Started By
Message
re: Alabama not allowing Brandon Kennedy to transfer to Auburn or Tennessee
Posted on 5/23/18 at 12:03 pm to 14&Counting
Posted on 5/23/18 at 12:03 pm to 14&Counting
Amazing how people who lost this debate in a blowout days ago, keep throwing the same mud up against the wall hoping it'll eventually stick.
0
Posted on 5/23/18 at 12:18 pm to 14&Counting
....and the mature, real world approach to the potential problem as compared to the emotional, short sightedness approach was what prompted me to wonder about the political leanings of the various contributors to the thread yesterday.....I'm still curious. 
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:07 pm to coachcrisp
quote:
I sold my company to a publicly traded corporation and had to sign a non-compete clause. None of my employees were required to do so, and, in fact, most stayed on with the new owners/management.
If an entity makes an investment in/to an individual, whether it be time, money, education, training, etc., it should have every right to insist that individual not use the obtained benefit to compete against them in the future.....fair is fair, and that, imo, just makes sense.
That is your experience and I appreciate it. However on 2 seperate occasions I have had a company decide all current employees must sign no compete clauses or face possible termination. Most of these positions held little to no intellectual or institutional knowledge. They spent some amount of energy trying to enforce these clauses on lower level worker who left while upper management seemed to move to, in some cases the same companies with no issue. Maybe they were giving them hell behind the scenes but it certainly didn't come off that way when some of them were interviewed. There are a lot of bad companies out there that use non-competes more as a form of intimidation than to justifiable protect themselves.
With that being said I stated at the beginning there can be good reason like your case for them, you just have to have good people involved. I have found in the business world good people are hard to find.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:13 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
. You can't decide to leave the NFC East and go to the AFL West because its not to your liking. If he decided not to play for us that would be a breach of contract and we could sue or claw back money. Just because he completed his degree doesn't mean anything.
You can decide to leave once you've graduated. That's what every other kid who is a student does. Why should the rules change if they aren't professionals and just scholar athletes?
If they are truly amateur scholar athletes completing his degree is completing his "contract" with the university.
After that degree he should have the freedom to go to whatever school he likes... just like every other student who has a received any kind of grant or scholarship to attend the university.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:22 pm to 14&Counting
I am going to see Deadpool, but I'll be back to throw the same crap up against the wall in reference to this post later. I am a glutten for punishment Tidal.
By the way I'm not sure what argument I've lost. We think 2 different outcomes will happen based on an action. Both outcomes can happen but one is more likely than the other. We just disagree on which one.
By the way I'm not sure what argument I've lost. We think 2 different outcomes will happen based on an action. Both outcomes can happen but one is more likely than the other. We just disagree on which one.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:26 pm to Carlton
quote:I'm confused....why would a company require existing employees to sign a non-compete agreement, or risk termination?..makes no sense.....and why would it even matter if the individuals had "little to no intellectual or institutional knowledge"? If that was the case, why would it even matter?
That is your experience and I appreciate it. However on 2 seperate occasions I have had a company decide all current employees must sign no compete clauses or face possible termination. Most of these positions held little to no intellectual or institutional knowledge. They spent some amount of energy trying to enforce these clauses on lower level worker who left while upper management seemed to move to, in some cases the same companies with no issue. Maybe they were giving them hell behind the scenes but it certainly didn't come off that way when some of them were interviewed. There are a lot of bad companies out there that use non-competes more as a form of intimidation than to justifiable protect themselves.
With that being said I stated at the beginning there can be good reason like your case for them, you just have to have good people involved. I have found in the business world good people are hard to find.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:28 pm to Carlton
quote:
Carlton
Geeze, man. This is really really important to you, isn't it.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:50 pm to coachcrisp
Non-competes typically don't matter at lower levels. It's more a form of intimidation than anything. They typically don't want client servicing or sales people jumping to competitors and moving existing clients. For the founders/owners, they don't want them creating another company to compete or joining a competitor.
Again, they're pretty limited in regard to enforcement based on geography, industry and job activity.
Again, they're pretty limited in regard to enforcement based on geography, industry and job activity.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 1:57 pm to YStar
quote:
After that degree he should have the freedom to go to whatever school he likes..
He can do whatever he wishes.....but when he committed, he committed his amateur status to the University. That status and the ability to play the sport is not transferable without restrictions. It has never been that way ever, it doesn't matter if it is in football or some Title IX women's sport. That is the deal the athlete accepted when he accepted the scholarship. He committed his eligibility in consideration for the value of the scholarship he received. His completing the degree in 3 years vs. 4 years or 5 years or whatever is irrelevant. The fact remains that his eligibility to play remains the domain of the University and he can only transfer pursuant to certain express conditions. His completing the degree only impacts the conditions of the transfer. It is not an unlimited right to do what you want. Conditions I might add that are set out by both the NCAA and the SEC.
Please stop with this non-sensical argument. You are arguing about what you want the rules to be.....what you "feel" they should be as opposed to what they actually are.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 2:04 pm to BamaReb
Right. I had no problem with mine because I was going to retire anyway, but another competitor of mine was also bought out, signed a non-compete, then a little over a year later opened another business in the same field, using his son as his "front". At this point karma entered the story and the guy had a heart attack and died within a year, so.... 
