring that having Stern be the arbitrator in case of any dispute was put into the contract originally. The Commish didnt just jump in to this, nor was it agreed to after the fact....it was agreed to be the solution of any future problems all along. I dont know but assume that is the standard operating procedure and common language most contracts among coaches and non playing personnel in the NBA.

        Of course, I dont know all the facts in this case (none of us do), but from what I do know, I personally think Larry Brown will win the rest of the money he is owed plus lawyer fees.

        Just one more black eye on the Knicks franchise and another stain on the resume of Isiah Thomas.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

          I doubt Brown loses this ultimately. The 'damages' might not happen, but the basic contract will still need to be honored. Possibly a small fine (well, relatively small when compared to the total (something 15% or less)) will be levied on Brown to address Brown's alleged breach of terms but I doubt anyone will find that an offense that effectively terminated the contract in whole. They might not call it a 'fine' but it effectively would be that.

          That's assuming everything I've heard about this mess is substantially the whole of the arguments on both sides.

          As for Stern hearing this... It does seem odd for this type of situation. OTOH, he's commissioner so maybe it isn't that odd as it seems at first glance. If he'd make a ruling that tends to bend over backwards for the owners it would raise some eyebrows. Look for him to 'split the baby' and give Brown less than he'd get in a court of law but much more than what NY wants to pay him.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

            How much money has he made the past few seasons, when you add together his buyouts and all? I'd like to see that figure. He might very well be the highest paid sports figure, in terms of salary earned, during these past few years.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

              Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
              After this, can you imagine any team in its right mind hiring Larry Brown again? I'd probably rather have Ron Artest back as one of the Pacemates than hire Larry Brown back as coach.
              Not sure how you can put this on Larry. The Knicks bent over backwards to get him to come to MSG and he showed up and tried to do the exact same thing he has been doing since he was coaching the Jayhawks.

              The Knicks front office gave the coach ZERO support in the "Tabloid Feuds" that continued all season long in the NYC papers between Brown and Marbury, where each acted like some high schoolers gossiping about the other guy. By the end of the season his entire team had quit on him. Before the Finals were even over, it was all the press that Brown was out. Then the Knicks front office gave him no word one way or the other for a solid 6 weeks. Didn't even have him in for a meeting. Hung him out to dry as a guy who'd already been fired in the press, but still had to attend Knick events as if he was actually coaching that team next year for well over a month.

              Now the man just wants the ammount the Knicks agreed to pay him in their legally binding and guarenteed contract. How is Brown in the wrong here by any stretch of the imagination? He's asking for 25% more, yes. But that sounds like a negotiating move to ensure he does indeed get the actual 100% he's owed when the final ruling comes down.

              I know "Next Town" Brown has done some things in his past. But here? He's entitled every penny of the original contract that the Knicks signed him for.
              Read my Pacers blog:
              8points9seconds.com

              Follow my twitter:

              @8pts9secs

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                Originally posted by Mac_Daddy View Post
                How much money has he made the past few seasons, when you add together his buyouts and all? I'd like to see that figure. He might very well be the highest paid sports figure, in terms of salary earned, during these past few years.
                Larry got a reported $5 mil for coaching the Pistons in 2004-2005.

                And I couldn't find the exact publicized figure, but I seem to remember Larry got a $10 mil buyout on the three years/$18 mil he had left on the Pistons deal.

                And he got $10 mil to "coach" the Knicks this year.

                And he will likely (IMO) get at least most of the $41 left on his Knick deal.

                If he gets all that, it would make $66 mil over two years.

                Nice life.
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                  Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                  Larry got a reported $5 mil for coaching the Pistons in 2004-2005.

                  And I couldn't find the exact publicized figure, but I seem to remember Larry got a $10 mil buyout on the three years/$18 mil he had left on the Pistons deal.

                  And he got $10 mil to "coach" the Knicks this year.

                  And he will likely (IMO) get at least most of the $41 left on his Knick deal.

                  If he gets all that, it would make $66 mil over two years.

                  Nice life.
                  I'd say.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                    I must say I am scratching my head on this one as well. LB was brought in and he signed a contract. The team decided to release him, so now they are on the hook to pay him the balance. Ask Gerry Dinardo or Cam Cameron at IU. They each left and they still got paid.

                    Is it fair? Sure it is. In order to lure somebody to coach your team you agree to terms. If part of your terms included the word "guarantee," then you have to live with it. The fact that they were pursuing a buyout of the contract just goes to show you that they knew they owed it. If they didn't owe it, they would have just went on their seperate ways.

                    Larry Brown is not a perfect coach and I don't agree with every decision he's made. But you also have to put him in a pretty rare category of coaches who can turn around a franchise. And really, who else fits the bill for that? He is in a league of his own with his track record for taking a cellar dwellar to a contender. He is the Lou Holtz of NBA basketball.

                    Larry is a no nonsense pain in the butt. He demands defense, it is his way or the highway, he favors work ethic over talent, and he won't hesitate to go to the media if things aren't going his way. He doesn't stay long in one place and almost seems to doom himself at the end just as an excuse to take on something new.

