Welcome MOJO
 2/21/2017 7:48:24 PM      Replies: 61

neil2/19/2017 5:35:09 PM

New alert .  ML to get $3 million as settlement.

Bad news it will come out of the athletic budget for next year.

welcome MOJO

ruserious2/19/2017 6:40:48 PM

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nice try. Looks like this is ML's new strategy.... try to get people to believe GW settled. 

bigfan2/19/2017 7:07:45 PM

Don't know.

Outside of TV game times, hard to bet against Neal.

Pretty good track record, one recalls. 


the mv2/19/2017 7:28:12 PM

I posted this two weeks ago.  Did not mention the exact settlement amount because I did not feel it was my place to.  I did say it would be a seven figure settlement.  As long as Neil provided a number, I will share that this is the same figure I was told.  And, my source was not ML.


ruserious2/19/2017 7:46:08 PM

If Lonergan had so much "evidence"  against GW that he was able to get a 3 mil settlement, we'd be hearing about it. He (and his lawyers) would be shouting it from the rooftops, demanding his name be cleared, etc.  Or at at the very least, it would be "leaked' to sources like ESPN, or his idiot friends on the radio. Please. I can't believe grown men can be so gullible. ML has gotten nothing!


jp2/19/2017 9:28:20 PM

That's a lot of money.  Does Nero get taken out as a result once the settlement is done or did he survive?

bigfan2/19/2017 10:17:07 PM

If true and actually MV's post (although he hinted at it before, And not doubting that 's what a source told MV, but apparently we are now required to put disclaimers on everything, so as not to offend new poster names) wouldn't that be basically the entire balance of ML's contract.

So IF CORRECT (again not doubting that's what MV heard if post was from him)and it was offered or agreed to, wouldn't that be a buyout of his entire contract?

Seems odd if that is the case, unless he had a strong case for more damages or the university didn't have cause.



the dude2/19/2017 10:27:39 PM

Good points BF.  One false thing written here after another about ML, starting with "this whole thing is nothing and he keeps his job"... this sure appears to be the latest.  

The things written about Nero though, just plain wrong to write those things.


rkelley2/19/2017 11:40:16 PM

He's going to get a settlement almost regardless, 3 million is about right. As far as the logic that it couldn't have happened already because we would've heart about it via a leak to ESPN? Yeah, that doesn't apply here, nobody is really paying attention to GW aside from this board, including the press.

mentzinger2/20/2017 9:22:13 AM

Is it true? Is it not true? Any settlement would have a nondisclosure clause so we will never know, except via future hard-to-explain moves (e.g., PN is removed, there's a huge new fundraising push, etc.) ... just like we will never know if any payout, or ML's firing, was warranted.

the mv2/20/2017 9:49:15 AM

Exactly right Mentzinger.  And RUSerious, I guess my response to you is "are you serious"?  Do you really believe that under these circumstances, Lonergan would be permitted to publicize his settlement?  You lose all kinds of credibility points in my book for being unable to figure this simple thing out.  As for demanding his name be cleared, that's what you give up when: a) the settlement amount is enough to provide financial security for your family; and b) you are not 100% in the right (because even the ML supporters acknowledge that he could have handled things better) and would rather not roll the dice in court.  And any court case is a roll of the dice no matter how right or justified you may feel you are.


notta hater2/20/2017 10:19:05 AM

pox on both houses.

bo knows2/20/2017 10:22:55 AM

If in fact the matter is settled and ML received $3 million then a couple of things are likely true or need to be considered.

First, ML was more right than wrong because that settlement amount would essentially be very close to the amount he was owed for the remainder of his contract. So in other words GW terminated a guy allegedly for cause but then paid him most if not all of what he was owed? You like;y don't get that kind of settlement unless GW believed there was some real legal exposure. If so why was that the case (see below)? 

Second, while ML and GW probably cannot disclose the terms of the settlement per the terms of the settlement almost always there is some language that will state that the parties can acknowledge generally that a settlement was reached. I would expect to hear at least that much.

Third, agree with Neil that if GW did in fact agree to a $3 million settlement, given the budget issues at GW, it is likely that GW will be looking for cheaper options as HC. That would definitely give Mojo more consideration and narrow the field of options.

