- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Nielsen looking less likely per Jane Slater
Posted on 1/19/21 at 12:30 pm to IowaCityTigerFan
Posted on 1/19/21 at 12:30 pm to IowaCityTigerFan
quote:
Do you think there might be some type of geography clause that Nielsen can’t coach within a certain amount of miles from NO?
Would that language apply to a college team?
So in order for a non-compete to be enforceable in the case of Nielsen, you have to check 2 primary boxes:
First, the non-compete needs a geographical limitation. And second, the non-compete cannot be enforceable for more than 2 years after termination of employment. The geographical limitation must itself meet two requirements: (1) It must be limited to a specific parish or group of parishes which must be specified in the agreement; and (2) such parishes must be parishes in which the employer actually caries on the same type of business purported to be limited by the agreement.
As for the geographic limitation: Considering the work that Nielsen does for the saints (coaching), i think you'd have a hard time satisfying the requirement that the employer engage in that business in EBR. If the NFL had some type of minor leagues and the saints had a minor league team based in EBR then you could *maybe* make such an argument, but as for the business of running/coaching a football team, it's pretty clear that the Saints don't engage in that business in EBR.
I really cant imagine that there would be a way for the saints to draft a non-compete that would allow it to be enforceable against LSU in this circumstance.
ETA: to be clear, this isn't stuff that I do in my day job, though I do know a bit about it.
This post was edited on 1/19/21 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 1/19/21 at 12:34 pm to LifeAquatic
Wouldn’t hold up in court at all but I guess LSU doesn’t want to drag it out longer when they need to make a hire.
I can’t imagine that working relationship is going to be great next season between Nielsen and the Saints.
Hell the entire coaching fraternity isn’t going to be happy with this.
I can’t imagine that working relationship is going to be great next season between Nielsen and the Saints.
Hell the entire coaching fraternity isn’t going to be happy with this.
Posted on 1/19/21 at 12:38 pm to wildtigercat93
quote:
Wouldn’t hold up in court at all but I guess LSU doesn’t want to drag it out longer when they need to make a hire.
So then they should make the Saints be the ones who have to bring it to court. Act first, and if necessary, apologize later.
In other words: Instead of LSU suing in order to be granted declaratory judgment that the non-compete is unenforceable, they should just hire him, and let the saints try and sue to have it declared enforceable.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News