Did egriz Instigate This?

[GGG21]

Just askin'.

First, in not quite two weeks, the Lady Griz thread ran to six pages and had 9400 views. Just shows how much interest there is in this team, and its legacy.

Second, it's the most hard-core Griz fans who post here. And while I thought Shannon deserved another year, I also felt Haslam had to sit down with Shannon and make sure some structural changes were put into place. Many more of you wanted her fired--especially after all the transfers.



You can’t be serious. People on this forum, way over estimate the influence they have in any decisions with any of the coaches. The ego.
I can't help but believe that this thread was a factor in Haslam's decision.

 

[grizpack]

1. Results
2. Following Selvig
3. Players leaving.
4. Couldn't beat Binford and the Cats (and yes this is a big deal).
5. Remaining players and parents made their voices heard. (Notice the lack of outrage from the remaining players?)

Not particularly in that order.

Look. I know Shannon personally, and like her. She is a Griz legend. But this is a results oriented job and career. Coaches are hired to be fired. The Lady Griz are very popular, and are actually not a huge financial drain on the university (most women's basketball programs are). This issue had been brewing for at least 2 years that I am aware of. I don't know about the rumored offer of a contract extension. Not sure if Bodner had a hand in this or not. However, what is done is done. No Facebook group or petition is going to get her rehired.

 

[mcg]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

"10 or 15 people ripping on her" is irrelevant (her record as a coach isn't in dispute), the words in the communication between Haslam and the coach are the only thing that matters. Depending on the words, she can probably get some dollars from UM, she'll just have to decide if the dollars are worth the trouble.

 

[GrizTexas]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

Haslam is way too smart to have made a major error in judgement, seems way out of character for him to be reckless. My guess is he had the appropriate conversation and the situation just changed or played out differently. It's not personal it's about the situation and unfortunately it's not to everyone's liking...

 

[Sugar Bear 16]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

If a contract was signed etc and it did go to trial, players and parents etc wouldn’t be called to testify etc. It is a contractual labor dispute and the only thing relevant in those cases, is what is in the actual contract in terms of terminology and termination clauses. A judge wouldn’t allow parties not relevant to the contract to even be in the court-room due privacy rights of the plaintiff or defendant. And most of these cases get worked out in litigation and don’t ever see a trial unless it is a clear wrongful termination scenario.

 

[PlayerRep]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

"10 or 15 people ripping on her" is irrelevant (her record as a coach isn't in dispute), the words in the communication between Haslam and the coach are the only thing that matters. Depending on the words, she can probably get some dollars from UM, she'll just have to decide if the dollars are worth the trouble.

Once again, I disagree with you. The people complaining about her, parents and former players, maybe even current players, were presumably the biggest factor in Haslam's decision not to renew. If there was a trial, those people would be witnesses called by UM to show why Haslam had to make the decision he did. I assume the 2 players who announced they were leaving, would also be witnesses. There would also be arguments over the oral, or email, "contract". I would think that, under MT law, Haslam can't bind UM and the BOR, and that that isn't any big secret to coaches.

 

[PlayerRep]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

Haslam is way too smart to have made a major error in judgement, seems way out of character for him to be reckless. My guess is he had the appropriate conversation and the situation just changed or played out differently. It's not personal it's about the situation and unfortunately it's not to everyone's liking...

It wouldn't be an error in judgment. Just a mistake. Smart people in business and otherwise make mistakes like this all the time. Whether orally or in an email, "Shannon, wished you'd won the tourney game, but I've decided to extend your contract for two years due to the season you had, etc. Kent, thanks, that will be great. Think we are now on track to keep improving."

The proper way is then to say this is subject to approval by the BOR and won't be effective until a written contract is signed by the BOR (?) and you. Now, even without that language being said or written, that doesn't mean that the would be a valid obligation or contract to extend. But with that language, it would be clear that there wasn't anything binding. I would guess that there is case law favorable to the state and universities in MT, on this point. Maybe even something in the statutes or regs.

 

[Sugar Bear 16]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

"10 or 15 people ripping on her" is irrelevant (her record as a coach isn't in dispute), the words in the communication between Haslam and the coach are the only thing that matters. Depending on the words, she can probably get some dollars from UM, she'll just have to decide if the dollars are worth the trouble.