Fourth, the question must be asked will any other heads roll based off of this settlement? Can't believe that the Board will be happy paying $3 million dollars to ML and then having to pay another coach. Seems to me with a new President some things could change. Either a poor decision was reached by the decision makers such as the Provost (to let ML go) or there are facts that are damaging to GW that GW does not want to see the light of day. Either way there are parties who are responsible and it may have cost GW dearly if this is an accurate report. I remember how some of you thought it was outrageous that Penders received a million on his way out the door following a resignation. I am shocked that no one has yet made mention of the amount of this settlement in relation to GW's decision-making because it is allegedly 3 times greater following a dismissal. 


ruserious2/20/2017 10:33:10 AM

MV yes I am serious. Certainly we would have heard by now that a "settlement has been reached".  And Lonergan would have had someone "leak" the details somehow. If he was so much in the right that he got a 3 mil settlement, he wants it KNOWN. 

But really it's not true in the least, so arguing about it is silly.

notta hater2/20/2017 10:50:01 AM

Bo: people settle civil suits to get things behind them sometimes. It's expensive, but moving forward frees the new administration to focus on accomplishing other things that it may deem to be "priorities" - fighting a claim by a coach fired by a prior administration does not make sense from a "accomplish the new mission" point of view, in fact, it's pretty easy to do and suggests objectivity in weighing all of the options. The fact that it comes from the AD budget may or may not be telling (i.e. you created this mess, you own it versus best way to pay for it and not harm other things I plan to do with my budget).

bobo2/20/2017 11:22:32 AM

Since everyting in a law suit is negociable, I guess GW could push to have the $3m settlement paid over a longer period of time to give the AD more flexibility in hiring the next coach.  Say over a 10 year period would be more managable.  I'm sure ML would want to be paid quicker but mabe negociable.

Some programs also look to have claw back provions in these settlements that decreases part of the schools' financial liability if the fired party gets a similar job elsewhere for a large salary.  Maybe forgo any of those types of claims simply to lengthen the time frame of the payout.


tuna can2/20/2017 11:35:49 AM

Notta, wouldn't it be fair to say that the University was prepared for this all along? The Athletic Budget is just the source of the payment, but it could be from a fund directed at the liability of having humans serving in an institution and representing the school.

I find this level of angst amazing when you consider that few players left the team and the current coaches already have 2 recruits for next year. Do I think that a more experience coach could have done better this season, of course. It may be a bit strong to say that MoJo will be a great coach someday, but I can say that his game management has improved as the season has progressed.

Above all, I think that it is important to note that I like his professed willingness, now, to let the players make some additional decisions in their play. They are becoming more adept and adjusting on the fly. You learn through failure. You get stronger.

Back to ML, I think that it is a fair deal for a family to make. I hope that he finds a way to get back to work and discover a more careful way to communicate with others under his wing of influencee. 

bo knows2/20/2017 12:11:19 PM

Yes, I get that Notta. But if you fired a guy for cause and then have to pay him $3 million (which could really be the remaining amount of his base contract) sounds like your grounds weren't all that strong. This is not a case where somebody resigned under pressure - GW removed him. So you fired him but you paid him every or almost every dime he was owed in advance? And, I am virtually sure that if this settlement was reached it is an immediate or short-term payout.

Again, we don't have confirmation of the amount or settlement for that matter but if accurate, I think this settlement amount raises more questions (about GW's conduct) than it answers. 


bc2/20/2017 12:27:06 PM

Still working with rumors.  And I thought Neil quit a couple of weeks ago.


the mv2/20/2017 12:33:47 PM

RUSerious, he may want it known but I feel reasonably certain that he forfeited that right to make it known when he agreed to his settlement.  And, if you don't think that the opposite side doesn't know that Lonergan has friends or colleagues in the media and made it clear that he was not allowed to "go through them" in order to make his settlement known, then you're either very naive or are going out of your way to refuse to believe what is in all likelihood, the truth.

we suck2/20/2017 12:49:50 PM

Our program has dropped so low that the Dukes are upset about not beating us - the cellar dweller Dukes!

