I'm so not a lawyer, but I've read a lot of SoSH, and I swear I've read multiple times that California isn't a no compete state and that such clauses are illegal?
Most NC's restrict working for a competitor for a certain time period after employment regardless how your employment concluded.teddykgb said:Yeah I guess I don't understand how a non compete is remotely relevant when his contract is up and they've announced non renewal
Holy good god you're a moron.SaveBooFerriss said:Look I am not going to argue about this anymore because you don't have a single fact to support your position. I am not going to blindly assumes contract provisions that do not make sense.
Do you disagree that that, the day after Simmons' ESPN contract expires, he will be free to work for any other employer, whether it is Fox, TNT, etc.?
Unless you disagree, it means there is no NC agreement or it is a completely irrelevant and unenforceable provision. I am not going to assume that ESPN and Simmons negotiated irrelevant and unenforceable provisions in the agreement.
Weak effort by Miller. He dismisses ESPN claims that BS's comments about Goodell on Patrick's show were not relevant to the decision, ignoring that since returning from suspension Simmons has said harsher things about Goodell repeatedly on ESPN platforms. If it were about the content of the remarks he would have been shutdown months ago.ernieshore said:More from James Andrew Miller on Simmons...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/05/what-doomed-bill-simmons-at-espn
MarcSullivaFan said:Most NC and NS agreements contain choice of law and forum selection clauses. So, it's not necessarily the case that ESPN would be limited to enforcing a NC against BS in the California courts.
Kenny F'ing Powers said:Most NC's restrict working for a competitor for a certain time period after employment regardless how your employment concluded.
jschip1 said:
I think the point is that most NC clauses do not last beyond the term of the contract, they are in place for if the person tries to leave early. So even if in the unlikely event Simmons has a NC that is enforceable wherever he ends up, it probably only lasts until September or whenever the contract is up. But Average Reds is right that they are probably negotiating out of it now, particularly in light of how ESPN has handled the situation.
The use of such clauses is premised on the possibility that upon their termination or resignation, an employee might begin working for a competitor or starting a business, and gain competitive advantage by exploiting confidential information about their former employer's operations or trade secrets, or sensitive information such as customer/client lists, business practices, upcoming products, and marketing plans.
Agreed. Skipper got way to caught up in things that only people at the Bristol HQ care about. Publicly ESPN looks Goodell-ishly heavy handed and prickish here. Even if Bill acted out, there was still every opportunity to take the high road. That didn't happen.CaptainLaddie said:Wow.
I mean, we all know we'll get a goodbye from him via Twitter or IG or something, but yikes. That's pretty shitty of ESPN, even if you think Simmons has been a PITA the last few years.
Stevie1der said:Reluctantly wandering into the legal/business end of the pool again, does ESPN have any cause or negotiating leverage to prevent Simmons from coming out guns blazing airing all of the company's dirty laundry first chance he gets at his new gig?
Do we know that they are paying the remainder of this contract?TheDeuce222 said:
One would surely think they made him sign a non-disparagement/confidentiality agreement to prevent him from airing certain things, in exchange for paying him out the remainder of his contract even though he doesn't have to work for the next few months. Very interested to see if he revives his old blog or something in the interim if he's not able to do anything professionally for the time being.
ifmanis5 said:His face is still on the front page. Wonder how long that will last.
Stevie1der said:Reluctantly wandering into the legal/business end of the pool again, does ESPN have any cause or negotiating leverage to prevent Simmons from coming out guns blazing airing all of the company's dirty laundry first chance he gets at his new gig?
TheDeuce222 said:
One would surely think they made him sign a non-disparagement/confidentiality agreement to prevent him from airing certain things, in exchange for paying him out the remainder of his contract even though he doesn't have to work for the next few months. Very interested to see if he revives his old blog or something in the interim if he's not able to do anything professionally for the time being.
Swedgin said:Do we know that they are paying the remainder of this contract?
Merkle's Boner said:I was enjoying the Summer Movie Preview videos with Chris Connelly and Wesley Morris. They've been releasing one segment each day. It sounds like there won't be anymore coming.
Merkle's Boner said:I was enjoying the Summer Movie Preview videos with Chris Connelly and Wesley Morris. They've been releasing one segment each day. It sounds like there won't be anymore coming.
ESPN released everything that they had finished. They simply stopped production when the suspension kicked in. After it was over it was basically too late, the season was starting.gtg807y said:
Didn't that same thing happen to their NBA preview videos in the fall? They released a few, Simmons was suspended, and that was never seen again.
They can. I just doubt they will based on the tone of the dismissal.DrewDawg said:
It does? They can still put them out.
