Pressler files suit against Duke

[parentofbear]

<p>Duke apparently violated the terms of the settlement they reached with Mike Pressler former coach of the men’s lacrosse team.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>At least that is what Pressler alleges.</p>

<p>

The Herald-Sun of Durham reported Friday night on its Web site that Pressler’s lawsuit was filed in state court, alleging the university broke the terms of the confidential settlement when university senior vice president John Burness made disparaging comments about the former coach.

</p>

<p>Where there actually disparaging comments made or did he just change his mind about his settlement?</p>

<p>

The suit said one of the comments was made April 9 in Newsday, when Burness said the difference between Pressler and current lacrosse coach John Danowski was “night and day.” The second comment came in June, when Burness told The Associated Press “it was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward.”</p>

<p>In the same AP article, Burness said “Pressler is an excellent coach and did a great job building the Duke men’s lacrosse program.” Burness added the school regretted the negative consequences of his departure.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.charlotte.com/204/story/316747.html[/url]”>http://www.charlotte.com/204/story/316747.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[parentofbear]

<p>John Burness made some comments that he had to change to they were his comments not Dukes. “Night and Day” could violate their agreement. It would violate the terms of the last agreement I negotiated under similar circumstances.</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>I smell money all over this.</p>

[mafool]

<p>Doesn’t the “night and day” comment simply mean that each is very different from the other? I don’t see how that is disparaging. What am I missing?</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Sounds like a case of buyer’s remorse on the part of Pressler - he has come to believe that there was more money out there than he got - and I’m sure he is still really ****ed off. His lawyers must have been hanging on every word of everyone involved just waiting for that agreement to be breached.</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>My guess is the following was involved:

@Newsday From April

A major component in the Duke assessment was coaching. “One of the things we certainly have come to understand in this case is that the coaches in general in each of our sports are responsible for the behavior of their teams,” Burness said. That’s why Duke doesn’t have the same coach, Mike Pressler.</p>

<p>Former Hofstra coach John Danowksi, who took over for Pressler, has added needed transparency. His team is an open book. Nothing is off limits. “Danowski is night and day,” Burness said. "As our president (Richard H. Brodhead) said, `This guy’s a mench. This guy gets it.’ ‘’

</p>

<p>In a settlement like this, I can only imagine what kinds of clauses are in place. Certainly, anything coming from the mouth of the senior vice president of public relations and government affairs would be involved… That he came out the next day and said they were his words and not Duke’s - well, that’s not much of an option for the SVP of PR now, is it?</p>

[curmudgeon]

<p>But there aren’t quotes around “That’s why Duke doesn’t have the same coach”. That’s not Duke’s words. That’s Newsday’s words. And we don’t know that Brodhead was comparing new to old, just that he was praising new.</p>

<p>Timing, folks. Look at the timing. $30 million being bantied about. Jeez. </p>

<p>I still smell money. ;)</p>

[CC_Admin]

<p>Could also be the end of the article:

@Newsday in April

Even if all charges are dropped against the three players, Burness believes other legal hurdles exist for the university. “We’re expecting that there’s probably going to be civil suits from folks trying to get money out of us, that comes with the turf.”</p>

<p>Burness said there is a segment of the population that has asked him if Duke will apologize to the players if their legal problems disappear. “I said,” Burness replied, “for what?”

</p>

<p>Beyond that, maybe the author of the article will be subpoenaed to figure out who provided the “background” from which the non-quoted portions came?</p>

<p>The “night and day” was not the most brilliant thing to say, overall. You can’t follow that with something praising Danowski and expect folks <em>not</em> to think you’re not a huge fan of Pressler.</p>

<p>My guess is some straw broke the camel’s back with respect to this one. The case itself may not be winnable, but there could be a desire to shine some sunlight on things… Certainly, some people have been making enough disparaging remarks about members of the team, their parents (!), and the like to tick some folks off.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>Regardless of whether Pressler can prove Duke violated the settlement agreement, it reflects horrible judgment for Duke administrators to place themseleves in the position where they even can be accused of breaching the agreement. Duke administrators have no reason to comment on Pressler or even to refer to him.</p>

[beprepn]

<p>Plus the common courtesy to treat a man with respect who did a great job for you for many years and who you treated like dreck.</p>

[notre_dame_AL]

<p>Does Duke need some house-cleaning at the admin level to “move forward”?</p>

[richs73cas]

<p>Link to Scanned Image of Suit <a href=“http://www.vector64.com/pressler001.pdf[/url]”>http://www.vector64.com/pressler001.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[standrews]

<p>You would never know from Duke’s statements and actions that Pressler was fired without cause. Duke reached a settlement with Pressler because they did not want a trial and the discovery that goes along with it. The same goes for Duke’s settlements with other parties. If Duke officials end up having to answer tough questions in depositions and in court, all the settlement money will be for naught.</p>