I know from personal experience that these clauses didn't hold up in the past when I hired guys with non-competes...for the same reason why this one looks as though it won't hold up. If Texas law is different, then so be it, but it seems as though Charlie will stay on the air because he wasn't being compensated by his former employer.
The guy on the right currently works with Fox Sports West (I think). I usually see him during halftime and the post game during Lakers and Clippers games.
He is great at play by play but not as good at the talk show portion of his job...He talks TOO much, I feel bad for Rich b/c he rarely gets to give his opinion because Van der meer dominates the convo...I like Charlie Palillo and since he has left the "Drive time playas" just aren't the same...I'll probably tune in to Charlie more. I noticed last night around 2 am that the station was FOX sports, I thought it was an ESPN run station. Isn't FOX their rival?
no...that's not at all what the article says "However, Brian Zimmerman, Pallilo's attorney, said that since Pallilo did not receive specific compensation for the non-compete clause, which was not present in his first three-year deal with Infinity, he was free to appear immediately on KBME." but i'm sure you know more about this than i do.
Does he have a non-compete? Yes Is he getting compensated? No Can he go on the air? Yes Doesn't seem like the non-compete is holding up at the moment.
NO KIDDING, EINSTEIN!!! BUT NOT FOR THE REASON YOU ASSERTED!!! Pipe and I both said that these things are enforceable, assuming the language is correct. I specifically said that without actually reading the contract, I had no idea if it would be enforceable or not. But that generally, here is the criteria for enforceability...and then related personal experience in actually enforcing these things in Texas, which by the way, is the state whose laws control in this specific matter.
Max...I don't claim to know anything close to what you know when it comes to Texas law...but what i DO know is that my experience was different than what you are stating...and possibly because it was in another state. What I also know is that this guy apparently has a non compete and is working
NJ -- Texas law controls here...not your experience in NJ. the reasons you stated this thing would not be enforceable are not even taken under consideration here in Texas. get it??? so to come in and say, "see...i told ya so" rings very, very hollow...because you didn't tell us jack. It had nothing to do with why this thing was ultimately not enforced..which is exactly what Pipe and I were pointing out.
NJRocket might not be a lawyer, but I have sources that tell me that he did stay at a holiday inn express last night.
huh? did i say it definitely would be enforced?? how did you "tell me so??" i said, these kinds of contracts are enforceable..i showed the grounds by which they were enforceable...and then said i didn't know if this one would be enforceable or not, because i've never read it. so how again did you tell anyone so???
Ummm, because I said it wouldn't be enforced and it isn't ...have a cream soda sydney and calm down...sheeesh! Its ok to be wrong sometimes.
That was cruel Chance, who's in charge of switching over to Rome/Premier Radio? I started to hear Colin Cowherd's show, I was like "WHAAAAAAAAAAAT WHERE'S MY YEAR IN REVIEW?!" Next week on Rome: Andrew Sicilliano Rich Eisen George Lopez John Feinstein Monday - Wednesday should rawk, I don't like Feinstein too much.
The argument is about compensation but in this case we are not talking about monetary compensation. Did we pay him? Of course. We paid him we.. and what he was worth and agreed to. The non-compete portion of it deals with how we compensated him, meaning what more did we give him as far as experience and skillset, that he did not have prior to going into the non-compete time frame. He argued...and won...that we didn't do ****. We did not teach him one thing. We did not facilitate him making one new contact. We did not provide him with a single new experience which he could draw upon. We did not promote him and build upon his legend. We did nothing that made him a more sought product. His attorney argues this and won. Personally, I disagree. We provided a forum for him. If he had been sitting in his apartment for the past three years he would not be as valuable as he is because of us. He would not have went to China. He would not have done hundreds of hours of Texans pre and post game. He won. Congratulations. He signed a non-compete and lawyered his way out of it. Way to be a pillar.
wait...don't run away. you kicked this thing off with you're "i told you so," followed by a moderated, "I don't claim to know anything close to what you know when it comes to Texas law," which was usurped by your "Its ok to be wrong sometimes." so i ask again...how am i wrong???