Average Reds said:
Simmons will not unilaterally sign the non-disparagement agreement, because this provides significant value to ESPN. (ESPN will offer to make it a reciprocal agreement, but the value to ESPN is higher, so that won't do the trick.) My guess is that he will use this as a means of achieving complete/near-complete freedom.
"You want me to sign a non-disparagement agreement after shitting all over me in public? Fine, but I can go wherever I want and take whoever I want with me." That's probably what they are talking about right now.
JimBoSox9 said:
It's worth noting that his silence since the Skipper announcement stands alone as an example of Simmons keeping his trap shut for his own damn good.
http://deadspin.com/bill-simmonss-goodbye-email-i-am-done-being-involved-1704773063?rev=1431719482111&utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow#
Wanted to tell you that it looks like I am done being involved with Grantland. Can’t say much here for obvious reasons, at least for now—I know you understand. In the short-term—don’t let this bullshit affect you. Just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s a job. We tried to make it feel like it was more than a job these last four years, but right now, it’s still a job and Grantland is still being consumed and judged by the general public (with unusually high standards, too). So keep the quality of your work as high as it’s always been. Work situations are rarely going to be prefect and you can’t allow it to affect what you’re doing. The best way to “respond” right now is to keep putting out a great site. If you didn’t know, April was our best month—we passed 10 million uniques without chasing traffic and without any leading-the-site promotion whatsoever from ESPN.com (just one Mets piece for like 90 minutes, that’s it). We built an audience because of quality and quality only. You guys should feel good about that.
Mooch said:Have to give credit for Simmons for taking the high road and going out like a professional with his team.
It is dumb and they look dumb for doing it the way they did it- firing on Twitter and yanking his press card in a public way. Skipper let this get too personal and he looks like Goodell in the process.JBill said:Would it have been too much for ESPN to let him get a goodbye to the readers column on Grantland, the site he founded? I'm asking that sincerely. I know they effectively fired him, but it just seems crazy to me that they're just going to pretend he never existed.
I know Jay Caspian Kang, one of the few early Grantland writers to leave tweeted about how he was a great boss and everyone loved having him as a boss.JBill said:Would it have been too much for ESPN to let him get a goodbye to the readers column on Grantland, the site he founded? I'm asking that sincerely. I know they effectively fired him, but it just seems crazy to me that they're just going to pretend he never existed.
As for the email to the staff, in the five years Grantland's been around, no one's leaked to Deadspin that he's a bad or ineffective boss (see Whitlock, Jason). His overlords at ESPN and some of the other Bristol talent may have hated his guts, but the Grantland staff didn't.
ifmanis5 said:Have to admit I'm missing the podcasts. Would love to hear his take on the Clippers blowing it.
JVG protects coaches like Breen protects refs and like Bill's dad produces horrible content.deanx0 said:
Zach Lowe did an "emergency Monday podcast" of the Lowe Post with Ramona Shelburne to cover this very topic, even acknowledging the Monday NBA podcast hole that exists. It's not the same as Simmons, but Lowe is a great voice about the NBA, although Jeff Van Gundy did recently run roughshod over him about how nothing is ever a coach's fault when things go wrong.
Yeah, that JVG podcast was tough listening for a guy who is usually pretty good. Basically waved away improvements from teams like the Warriors and Hawks under "well, maybe they would have improved anyway" bizarro logic. Anytime you resort to "these guys have families!" as a reason they shouldn't be fired, just...woof.deanx0 said:
Zach Lowe did an "emergency Monday podcast" of the Lowe Post with Ramona Shelburne to cover this very topic, even acknowledging the Monday NBA podcast hole that exists. It's not the same as Simmons, but Lowe is a great voice about the NBA, although Jeff Van Gundy did recently run roughshod over him about how nothing is ever a coach's fault when things go wrong.
They aren't removing him. They just aren't going to have any new content from him. They are basically treating it like his contract ended with Skipper's announcement.Don Buddin's GS said:Simmons' image isn't totally removed from ESPN just yet--last night's E:60 replay of the 30 for 30 on "The Bad Boys" had BS talking to Jalen about the Pistons/Celtics battles.
That content still has a lot of long term SEO value. No way they pull that down or just give it back to Bill to go start his own site. Bill loves referencing/linking back to old columns too (if you remember from my Playoff Gambling Manifesto in 2011, rule 5, etc.). Could even be a point of leverage in the negotiations.Cellar-Door said:They aren't removing him. They just aren't going to have any new content from him. They are basically treating it like his contract ended with Skipper's announcement.