Also here's a News Alert for the 15 of you who spend hours on this site and RUserious, who is just Nero sitting at his keyboard in his tighty whities waiting for the hammer to come down on him - I have been told that ML has rejected GW's offer to settle (being too little and too late) and his firm is drawing up the complaint for filing in the near future. We will all get what we have been wishing for for months - ML's side of the story. It will be TMZ worthy from what I hear. Herve, better get your server ready because I know of 16 people (myself included) who will be posting non-stop for 24 hours straight once the complaint is filed. It will cost GW a hell of a lot more money than 3 million I'm afraid once that happens. It's Knapp's way of screwing us yet again as he walks out the door.

I can't wait for the new USNWR college rankings issue to come out here shortly - I'm predicting we slide back into the 60's to match our exhorbitant yearly costs in the 60'000's.



ruserious2/20/2017 12:56:59 PM

We Suck, I hope you are right. I don't really believe it because surely ML doesn't want anything public. But if true, can't wait!

rich maier2/20/2017 1:09:36 PM

The ML settlement discussion sounds a lot like the big ML controversy. Several people said they heard it from an impeccable source that ML is safe. ML was fired. Now several people got the inside info on the settlement. While the reports may be true I don't take it at face value. There simply are generally too many inside sources for me to know without evidence who has the real story.

I hope the people posting ML would have done better than Mojo understand......it is unknowable. But thanks for the speculation.



adclub2/20/2017 1:39:40 PM

Other than pride, I really can't see how bringing whatever is hidden to light is beneficial for Lonergan.  Whatever crapstorm ensues can't be good for his long term career.  Making homophobic remarks/slurs is pretty much never acceptable under any conditions and just those comments can bury him for good.  I suppose the damages by wrongful termination could be a much bigger number than the proposed 3M, but it would seem the cooling off period before his next hire would be shorter now than it will be after a long drawn out legal affair, even if he wins! Am I missing something?

the dude2/20/2017 1:48:43 PM

Perfectly stated Rich, precisely spot on

bo knows2/20/2017 1:53:12 PM

AD Club - It all depends on what the facts are. If ML made a few inappropriate comments and was terminated but has evidence of more significant wrongdoing by others that was swept under the rug or not addressed, we have the potential calculation that ML is going to fare way better than others even if he doesn't come out perfect. We have no way of knowing that until it happens.

bo knows2/20/2017 1:58:31 PM

Rich is probably a guy who if God forbid needed a heart surgeon would see no difference between a guy with 25 years of documneted positive experience and someone fresh out of medical school. In that case, the outcomes of the surgery would also be unknowable since you could only choose one. Somehow Rich I think you are going with the guy with the experience. Just a hunch on my part.

ziik2/20/2017 2:04:18 PM

Surgery is funny, Bo

For heart surgery, I got a guy known as The Scalpel. Smart move. For cranial surgery, I got a newby. I had an unusual tumor. The new guy had perfected a new technique. So far, I am reasonably happy.

Rich may well choose wisely

I hope ML had himself a real good contract lawyer. No need to get hysterical about a lawsuit these days

gw692/20/2017 2:14:03 PM

So--Some people screwed up more than I did!!Thats the best he's got?

Not a lawyer but seems weak morally--don't understand legal

ramificatios.--Of course who knows if any of this is true. If it is ---

and we find out--(will we?) it doesn't change that GW fired ML

for inappropriate behavior.



long suffering fan2/20/2017 2:35:55 PM

Don't know if their information is correct, and I never met any of them personally nor do I agree with them 100% of the time;  however based on our little GWHoops.com world, I am fairly certain that neither MV. Neil or Bo Knows would intentionally post false information to advance a point or for any other reasons. Now assuming that the settlement number that is being leaked on this board is correct, this very well may say something about the course of events.  Specifically, in settling a case, the safe starting point is to split the difference, then adjust due to the strengths or weaknesses of your claim.   $3,000,000 was roughly the number we had been hearing was the remainder on ML's salary, so settling for that amount is telling (remembering also that the value of the contract probably didn't include the other "benefits", such as basketball camp and other perks.   Now, playing devil's advocate with myself, you may also be correct in your claim but do not have that strong of a case (i.e. reticent witnesses); or that the collateral damage (i.e. negative publicity) may be high.   Still, if the numbers being reported are correct, to me at least it says something.   As for discrediting the story because there are no leaks, I don't put much stock in that.  First, there very well may be penalty clauses or other reasons not to leak the information; or that (dare I say it), the principals involved may be honorable enough to stick by what they agree to.  Bottom line...a quick and quiet settlement is absolutely the best resolution of this matter, even though like everyone else, I have a intense curiosity to learn the truth.  (And I don't believe for one minute that the so called independent report was in any way objective, but rather a litigation strategy by one side). As attorneys, we always employ independent expert witnesses who, amazingly, always support our version of the case.