                    But he freaking wins. I've seen the man turn around my beloved Pacers, he took the lowly LA Clippers to the post season, and he finally won an NBA Championship with the Pistons. I say finally, but for the type of business he is in (restoration projects,) championships are a pretty amazing accomplishment. I'd hire Brown in a minute if I were a GM b/c I know he could teach my team how to win. I wouldn't sign him to a long term deal, nor would I anticipate he would stick around for awhile. But I would smile as my stadium would be full within 2 years of his hire date based on his ability to make stuff happen.

                    The idiots in NY are countless. IT decided that it was more important to support the players instead of the coach. The old "tail wagging the dog" philosophy is perhaps the worst one to submit a team to. IT's ego and poor selection of players will continue to bring that franchise down. Losing Larry Brown did nothing to improve that franchise.
                    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                    Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                      Unless something has changed, the Knicks are claiming Brown breached the contract. It's not that they fired him and now just don't want to pay him (well, it is.... IMHO... but they are hanging their hat on some technical grounds). IIRC, he spoke to a reporter, from his car, and that created a situation that was in violation of his contract (so say the Knicks). I've not heard anything else as their reasoning. I can't remember if his contract barred him from speaking with the media on MSG/Knicks' property without permission or if he was barred from speaking to the media outside of that property.... or if he simply needed permission to speak with the media in any case. Whatever the case, if that is all they are using as their technicality then I don't think they'll get far. I don't see them getting off the hook completely. OTOH, anything that Stern would award them in a penalty for that would be better than paying the whole amount.

                      -Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                        Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                        Not sure how you can put this on Larry. The Knicks bent over backwards to get him to come to MSG and he showed up and tried to do the exact same thing he has been doing since he was coaching the Jayhawks.

                        The Knicks front office gave the coach ZERO support in the "Tabloid Feuds" that continued all season long in the NYC papers between Brown and Marbury, where each acted like some high schoolers gossiping about the other guy. By the end of the season his entire team had quit on him. Before the Finals were even over, it was all the press that Brown was out. Then the Knicks front office gave him no word one way or the other for a solid 6 weeks. Didn't even have him in for a meeting. Hung him out to dry as a guy who'd already been fired in the press, but still had to attend Knick events as if he was actually coaching that team next year for well over a month.

                        Now the man just wants the ammount the Knicks agreed to pay him in their legally binding and guarenteed contract. How is Brown in the wrong here by any stretch of the imagination? He's asking for 25% more, yes. But that sounds like a negotiating move to ensure he does indeed get the actual 100% he's owed when the final ruling comes down.

                        I know "Next Town" Brown has done some things in his past. But here? He's entitled every penny of the original contract that the Knicks signed him for.

                        Well put.
                        :thepacers
                        No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          Unless something has changed, the Knicks are claiming Brown breached the contract. It's not that they fired him and now just don't want to pay him (well, it is.... IMHO... but they are hanging their hat on some technical grounds). IIRC, he spoke to a reporter, from his car, and that created a situation that was in violation of his contract (so say the Knicks).
                          -Bball
                          Wasn't a violation of his contract but the Knicks had a media blackout going on and Brown's speaking with reporters was in direct violation of Dolan's orders.

                          That said, the Knicks are complete idiots and owe Brown the whole thing. Bunch of incompetent screw-ups.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                            One other major factor working against Dolan and Zeke is that Brown may very well have no incentive to accept any sort of a buy-out settlement. Normally in these type of situations, the coach has significantly less leverage than Brown does here, because they want to get the buy-out finalized as soon as possible so they can get a new job.

                            Presumably, it's possilbe that Brown couldn't care less about the timeline. Some basketball people think he's ready to walk away from the game entirely. I'm not sure if this is true (I could easily seeing him want to get back on the sidelines after last year's fiasco), but his health is not good and as long as he doesn't want to coach in the NBA again, he can just chill and collect a $10 million paycheck for the next four years without ever accepting a lowball buy-out offer.

                            If I was a betting man (which I am, but not on matters this stupid), I'd wager LB will get over $30 million in this buyout.

                            Meanwhile....This is another reason that yall shouldn't worry about Rick getting an extension. If we end up ****ing the dog again this year and winning <42 games, we can still tell Carlisle to take a hike, and he'll be at TPTB's mercy, seeing as he'll want to get out of here as soon as possible so he can get busy coaching another team the following season.

                            For a young, aspiring coach like him, the Front Office really does have him by the balls. This extension is in reality about as meaningful as an NFL contract, i.e., he'll end getting a decent deal out of this, but all the years after this upcoming one are far from "guarenteed."
                            Read my Pacers blog:
                            8points9seconds.com

                            Follow my twitter:

                            @8pts9secs

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Larry Brown trying to get $53 million from Knicks

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                              Wasn't a violation of his contract but the Knicks had a media blackout going on and Brown's speaking with reporters was in direct violation of Dolan's orders.

                              That said, the Knicks are complete idiots and owe Brown the whole thing. Bunch of incompetent screw-ups.
                              Word. Sad but true my Knick friend. I'd tell you it can't get any worse than Isiah, but I don't want to tempt fate with those knuckleheads in your front office.
                              “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                              motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                              Reggie Miller

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X