Once again, I disagree with you. The people complaining about her, parents and former players, maybe even current players, were presumably the biggest factor in Haslam's decision not to renew. If there was a trial, those people would be witnesses called by UM to show why Haslam had to make the decision he did. I assume the 2 players who announced they were leaving, would also be witnesses. There would also be arguments over the oral, or email, "contract". I would think that, under MT law, Haslam can't bind UM and the BOR, and that that isn't any big secret to coaches.

There is this thing called “a right to due process” and everyone is entitled to it under the U.S. Constitution. If a person is terminated and their right to due process has been violated then they have every right to take legal action if they want to. When it comes to a termination case you are not going to have a jury trial which is when witnesses are present. In this case if the AD based his decision to terminate on “formal written complaints” being presented to him by student-athletes, then a judge would only need to see the written complaints if the complaining parties waved their right to privacy etc. Furthermore, if a student-athlete is 18 or older then in accordance with the NLI,NCAA and U of M policy, only they can file the formal complaint. Now if a 3rd party has an incident with a coach and lodges a complaint the AD can look at the contract and determine if the information in the complaint constitutes a contractual clause the information with any complaint needs to be substantiated. I don’t have time to teach law right now but in contractual issues they don’t go to trial very often and if it does you have written and signed affidavits not live witness testimony, but that only happens if the complainants waive their right to privacy which is a a constitutional right as well. I don’t know if you watch too much law and order or what, but labor and contract law is not like criminal law etc.

 

[Sugar Bear 16]

I believe any contract must be approved by BOR, thus any discussions would likely be preliminary and any “offer” would likely be conditional on BOR approval. Will be interesting to see what happens next. As I recall, Shannon’s father was a lawyer, so I am sure she knows a few.

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

Haslam is way too smart to have made a major error in judgement, seems way out of character for him to be reckless. My guess is he had the appropriate conversation and the situation just changed or played out differently. It's not personal it's about the situation and unfortunately it's not to everyone's liking...

It wouldn't be an error in judgment. Just a mistake. Smart people in business and otherwise make mistakes like this all the time. Whether orally or in an email, "Shannon, wished you'd won the tourney game, but I've decided to extend your contract for two years due to the season you had, etc. Kent, thanks, that will be great. Think we are now on track to keep improving."

The proper way is then to say this is subject to approval by the BOR and won't be effective until a written contract is signed by the BOR (?) and you. Now, even without that language being said or written, that doesn't mean that the would be a valid obligation or contract to extend. But with that language, it would be clear that there wasn't anything binding. I would guess that there is case law favorable to the state and universities in MT, on this point. Maybe even something in the statutes or regs.

Again, it comes down to a binding agreement and if due process was violated in the termination. If they choose to not renew, they don’t to show “cause”. It is the same for non-tenure professors, they don’t have to show cause to terminate or non-renew them. Now if they are tenure that is completely different. But athletic coaching contracts are a lot different than academic-tenure contracts.

 

[PlayerRep]

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

"10 or 15 people ripping on her" is irrelevant (her record as a coach isn't in dispute), the words in the communication between Haslam and the coach are the only thing that matters. Depending on the words, she can probably get some dollars from UM, she'll just have to decide if the dollars are worth the trouble.

Once again, I disagree with you. The people complaining about her, parents and former players, maybe even current players, were presumably the biggest factor in Haslam's decision not to renew. If there was a trial, those people would be witnesses called by UM to show why Haslam had to make the decision he did. I assume the 2 players who announced they were leaving, would also be witnesses. There would also be arguments over the oral, or email, "contract". I would think that, under MT law, Haslam can't bind UM and the BOR, and that that isn't any big secret to coaches.