the mv2/20/2017 2:44:23 PM

Rich, all I can possibly know for sure is the information I was told.  And that where I received the information is from someone who would likely know such things.  That said, I posted two weeks ago that a seven figure settlement had been reached.  I knew the amount but did not feel like it was my place to divulge that here.  Then, Bo acknowledged that he too had heard about a settlement though he added that he wasn't aware that everything was signed and over with.  Then, Neil says that he had heard about the settlement and gives the amount which I confirmed.  So, that's three separate people all hearing the same story at separate points in time.

Now, is it possible that what We Suck has to say, that Lonergan was offered this settlement but is turning it down, is true?  Of course this is possible.  Maybe my source actually heard what the settlement offer was and wrongfully concluded that it would be accepted.  I can't dismiss thjis as a possibility.

I will say that given the above, I would safely conclude that a $3 million settlement offer was extended, and at this point, may or may not have been accepted.  And, as I said two weeks ago, anyone who chooses not to believe what I heard, or what Bo or Neil heard, is free to do so.



ziik2/20/2017 3:18:02 PM

I continue to believe that ML's settlement will be governed by his original contract, and not by any threats to sue.

The guy was close to Brey, Williams, etc., and had been a head coach twice before. He knew GW had canned TP and Hobbs. SO, he ought to have hired a good negotiator to draft an agreement to resolve all sorts of termination scenaria: dismissal, dismissal for cause, falure to perform, new AD, new Pres. Even clauses for raises, promotions, decisions on his assistants.

I doubt he is terribly worried about the matter. I don't see why we are



nj colonial2/20/2017 4:03:08 PM

Hey "We Suck," you suck as a fan.  If you really are a GW fan.


bo knows2/20/2017 4:04:34 PM

Just to be clear the only thing I am confirming that I heard was that there was mediation between GW and ML and that the mediation had produced the broad outlines of a settlement whereby GW was paying ML money. I did not hear it was finalized or the exact amount (or even a range) but when MV posted before I assumed it had been finalized. That was potentially later corrected by another poster who claimed it had not.

Subsequently, others have pointed out here that the settlement may or may not be finalized. I have zero information as to whether a settlement has or has not been finalized. Further, I have no direct information as to the exact dollar amount of any settlement if it has been reached but Neil's post piqued my interest given Neil's normally reliable information.

All that being said, I will continue to try to acertain what has or has not occurred from both sides of the equation.


bigfan2/20/2017 5:23:49 PM

Not an infallible infication at all, but wonder if this quite transparent push in the media for Mojo to get the permanent job is based on the Athletic Department's anticipated budget post-settlement.

Who knows? But would like to know more to decide whether this major kick in the nuts to a successful and honorable,especially acaemically, basketball proram was worth it--or could have been avoided. And what is the aftermath?

So anyone with any scrap of real information should post it here.


thinker2/20/2017 5:51:05 PM

A settlement in a situation like this can mean some very different things. It almost certainly does not prove who was right as such.

1)  Maybe GW was anxious to move on and avoid litigation. This doesn't mean that ML was more right than wrong, necessarily. It could mean that ML was more willing to go nuclear than was GW. Maybe ML played chicken with GW in the negotiations and GW swerved first.

2)  We have a new incoming President now who may have given input that was different from the outgoing lameduck President. The new President perhaps was disinclined for the first period of his presidency to be dominated by nasty testimony about the inner goings on at GW.

3)  Money-wise GW could have determined that the cost of litigation was high enough and the publicity bad enough that paying a higher settlement made good business sense.

