I think Dubois and the BOT owes us some answers on the Richardson decision

MHH2006 · August 31, 2018, 3:32pm

I agree with transparency about why they made the decision. If the answer is because we are screwed & there is no way out of the contract will that satisfy everyone? Probably not. But yes an explanation would be nice. I was very surprised with the decision not to remove his name. To me the only explanation is because they can’t.

Dowless · August 31, 2018, 3:35pm

But the problem with this generation of people is that they don’t want to just talk about it. They will want to protest or defame the facility. How does it help us as fans if they boycott the stadium? Do we lose the football program because we know that the University won’t blow up the stadium and start over? Where does it end?

CHP should come out and say that they are legally contracted to keep the name and the issue will be over. The new issue is who takes the blame and loses their job. No one will destroy the stadium over a bad contract, but they will over social injustice.

sportsman1417 · August 31, 2018, 3:38pm

We just have to pay the money he has given us back. I can’t imagine he wants a legal battle since he hasn’t said jack shit about the situation.

Agent49 · August 31, 2018, 3:39pm

That’s where I’m at too. I don’t know that he’ll put up a big fight. He’s a recluse at this point, and has been for a long time. Now we try and back out once he’s dead, his heirs will probably fight in his honor.

Agent49 · August 31, 2018, 3:50pm

Nugget:

I expressed an opinion on this topic in another thread, but as this is pretty specific thread on this topic I have a few questions.

We just raised $40 million, on our way to $49 million, for athletics. We can pay Richardson back, however something else will not get funded if we do. Something pretty big–maybe an indoor practice facility for football, or maybe an upgrade to Halton. Maybe expanding The Rich…uh, No Name Stadium.

If we simply took the name down, sent JR a check, and said “thanks, but no thanks” what happens? We know the contract has no language giving us an out for this. RIchardson is a man that made sure his statue could not be removed from BoA Stadium when he sold the team. Do you think he is going to meekly go away on our deal? I am not so sure.

If he took us to court what is our case? That an anonymous person told SI that he did bad things? Richardson has not been charged criminally, and has not been sued and lost civilly. The people that took money and signed NDAs are unlikely to come forward or testify because that could jeopardize their deal. The NFL probably will not talk, and even if they did it would be hearsay, right? Inadmissible? Richardson apparently did not talk to the NFL, so there is nothing there. If we take the name down and he sues us aren’t we likely to have to put it back up, and maybe pay his legal expenses? The case against us would not be about his behavior, but about ours–did we violate the terms of our contract. I am not sure I like our chances.

I said in my previous post that I think he did what he is accused of. If he is not charged criminally (and I have heard nothing about doing that), then his victims could sue him civilly. The remedy in civil court is money, right? Well they struck out of court settlements, and he paid them money–reportedly. From a legal perspective this is case closed, right? Is that not the definition of paying the price for your offense. If so, then does heaping other punishment on him amount to the punishment not fitting the crime?

If I know you are a lousy driver I cannot take out an insurance policy on your car hoping to get a check when you crash it. The law says I do not have an insurable interest. Is there anything that would prohibit us from exacting punishment for an offense that was not committed against us? Keep in mind that our contract does not have a morality clause. Can we just break that contract because we really, truly believe he did bad things? I don’t know.

The last thing that strikes me about this situation is the BOT meeting. I believe what happened there is they talked about this, and probably got legal advice, and unanimously decided to not vote to take his name down. So they did nothing. This is very different from voting to do something–in this case leave his name up. I think the BOT is keeping their powder dry in case things change. They are keeping their options open.

I know we have several attorneys on the board that would actually know something about this. I am just wondering and speculating, but I think our hands seem to be tied.

What doesn’t get funded over $6million we’d have to get back? Not sure, but with the capital campaign and an (assumed) more effective 49er Club, I don’t think that is insurmountable. Could be covered potentially by University $$$ as well.

Richardson is a recluse, is he really going to fight this in the public eye? I doubt that at this point.

Regarding transparency, it’d be nice to know if we’ve even talked to Richardson about the situation to discuss ending this amicably, renegotiating terms, etc.

MHH2006 · August 31, 2018, 3:50pm

I agree. Can’t imagine why he would fight this if we pay him back. If I donated $10 million to someone & they decided to give it back I would be totally OK with that. I still wonder if anyone from the University has talked to him. If not why haven’t they.

sportsman1417 · August 31, 2018, 3:54pm

He has only given like 5 or 6 million so far. The ten million was a combined for field and stadium and was 1M a year. We pay that crap back and go sell the name for more money.

Agent49 · August 31, 2018, 4:03pm

$6 million to date.

TRLeader · August 31, 2018, 4:11pm

Seriously…that’s the answer.

We’re not giving back $10mil…we’re giving back just what he’s paid.

Give it back and let Mike Hill go find a real stadium naming rights deal.

The only issue is that with the season starting it’s probably to late to change/remove the name on the field/buildings until the season is over but that shouldn’t prevent us from doing that if that were to be the decision.

ImfromClayton · August 31, 2018, 4:22pm

Not trying to be too negative here, but Jerry knew when he signed on the dotted line he had NDA’s. He very well may have made that part of the donation. He very well may have made that clear with Dubois and the crew. This may be why Phil is trying to keep the name, and keep this on the hush.

Ninercentral · August 31, 2018, 5:07pm

There is no way we knew. Mark it down.

ghostofclt · August 31, 2018, 6:45pm

clt is more familiar with bird law, but cannot we just hang a banner over his name?

Dowless · August 31, 2018, 9:30pm

Yeah, the whole idea behind the NDA is so no one finds out. Only Jerry, the other parties, and the lawyers were privy.

Agent49 · September 11, 2018, 11:29pm

Dowless · September 12, 2018, 12:24am

The author states “supporters often note no morals clause preventing this” referring to canceling the Richardson contract. I don’t know that you are a supporter if you state a fact that there is no moral clause. I believe that almost all of us would like to see something other that the status quo, but most believe that nothing can be done due to contract language.

As a counter the author brings up the following:

“UNC Charlotte legal policy states that if an individual whose name is honored by UNC Charlotte is convicted of criminal behavior or “engages in conduct that, in the sole discretion of the University, is injurious to the reputation of the University,” the naming contract can be rescinded.”

I believe someone stated that the current legal policy does not predate the Richardson contract. In typical contracts any legal policies would have been an addendum to the Richardson contract. I didn’t see it there even if it did exist prior. You can have any policy in place, but if that policy is not known to the contract’s other party, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

49er1 · September 12, 2018, 1:00am

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner. THAT is why JR’s name will remain on the stadium for the foreseeable future.