Because whoever made the decision clearly didn’t read the terms of his contract, and there’s a lawyer being yelled at for it somewhere.
Say Goodbye to those ESPN Personalities Ya'll Love So Much: Official ESPN Layoffs Thread
- Thread starter PortCityProphet
- Start date
Marchland corroborated it in one of his reports. It's fully guaranteed as long as he doesn't take a gig elsewhere like previous ESPN layoffs did. If he does, then he'd be forfeiting the remainder left on the deal or having to give up money via buyout.
What sucks for him and those other high profile paid talents like Van Gundy is even if they wanted to give up bread as part of a buyout to go elsewhere, they'd have to get the go ahead from Disney/ESPN to do it and could easily say no if they wanted to.
I remember reading somewhere that the main reason they want Doc is because his NBA contract is still in play and they could get him on the cheap.
Last edited:
I mean, we are trending to a world where non-competes are unenforceable, especially in New York and California. I would have to see that language - I think given the size of their salary to stay off the market, the hardship argument would be hard to argue. It’s going to be interesting what happens with non-compete laws in the next 5 years.
I wouldn't necessarily call his a non-compete clause as he's free to take jobs elsewhere (with ESPN's permission). He's just going to have to give up bread to do it, which has been the case with other ESPN talent that got laid off who had the same contract stipulations.
He’s a weird case in that I think ESPN would love to have him back, but not at his current contract price as it’s always been said over the years how highly they thought of him. He’s not coming back though I think Disney would step in and say no like they did with Jaws years back.
IIRC, I think Ed Werder has been the only ESPN talent that got laid off to only end up coming back later.
By definition if you cannot take jobs without employer approval that is a non-compete clause or restrictive covenant. This is established law, especially in New York and CA where so much ESPN talent is located. What you’re describing is waiving a non-compete. New York passed a ban on non-competes just last month, not sure if Governor Hochul has signed it yet but read the definition: “any agreement, or clause contained in any agreement, between an employer and a covered individual that prohibits or restricts such covered individual from obtaining employment, after the conclusion of employment the employer included as a party to the agreement.”
The bill is drafted to be inclusive of “any . . . person who . . . performs work or services for another person,” meaning that it is likely to apply to employees as well as independent contractors.
Historically, there needs to be some sort of adequate consideration such as payment you would not otherwise be entitled to in order to uphold a non-compete. It is most likely that Keyshawn negotiated for a full pay out in the event of termination but only in the event that he would not be able to be employed by a competitor for a set period of time. The alternative is he receives nothing except what he was owed for the work he had completed but was otherwise free to find new employment. Again, we are dealing with an unsourced report and haven’t seen the contract. But that’s how these things normally go. ESPN doesn’t want whatever audience you may have cultivated on their network following you.
As an aside, NY’s new law is interesting because unlike other states, it doesn’t have an income threshold so in theory highly paid employees would be subject to it as well - i.e. an ESPN employee. The FTC is also looking to potentially ban all non-competes.
My thing is Doc Rivers conceivably should be demanding as much if not more then Van Gundy because before he went to coach the Magic he was considered the best NBA color guy in the business so why fire Van Gundy?
Doc needs that money to pay alimony so he won’t come cheap
From what I've read, it came down to either Van Gundy or Jackson being let go and the latter had people behind the scenes who liked him and that's what mainly saved his job. Not to mention the fact they probably feel that Van Gundy would be more likely to get an NBA job and save them money in the long term than Jackson.
My thing is Doc Rivers conceivably should be demanding as much if not more then Van Gundy because before he went to coach the Magic he was considered the best NBA color guy in the business so why fire Van Gundy?
Doc needs that money to pay alimony so he won’t come cheap
Doc is an option mainly because he's still under his NBA contract and won't be able to double dip and save them money in the process.
My question is if they were going to demote Jackson anyways and essentially nudge him into walking away, then why didn't they just lay him off in the first place?
I just don't get the Doris hype, and that's not on some women hating shyt, she just doesn't let the game breathe at all. She wasn't always like this but it seems as the Internet hyped her up more and more she felt the need to talk over the broadcast of the game. If Doc is still as good as his TNT version I would rather hear him with Breen and Mark if they're insisting on a 3 man A-team.
Doris needs to just do what she used to do. Be the female Hubie Brown and let the game breathe.
At this point Mark better sniff out some coach opportunities even if it’s college. ESPN still owes him bread so he’ll be fine but it’s not like these “layoffs” end here and end this year.
It’s obvious why they gave Van Gundy the boot but him and Mark were the best duo calling NBA games right now and Kevin Harlan ain’t walking thru that door.