4)  These things are a calculation. It is not uncommon at all for a criminal defendant in the US to plead guilty to a lesser charge that they DID NOT COMMIT because they are afraid of the risk of being wrongfully convicted of the more serious charge.

5)  Maybe GW had absolutely ironclad "for cause" reasons to fire ML and didn't cross all the t's and dot all the i's in the execution of that plan.

As a general point, settlements with fired coaches are almost ALWAYS paid out on a schedule that roughly matches the time period that they would have earned the money if not fired.

I really don't think that GW would be able to just "take" this settlement money out the the athletic budget -- it's too much. A big university like GW, though, will have LOTS of different contingency accounts for all kinds of things. Paying off ML will undoubtably require an extremely complicated internal financial dance. 

rich maier2/20/2017 6:00:57 PM

MV, you are absolutely correct you reported what you were told. I am not doubting you it's just we've heard it all before during ML's big story. Personally do not care if ML got a settlement or the amount. In no way do I think you are 'selling' anything as some do. You are passing on whatyou've been told and appropriately posted it here. Bo had the closest relationship with ML and inner circle. He had inside info from a very reliable source. He posted that ML was safe endlessly, and with complete confidence. But he received bad info that time after calling many things correctly. It happens. So people have great sources on both sides of many issues so I'll wait for the verdict.


danjsport2/20/2017 6:02:36 PM

If true,  somebody already violated the non disclosure 

shofaz12/20/2017 7:07:40 PM

what was he making a year? 400k? 

adclub2/20/2017 8:21:32 PM


bo knows2/21/2017 9:44:28 AM

For whatever it is worth Rich, the recent Mojo article in USA Today quoted Mojo as believing exactly what I had been led to believe ... no chance that ML would be fired. 

“We were kind of all taken aback by it,” Joseph said. “We all knew (an investigation) was going on, but we never expected that to happen.”

I guess we are going to find out whether that was a reasonable position by virtue of whether there is a settlement resulting in a big payment to ML or a court case resulting in a judgment for ML.


bo knows2/21/2017 9:48:47 AM

I have to disagree Thinker to an extent. Yes, a settlement does not prove who was right on each and every factual assertion. But it does give you insight into the relative legal positions of the parties. 

The assertion has been made by GW that ML was dismissed for cause. If ironclad cause truly exists you wouldn't find it odd that ML would receive at a minimum every dime owing to him under his contract for the remainder of his contract (5 years) if we are to believe Neil's post above?

ruserious2/21/2017 10:49:14 AM

Neil's post is not true.


the mv2/21/2017 11:14:38 AM

RUSerious, this proves nothing but I am curious. 

1) What's not true, that a settlement offer was even extended or that it was extended but not accepted?  Or, are you unsure as to which?

2) If what has been indicated here is not true, then it's a rumor.  Have you heard the same rumor outside of gwhoops.com, or have you not even heard that this rumor exists?

bobo2/21/2017 11:30:19 AM

I think some on this board believes GWU should take a moral stance against Mike Lonergan and refuse out of principle to offer any settlement to him.  Because of this moral stand point they won't believe any settlment offer or acceptance until they see it in print.  It would be a cupitulation by the university they have trusted to give in to the demands of a bad person.

ruserious2/21/2017 12:05:29 PM

MV despite your condescending tone I will answer you. I do not believe for a minute that a 3 million settlement offer was extended.  There was just too much that was uncovered by the investigators to ever warrant ML getting any kind of large settlement. He does not "have anything" on GW--GW has no worries about anything negative coming out that would embarrass them/make them look bad, etc. Of course we all know the lies ML has told to many but they certainly cannot be substantiated---he would have made some kind of move by now. I would definitely not be surprised if a very low-ball settlement offer was extended to just be rid of ML, but that's it.

long suffering fan2/21/2017 12:15:33 PM

If you have read the report, why don't you share the substance of its contents with the rest of us, who have not had the opportunity.  I suppose you have also spoken with ML and know he has nothing on GW.  Likewise, you were party to the settlement negotiations so you know that the rumored settlement is incorrect.  Or are these just your theories?


danjsport2/21/2017 12:35:37 PM


Bo- you said this "The assertion has been made by GW that ML was dismissed for cause. If ironclad cause truly exists you wouldn't find it odd that ML would receive at a minimum every dime owing to him under his contract for the remainder of his contract (5 years) if we are to believe Neil's post above?"