There is this thing called “a right to due process” and everyone is entitled to it under the U.S. Constitution. If a person is terminated and their right to due process has been violated then they have every right to take legal action if they want to. When it comes to a termination case you are not going to have a jury trial which is when witnesses are present. In this case if the AD based his decision to terminate on “formal written complaints” being presented to him by student-athletes, then a judge would only need to see the written complaints if the complaining parties waved their right to privacy etc. Furthermore, if a student-athlete is 18 or older then in accordance with the NLI,NCAA and U of M policy, only they can file the formal complaint. Now if a 3rd party has an incident with a coach and lodges a complaint the AD can look at the contract and determine if the information in the complaint constitutes a contractual clause the information with any complaint needs to be substantiated. I don’t have time to teach law right now but in contractual issues they don’t go to trial very often and if it does you have written and signed affidavits not live witness testimony, but that only happens if the complainants waive their right to privacy which is a a constitutional right as well. I don’t know if you watch too much law and order or what, but labor and contract law is not like criminal law etc.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. She is not being terminated. Her contract won't be renewed.

In termination cases, there are always witnesses unless they plaintiff doesn't want a jury trial.

I believe MT coaching contracts have arbitration clause anyway. There are witnesses in arbitration.

Formal complaints aren't necessary for AD's to take action.

I have been a contract lawyer for 45 years.

 

[PlayerRep]

A MT court previously ruled in MSU's favor on this type of claim after Kramer was fired. He was allowed only to pursue a separate defamation claim. Note that Haslam has said nothing and has not defamed the coach, at least publicly.

"A District Court judge has dismissed former Montana State football coach Mike Kramer's claims that the university breached its contract with him when he was fired in May 2007.

Montana State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it fulfilled the terms of the contract by paying Kramer for the remainder of the contract. Seeley agreed."

https://africa.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=4827231

Since that time, MT Higher Ed has inserted arbitration clauses in its contracts with higher level employees. It is thought that arbitrators are less likely to be sympathetic to plaintiffs and give them a bunch of money. Arbitrators tend to stick to the law and facts, and not be persuaded by emotion.

 

[Sugar Bear 16]

"10 or 15 people ripping on her" is irrelevant (her record as a coach isn't in dispute), the words in the communication between Haslam and the coach are the only thing that matters. Depending on the words, she can probably get some dollars from UM, she'll just have to decide if the dollars are worth the trouble.

Once again, I disagree with you. The people complaining about her, parents and former players, maybe even current players, were presumably the biggest factor in Haslam's decision not to renew. If there was a trial, those people would be witnesses called by UM to show why Haslam had to make the decision he did. I assume the 2 players who announced they were leaving, would also be witnesses. There would also be arguments over the oral, or email, "contract". I would think that, under MT law, Haslam can't bind UM and the BOR, and that that isn't any big secret to coaches.

There is this thing called “a right to due process” and everyone is entitled to it under the U.S. Constitution. If a person is terminated and their right to due process has been violated then they have every right to take legal action if they want to. When it comes to a termination case you are not going to have a jury trial which is when witnesses are present. In this case if the AD based his decision to terminate on “formal written complaints” being presented to him by student-athletes, then a judge would only need to see the written complaints if the complaining parties waved their right to privacy etc. Furthermore, if a student-athlete is 18 or older then in accordance with the NLI,NCAA and U of M policy, only they can file the formal complaint. Now if a 3rd party has an incident with a coach and lodges a complaint the AD can look at the contract and determine if the information in the complaint constitutes a contractual clause the information with any complaint needs to be substantiated. I don’t have time to teach law right now but in contractual issues they don’t go to trial very often and if it does you have written and signed affidavits not live witness testimony, but that only happens if the complainants waive their right to privacy which is a a constitutional right as well. I don’t know if you watch too much law and order or what, but labor and contract law is not like criminal law etc.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. She is not being terminated. Her contract won't be renewed.

In termination cases, there are always witnesses unless they plaintiff doesn't want a jury trial.

I believe MT coaching contracts have arbitration clause anyway. There are witnesses in arbitration.

Formal complaints aren't necessary for AD's to take action.

I have been a contract lawyer for 45 years.

I never said she is being terminated I gave examples of possible scenarios that involved “due process” and non-renewal. And yes there is witnesses in arbitration but arbitration isn’t the same as going to trial. I would think an actual Contract lawyer would know that. And you must not be a very good contract lawyer because you have a lot free time to spend on egriz claiming to be like the “Most interesting man in the world” with how you claim to be an expert on everything. Have a good weekend. Adios!