Posted on 5/23/18 at 2:13 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
He can do whatever he wishes.....but when he committed, he committed his amateur status to the University.
The same way academic students commit their amateur educational status to the university accepting their scholarship.
...Yet they aren't blocked from attending another university which is a rival after graduation.
If these kids are truly deemed amateur let them be that. If they are employees or professionals, declare it plainly and let capitalism take it's place.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 2:50 pm to YStar
quote:
If these kids are truly deemed amateur let them be that. If they are employees or professionals, declare it plainly and let capitalism take it's place.
I agree completely, although I think it's folly to think that there must be 2 categories - amateur and professional. Why can't there be a "university athlete" category with it's own rules?
A Bama football player is very different from NFL players as well as guys who play flag football at the rec center.
However, folks making millions/billions of dollars from the sweat of a labor force who's forbidden by rule to take a share of the revenue generated by their sweat is morally bankrupt and must change.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:29 pm to prevatt33
They don't want this and it is the biggest hypocrisy. You have people that actually say they are conservative, believe in a capitalist market.... but only if they can benefit from it.
What is happening in college athletics is the closest thing to socialism in this country and they support it because they are scared change is going to make their university less competitive.
What is happening in college athletics is the closest thing to socialism in this country and they support it because they are scared change is going to make their university less competitive.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:29 pm to YStar
quote:
If this is really amateur sports about education, then it's hypocritical to impede him from going to a school to further his education..
He can further his education at Tennessee if he wants, he just can't p l at football there. Good rule.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:37 pm to BamaReb
quote:
Non-competes typically don't matter at lower levels. It's more a form of intimidation than anything. They typically don't want client servicing or sales people jumping to competitors and moving existing clients. For the founders/owners, they don't want them creating another company to compete or joining a competitor.
Bingo. The first was in sales at a company who brought in someone new at the top who was basically an a-hole. He liked to use imitidation and bullying tactics and instituting the non-competes when he found out we didn't have them was one of them. The second was a different industry but it has similar components to sales and client services. They were late to the non-compete game (the industry doesn't use it overall but someone heard about it at a conference and thought it would be a good idea). They were trying to protect strategies and methods somehow not realizing what we did was mostly standard industry practice.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:47 pm to John Milner
quote:
Geeze, man. This is really really important to you, isn't it.
I'm not losing sleep over it but I think the likely outcomes are fairly clear which obviously my compatriots do not agree with. I couldn't imagine having a conversation about redlining, I would probably get killed.
I have some unexpected work to do so I'll follow up on 14's post later tonight, although he may be too enraged to care.
I can feel the anger causing the heat to rise off the back of his neck as he has typed his most recent posts. I see him mouthing "Stupid liberals with no common sense destroying this country...."through clenched teeth.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 3:58 pm to YStar
quote:
What is happening in college athletics is the closest thing to socialism in this country
It's more like a kleptocracy than anything.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:08 pm to YStar
quote:
They don't want this and it is the biggest hypocrisy. You have people that actually say they are conservative, believe in a capitalist market.... but only if they can benefit from it.
You and your boys are the socialists. Bunch of fricking Bernie supporters up in here. Everything should be free. I want to do what I want as long as someone else foots the bill.
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:14 pm to Carlton
quote:
have some unexpected work to do so I'll follow up on 14's post later tonight, although he may be too enraged to care.
I can feel the anger causing the heat to rise off the back of his neck as he has typed his most recent posts. I see him mouthing "Stupid liberals with no common sense destroying this country...."through clenched teeth.
GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!!!!
Posted on 5/23/18 at 4:17 pm to Carlton
quote:
destroying this country
The US is already "destroyed."
I'm not commenting on any political issue discussed above, just about the US in general, but the US is super fricked up. The things you were told as children about the US being the best country on earth, the one with the most "freedom", etc. is all lies and complete horseshite.
I would never have believe it until I moved abroad for almost a decade now, but when you live in another country and go, "Wait? That's how [X] is done here? shite, that's much better for everyone," and then you do that a thousand more times on a variety of issues, you realize that the country you're from is completely fricked and the federal government of that country does not care about you at all.
You are a commodity, a consumer, and source of revenue - and nothing more.
It's a shocking realization, but I have more freedoms, more protections under the law, and a higher quality of life in a country that most folks in the US couldn't quickly find on a map and would consider a 3rd world country. (Having said that, soccer sucks and always will.)
Seriously, the US is a fricked up place to live. But you cannot convince most Americans of that. They just refuse to believe it could be true.
EDIT: One corollary: You'd much rather be a super poor person in the US than where I live. Non-homeless super poor people in the US have it great compared their peers in most of the world.
EDIT: My diatribe above is not a condemnation of either Republicans or Democrats. Both groups are fricking you (in different ways sometimes) while trying to convince you that the other is the enemy. They are working together and need each other to exist.
Having said that, even tho I'm a conservative Southerner who detests PC culture and the liberal focus on minority groups, I have to say that right now, the Republicans are fricking you worse than the Democrats, which is really saying something.
This post was edited on 5/23/18 at 4:33 pm
Page 4 of 8
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News