Let's say a 3M offer was made and accepted.  Reviewing the ML lawyer statements from September, the belief was that ML was not afforded the due process required pursuant to the terms of his contract.  If mediation (or legal review from GW attorneys) indicated that ML was not actually afforded that due process, that could warrant the school deciding to pay him the money without havng to put all of its dirty laundry in public (whatever that dirty laundry is).

This would not mean that GW was "wrong" for firing ML or that ML's actions didn't warrant a firing for cause.  It simply means GW may nmot have properly dotted its I's and crossed its T's in the firing process, which would be a sufficient legal basis to win a case.   

So, I'm not inclined to believe a settlement would prove anything as to the "cause" of ML's firing.

bo knows2/21/2017 1:35:33 PM

Any failure to follow its own HR policies while likely a problem would really only put GW in a significant pickle if there was a likelihood that the outcome would have been different had the policies been followed. This is not similar to government action like an illegal search and seizure which automatically taints the evidence. Danjsport - I would still have to believe that GW would not offer $3 million if that was the only defect.

That said, I have learned RUSerious' post of 10:49:14 am is correct as of this writing so this discussion is now largely moot.

the mv2/21/2017 2:09:28 PM

Bo, please elaborate as to what is correct.

A $3 million settlement was offered but not accepted?

A $3 million settlement was never offered?

No settlement was ever offered?

Some settlement was offered but not accepted?

It would also be helpful if you are at liberty to elaborate on the nature of your source (without breaking any confidences).


danjsport2/21/2017 2:38:05 PM

Bo- if the "only defect" was a lack of due process breaching ML's contract which caused him to be fired "for cause," I think it's a pretty substantial defect.  

But it sounds as if you do not believe a settlement has been reached, so this is all moot.  Neil's been accurate on many things--but does not appear to be accurate as it pertains to ML's status.

ruserious2/21/2017 2:44:31 PM

MV, shouldn't you know what is correct??  I thought you had an iron-clad source??  lolololol

the mv2/21/2017 3:42:36 PM

Actually RUSerious, I have been very careful all along to point out that while my source is credible and would be in a position to know such things, that I could never swear on any information that I did not see or hear first-hand.  It is entirely possible that something may have changed since my source learned the information he passed along, or that he was provided with faulty information. I can assure you that I was not misled on purpose, nor did I mislead anyone here on purpose.  It is also entirely possible that my source is 100% correct.  That Neil and I independently heard the same settlement figure is a little curious to me.

bo knows2/21/2017 3:57:12 PM

MV, I don't know what if any terms have been discussed or agreed to/rejected only that it is incorrect to say that there is a settlement between the parties. There is not currently an agreed upon settlement as of the time of my post. So RUSerious is technically correct. That's all I can say at this point. That could change at any moment or not change.

thinker2/21/2017 4:12:54 PM

Feel free to disregard this LEGAL analysis if you wish. I posted this idea various times in the many threads that are certainly unreadable now because they are so long.

TO ME, the implication of the firing, GW's limited public annoncement, and ML's statements through the Sports Junlies and his own lawyer is such:

1)  GW told ML in a letter that he was fired for cause. The cause listed was likely a broad general thing related to insubordination, improper conduct etc. It 100% would NOT have said he was fired for violations of Title IX.

2)  Title IX firings require a host of administrative procedures, like hearings etc. ML clearly did not get any of those procedures. ML's lawyers and media buddies repeatedly harped on him "not getting a hearing." A hearing is something that only would have been required under Title IX, not for getting fired for some other reason. ML's legal attack, therefore was ABSOLUTELY going to be centered on the issue of whether ML was fired for violations of Title IX.

2a)  If ML was fired for saying things of a sexual nature to students/players related to Nero (we all know what was alleged) then it's hard to claim this shouldn't have been handled under Title IX. If ML was fired for issues related to his relationship with Nero and management, etc then this really wouldn't be Title IX.

