Chiefs refusing to pay Haley?

Oh My,... fired for cause...

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 09:20 AM ET  01.27 by Mangler.

Oh My,... fired for cause...

Cause he was 19/26??

If they really had Haley's office bugged, they probably know his grievance strategy ahead of time.

This could get nasty--firing for cause is often the basis for a legal battle.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 09:23 AM ET  01.27 by Mangler.

Cause he was 19/26??

'cause they never should have hired him in the first place?

Al Davis needed something to get out of paying coaches, the way he went through them.

Why should he get paid for doing nothing?

BaCAUSE He Lost!!!

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 09:24 AM ET  01.27 by Devi8ed

If they really had Haley's office bugged, they probably know his grievance strategy ahead of time.

This.

Too funny...

QUOTE(#5):

Originally posted 10:00 AM ET  01.27 by Debbie Does

'cause they never should have hired him in the first place?

Agreed. Haley's a hot-head. The only reason he got the Chiefs job was because he had Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (among others) making him seem more capable than he was in Arizona. If the Chiefs are throwing "for cause" into the mix, there'd have to be a lot happening in-house that wasn't getting out to the media, which doesn't seem far-fetched in this case. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

KC the small market once again showing how they are too cheap to compete with the big boys.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 12:22 PM ET  01.27 by RonMex4Prez

KC the small market once again showing how they are too cheap to compete with the big boys.

And yes nobodies cheaper than the Bidwells which is why the Tu-rd Birds represent Glendale only and not Arizona.

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 10:33 AM ET  01.27 by d-block

Why should he get paid for doing nothing?

It's called a contract. Unless he broke a specific rule in the contract that led to his getting canned to void the rest of such contract, they're obligated to pay him. You do understand what a contract is right?

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 10:52 AM ET  01.27 by Not4Nutten

BaCAUSE He Lost!!!

Yup...lost cause.

QUOTE(#15):

Originally posted 12:43 PM ET  01.27 by rodeoclown

You do understand what a contract is right?

Sure we do, but what fun is that? We all know the real reasons. They fired him because he sucked, and they don't want to pay him because they're capitalists and they want to keep the money they owe him.

Whether or not they pay him will depend on who has the better lawyers. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, good or bad, just better lawyers.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 12:02 PM ET  01.27 by Melman

Agreed. Haley's a hot-head. The only reason he got the Chiefs job was because he had Kurt Warner, Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (among others) making him seem more capable than he was in Arizona. If the Chiefs are throwing "for cause" into the mix, there'd have to be a lot happening in-house that wasn't getting out to the media, which doesn't seem far-fetched in this case. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

It's called Chiefs Gate!!! They moved him out pretty quick, something, was going on!!!

They will pay even though Haley is a JackA&*

Contract should mean something one would assume.....
Of course "cause" has to be reasonably valid and then it's going to be argued in all sorts of lights.