(10-05-2021 12:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-04-2021 11:21 PM)pesik Wrote:  okay update; i decided to google for myself instead of just taking marks word:

he didn't technically dismiss all charges, he is still suing UC, its just switching from a federal case to a state case

brannes lawys actually seems excited about the move
https://theathletic.com/news/ex-cincinna...=twitterhq

this is a meaningless update in regards to new evidence on who is right or wrong... it just means Brannen's lawyer has found either a favorable judge or favorable state law that notable increases their chances to win..

im not sure how any of this news is favorable enough to uc to bump this thread .. or to start gloating that this thread will age horribly for me

Oh Brannen's lawyer is excited about the move? That's a convincing piece of evidence.

Brannen's lawyer has repeatedly claimed to have rock solid clear evidence to prove his client's story, and yet, here we sit. It seems unlikely Brannen has a clear and convincing case at this point.

Truth is, this case is likely going to end with a small settlement, and both UC fans and you are going to claim victory, saying that clearly the evidence was on their side, despite no ability to know so.

What I do know, is that Brannen proved himself to be a horrible coach who's players neither respected or liked him. He managed to alienate just about everyone at the university from his players, to the fans, to his bosses, to the medical staff, to the media who he refused to let view any parts of practice. He was about as bad at your job as you can possibly be. Solid basketball acumen, awful coach. His proper level is probably on staff somewhere in a non bench role now, and I bet that's where he ends up.

your 1st part does make sense, finding a more favorable ruling situation doesn't indicate anything about your case
the only thing it indicates is that the suing party thinks they have discovered something major in their favor to change the environment...
the fact that the lawusit changed from suing individuals to suing organization is a strong indication they are likely going to attack some law precedent ..

interesting side note: i just googled, jim o'brien won a state case (vs ohio state - Not federal) on a similar cause case to UC a decade ago.. id bet my bottom dollar they are going to try to state o'brien set the precedent on how these kinds of cases should be ruled ...state statutes mean nothing on the federal level and likely the reason they had to switch (i googled because the lawyer had mentioned that case before)

also how would we know if its a small settlement.. and why would any settlement be seen as victory for UC? any settlement would almost validate it was about money.. we paid him 2mil instead of 5mil proves what point?

another sidenote just from reading the lawyer statements i think they might likely ride it out till a decision or whatever settlement will have to include some sort of public vindication win for brannen ..makes it pretty clear that clearing brannen name is main purpose of the suit not "uc trying to weasel out of what is owed"