3)  GW's litigation position would have had to start at establishing that the firing WAS NOT for Tile IX violations and ML's litigation position was going to be that "regardless of what GW says, it really was a Title IX firing and therefore ML was denied the procedures owed to him thereunder."

4)  However GW crossed the t's or dotted the i's there would have been a certain vulnerability of having a court say "this looks like Title IX, sounds like Title IX, etc. IT IS TITLE IX." If that happened, then GW would lose on all counts because everyone agrees that GW did not provide the procedures required under Title IX. 

5)  So GW could have really done everything right and still been vulnerable to the argument that it was really Title IX and GW constructed their firing in a different way to avoid the Title IX procedural protections.

I am pretty confident that the negotiating and decisions were made around this issue.

newgwfan2/21/2017 4:24:25 PM

Wasn't there a separate thread a few weeks ago where people claimed that there was an agreement in place.  It certaintly appears that the wheels are in motion towards an agreement coming to fruition, but it looks like nothings been finalized.  I think you'll see both sides (pro ML) and (anti ML) claiming victory if/when a settlement is made.  Won't change anyone's opinion either way.  Only thing that remains interesting with this story from my standpoint is the following...

Who will GW hire as a replacement HC full-time, and will settlement impact decision financially?

Will ML ever coach again?

Outside of these two points, discussions on this topic don't spark much interest from me.

gw05092/21/2017 4:26:58 PM

Look at the reaction to similar circumstances with Larry Eustachy that just came out, that I posted in an earlier thread: http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/18694388/larry-eustachy-coach-colorado-state-rams-berated-intimidated-staff-players-report-shows


It seems very likely that ML could've been put on a Personal Improvement Plan for the first accusations, which necessistated pracitce monitoring, etc., and then when more accusations came out, he was fired for violating his PIP.  ML's side would be arguing that whatever transpired was either outside the scope of the PIP (ie they happened before the PIP was put in place) or did not rise to a violation of the PIP.


I wish the Coloradoan's article wasn't now under a paywall because the investigation documents they posted from CSU looked very similar to what GW's would look like.


And yes, all this would be moot if GW would release (or someone would leak) the damn investigation already.

thinker2/21/2017 5:08:11 PM

If you're going to pay ML to keep quiet, why on earth would you release the report?

bigfan2/21/2017 6:19:48 PM

By all accounts,ML cleared whatever investigation was being conducted.

The Assistant AD who monitored him is said to have really liked Lonergan and found no problem.

Eustachy, seemingly much worse than ML, went to reeducation, which should have been a first step and not the termination. Because not only ML, but we all now suffer.

By the way, Eustachy's behavior, including telling assistants to f off, would be an average Tuesday under Gary Williams, who had no similiar cloud. Or most likely, the same behavior for great hero of Mojo's and only formative coach in his life: Tom Izzo.

Anyway, Bo what does your cryptic post mean: Did a mediator recommend three million and Gw not agree?

Did ML walk away from a settlement because of wording (would salute him on principal, but he has a family to worry about)?

Or is there an agreement and it has not been finalized?

Or was there an agreement for significantly less?

Or was there never an agreement in principal, informally, suggested, or in any other form?



maine colonial2/21/2017 6:19:49 PM

As hard as I try, I can't picture ML quiet. 

bo knows2/21/2017 7:48:24 PM

Unfortunately Bigfan I really don't have any answers other than to say stay tuned. There were or are currently discussions. At some point in the vry near future (I'd say within 30 days more or less to give a broader timeline could well be much sooner) either a settlement will be reached or a lawsuit will commence. I know this much, ML is not walking away from all of this with no compensation. What that exactly means for either a settlement or lawsuit remains to be seen. 


      Stuff you should read

  • Make an argument
  • Don't call someone an evil pant-load
  • Don't threaten to sue someone for your free, voluntary participation on a semi-anonymous site


Thread Stats

Active Responders

  • bo knows - 16% (10)
  • ruserious - 11% (7)
  • the mv - 11% (7)
  • bigfan - 6% (4)
  • thinker - 5% (3)
  • danjsport - 5% (3)


  • Most active day: 2/20/2017 (31 / 50.00%)