 

[Sugar Bear 16]

A MT court previously ruled in MSU's favor on this type of claim after Kramer was fired. He was allowed only to pursue a separate defamation claim. Note that Haslam has said nothing and has not defamed the coach, at least publicly.

"A District Court judge has dismissed former Montana State football coach Mike Kramer's claims that the university breached its contract with him when he was fired in May 2007.

Montana State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it fulfilled the terms of the contract by paying Kramer for the remainder of the contract. Seeley agreed."

https://africa.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=4827231

Since that time, MT Higher Ed has inserted arbitration clauses in its contracts with higher level employees. It is thought that arbitrators are less likely to be sympathetic to plaintiffs and give them a bunch of money. Arbitrators tend to stick to the law and facts, and not be persuaded by emotion.

Yep ESPN is a great peer-reviewed legal source there PlayRep. You are comparing apples to oranges with Shannon and Kramer. A defimatiom suit is not the same as a due process violation or contested non-renewals and the same with arbitration. You clearly are not an practicing labor attorney in Montana because you would be able to quote a lot better source than ESPN to make whatever legal argument you are attempting to make with me. Good luck with it and we all miss you in those Dos Equis commercials.

 

[PlayerRep]

Great point, but if Haslam sent a simple (dumb) email saying, I/we will extend you for 2 years because you had a decent season, and said nothing else, and she said, great and thanks; then there could be an argument.

If he said, I will recommend a two-year extension, then he andUM are okay.

If he said, I will recommend or offer a two-year extension, but need to talk to Bodnar and get BOR approval, then he/UM are in great shape.

With 10 or 15 people ripping on her, I can't see a jury or judge being very sympathetic.

Haslam is way too smart to have made a major error in judgement, seems way out of character for him to be reckless. My guess is he had the appropriate conversation and the situation just changed or played out differently. It's not personal it's about the situation and unfortunately it's not to everyone's liking...

It wouldn't be an error in judgment. Just a mistake. Smart people in business and otherwise make mistakes like this all the time. Whether orally or in an email, "Shannon, wished you'd won the tourney game, but I've decided to extend your contract for two years due to the season you had, etc. Kent, thanks, that will be great. Think we are now on track to keep improving."

The proper way is then to say this is subject to approval by the BOR and won't be effective until a written contract is signed by the BOR (?) and you. Now, even without that language being said or written, that doesn't mean that the would be a valid obligation or contract to extend. But with that language, it would be clear that there wasn't anything binding. I would guess that there is case law favorable to the state and universities in MT, on this point. Maybe even something in the statutes or regs.

Again, it comes down to a binding agreement and if due process was violated in the termination. If they choose to not renew, they don’t to show “cause”. It is the same for non-tenure professors, they don’t have to show cause to terminate or non-renew them. Now if they are tenure that is completely different. But athletic coaching contracts are a lot different than academic-tenure contracts.

I don't think there is any due process right in a university's right not to renew a contract.

As I have said all along, there may be a separate argument on the discussions regarding extension. However, there is no argument that an AD can bind the university and university system. An AD and contract needs to have approval from above. I don't see how the coach would have any argument that she was harmed in this situation. It's not like she turned down an offer to go to the Pac-12 because of her discussions with Haslam.

See this in the Pflugrad matter. He consulted a law firm. He didn't sue. His contract had an arbitration clause, I believe. He settled for payment of his contact and an additional amount of about $45,000 for other things he could or would have earned or been given under his contract until it ended. If Shannon has anything like this in her contract, she will get it, I assume.

"Pflugrad said Thursday that he and his assistants were working under a spoken agreement that there was a three-year contract extension in place – an agreement reached on Christmas Eve that let potential recruits know the Griz staff would be around long-term." Missoulian.

That extension has not yet been put in place and signed.

The basic facts in these 2 situations are fairly similar, except that I assume Haslam has more reasons for non-renewal than Engstrom did with Pflu.

 

[PlayerRep]

A MT court previously ruled in MSU's favor on this type of claim after Kramer was fired. He was allowed only to pursue a separate defamation claim. Note that Haslam has said nothing and has not defamed the coach, at least publicly.

