Broncos say no

roybus14 · Post by **roybus14** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Couldn't these guys just resign from their positions and then come here????

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:18 pm

PulpExposure wrote:In theory, I agree. However, it should apply both ways; if the employer doesn't feel they have to uphold their side of the contract, I don't think the employee should feel obligated to do so, either. It's a fairness thing

How does an employer not have to uphold their part of the contract? Of course they do. If they breach the contract, the employee can sue them for damages in civil court.

BossHog · Post by **BossHog** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:26 pm

Well it's actually pretty safe to assume that most people want a raise. It's actually pretty safe to assume that they'd also like a promotion.

Since the former is probable, and the latter is guaranteed if they are plucked from another team, then it's not like it's a leap of faith.

And then tack on that these guys were hired by Shanahan in Denver, it actually starts to become pretty easy to see why they would welcome the move.

As I said earlier... probably won't get all of them, but the Broncos can't stop it from happening as long as the correct protocols are followed. The Redskins have been 'inventing' coaching positions for the last few years - just to make such moves possible. This time around won't be any different.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:32 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
PulpExposure wrote:In theory, I agree. However, it should apply both ways; if the employer doesn't feel they have to uphold their side of the contract, I don't think the employee should feel obligated to do so, either. It's a fairness thing

How does an employer not have to uphold their part of the contract? Of course they do. If they breach the contract, the employee can sue them for damages in civil court.

Many employment contracts have a rather ambiguously written "out clause," allowing the employer to fire the employee for less than specific reasons. Yes, the employee can always sue afterwards, but they won't have their job...and even if they win, most often they get damages awards that are rather severely mitigated by the alleged bad behavior.

This is way off-topic, however. We can take it to PM if you'd like to continue the discussion further.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:24 pm

PulpExposure wrote:This is way off-topic

OK, you're a mod and I won't pursue this if you say it's so, but I'm not clear how discussing employment contracts and their enforceability in a discussion about Denver saying we can't interview their staff because of employment contracts is off topic at all much less way off.

BeeGee · Post by **BeeGee** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:49 pm

roybus14 wrote:Couldn't these guys just resign from their positions and then come here????

Good question. I'm sure that the league would connect the dots though and likely accuse someone of tampering or another form of foul play. Unless your Bobby Petrino, of course. Then, you could just bounce from Louisville to Atlanta to Arkansas in record time and no harm, no foul.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:02 pm

BeeGee wrote:
roybus14 wrote:Couldn't these guys just resign from their positions and then come here????
Good question. I'm sure that the league would connect the dots though and likely accuse someone of tampering or another form of foul play. Unless your Bobby Petrino, of course. Then, you could just bounce from Louisville to Atlanta to Arkansas in record time and no harm, no foul.

You can resign, but if there is still time on the contract... they still own the rights. You would still need consent... and, in the meantime, you have no job.

RedskinTexan · Post by **RedskinTexan** » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:41 pm

Adam Schefter reports after declining Redskins request last week, Denver granted Washington permission on Monday to interview Broncos RB coach Bobby Turner.