"A District Court judge has dismissed former Montana State football coach Mike Kramer's claims that the university breached its contract with him when he was fired in May 2007.

Montana State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that it fulfilled the terms of the contract by paying Kramer for the remainder of the contract. Seeley agreed."

https://africa.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=4827231

Since that time, MT Higher Ed has inserted arbitration clauses in its contracts with higher level employees. It is thought that arbitrators are less likely to be sympathetic to plaintiffs and give them a bunch of money. Arbitrators tend to stick to the law and facts, and not be persuaded by emotion.

Yep ESPN is a great peer-reviewed legal source there PlayRep. You are comparing apples to oranges with Shannon and Kramer. A defimatiom suit is not the same as a due process violation or contested non-renewals and the same with arbitration. You clearly are not an practicing labor attorney in Montana because you would be able to quote a lot better source than ESPN to make whatever legal argument you are attempting to make with me. Good luck with it and we all miss you in those Dos Equis commercials.

All of the press in MT said the exact same thing. It's in the Chronicle, the Tribune, the Missoulian. I used ESPN to avoid any paywall problem.

Kramer in effect won the defamation part, as MSU settled with him on that. Kramer lost the contract part of his claim. I advised on employment matters in MT multiple times each month, had access to great employee specialists, and drafted 100's and 100's of employment contracts.

 

[PlayerRep]

Once again, I disagree with you. The people complaining about her, parents and former players, maybe even current players, were presumably the biggest factor in Haslam's decision not to renew. If there was a trial, those people would be witnesses called by UM to show why Haslam had to make the decision he did. I assume the 2 players who announced they were leaving, would also be witnesses. There would also be arguments over the oral, or email, "contract". I would think that, under MT law, Haslam can't bind UM and the BOR, and that that isn't any big secret to coaches.

There is this thing called “a right to due process” and everyone is entitled to it under the U.S. Constitution. If a person is terminated and their right to due process has been violated then they have every right to take legal action if they want to. When it comes to a termination case you are not going to have a jury trial which is when witnesses are present. In this case if the AD based his decision to terminate on “formal written complaints” being presented to him by student-athletes, then a judge would only need to see the written complaints if the complaining parties waved their right to privacy etc. Furthermore, if a student-athlete is 18 or older then in accordance with the NLI,NCAA and U of M policy, only they can file the formal complaint. Now if a 3rd party has an incident with a coach and lodges a complaint the AD can look at the contract and determine if the information in the complaint constitutes a contractual clause the information with any complaint needs to be substantiated. I don’t have time to teach law right now but in contractual issues they don’t go to trial very often and if it does you have written and signed affidavits not live witness testimony, but that only happens if the complainants waive their right to privacy which is a a constitutional right as well. I don’t know if you watch too much law and order or what, but labor and contract law is not like criminal law etc.

Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. She is not being terminated. Her contract won't be renewed.

In termination cases, there are always witnesses unless they plaintiff doesn't want a jury trial.

I believe MT coaching contracts have arbitration clause anyway. There are witnesses in arbitration.

Formal complaints aren't necessary for AD's to take action.

I have been a contract lawyer for 45 years.

I never said she is being terminated I gave examples of possible scenarios that involved “due process” and non-renewal. And yes there is witnesses in arbitration but arbitration isn’t the same as going to trial. I would think an actual Contract lawyer would know that. And you must not be a very good contract lawyer because you have a lot free time to spend on egriz claiming to be like the “Most interesting man in the world” with how you claim to be an expert on everything. Have a good weekend. Adios!

Click on this link to 2018 post to see if there are any credentials for contracts/corporate matters. Then, give us your credentials.

https://egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79823&p=1309038&hilit=Missoula+corporate+lawyer+of+year#p1309038

 

[bearister]

A contract that cannot be fully performed within one year is not enforceable unless it's in writing. I suspect that the terms of the conversation at the tourney was nothing more than a conversation, so Shannon probably doesn't have a breach of contract case for a two-year contract. She might be able to bring some sort of bad faith claim, but those are very hard to prove. That would especially be true in this situation where new facts came to light after the two-year ws discussed that cast Shannon's performance in a very different light.