STA DA ID sessions

[Unregistered]

Not sure of the NJ laws, but he'd likely sue him and win over non-competes which are pretty common in this industry.

Right from the JN playbook. My favorite is how he brings the trainers from overseas and if they dare speak up, the visa is ripped up and they’re out of the country.

[Unregistered]

You may want to ask some of JNs former employees

If there are employment law violations that has nothing to do with soccer.

If you are going to claim that parents are somehow legally obligated to have their player play soccer here vs. there buzz off. A parent buys a youth soccer product for their kid or they don't. No law can tell me I have to have to have my kid play soccer vs. lax and I have to have them play it here versus there. ridiculous.

[Unregistered]

Right from the JN playbook. My favorite is how he brings the trainers from overseas and if they dare speak up, the visa is ripped up and they’re out of the country.

Won't speak to that.

But, rare is the industry where you can leave a business and take revenue from them to your new endeavor. It's just not allowed.

You people got suckered to follow someone without truly researching the destination, and now you want someone to blame. Next time, do a little research before you get boned, not after.

[Unregistered]

Won't speak to that.

But, rare is the industry where you can leave a business and take revenue from them to your new endeavor. It's just not allowed.

You people got suckered to follow someone without truly researching the destination, and now you want someone to blame. Next time, do a little research before you get boned, not after.

I’m not a lawyer and not trying to be snarky with this question:

Is the non-compete still in effect if STA fired SC? I get if SC left on his own it could be enforced but is it in this case? I assume SC is being paid out for the remainder of this year’s contract in which case the non-compete will still be in effect.

[Unregistered]

I’m not a lawyer and not trying to be snarky with this question:

Is the non-compete still in effect if STA fired SC? I get if SC left on his own it could be enforced but is it in this case? I assume SC is being paid out for the remainder of this year’s contract in which case the non-compete will still be in effect.

I believe so, but the wiggle would be that SC should be allowed to make a living so he should be able to go to any club that enables him to do so.

The difference would be that he cannot do so under the guise that it impedes the "losing entity" from their own revenue. Essentially, Salespeople don't own the customers they bring in, the business does. This looks to me like the same thing.

[Unregistered]

I’m not a lawyer and not trying to be snarky with this question:

Is the non-compete still in effect if STA fired SC? I get if SC left on his own it could be enforced but is it in this case? I assume SC is being paid out for the remainder of this year’s contract in which case the non-compete will still be in effect.

Non-competes are still enforceable if an was employee was fired. What could come into question is the circumstances of SC's firing and if STA breached SC's contract.

[Unregistered]

If there are employment law violations that has nothing to do with soccer.

If you are going to claim that parents are somehow legally obligated to have their player play soccer here vs. there buzz off. A parent buys a youth soccer product for their kid or they don't. No law can tell me I have to have to have my kid play soccer vs. lax and I have to have them play it here versus there. ridiculous.

And what if there are no violations and someone wants to bully someone with their financial backing?

[Unregistered]

And what if there are no violations and someone wants to bully someone with their financial backing?

Define bully? Do you mean holding someone to their contractual obligations?

[Unregistered]

Define bully? Do you mean holding someone to their contractual obligations?

No I don't Tim ....... I mean threatening legal action because you have financial backing and are scared of a coach working elsewhere

[Unregistered]

No I don't Tim ....... I mean threatening legal action because you have financial backing and are scared of a coach working elsewhere

Not Tim, just another parent laughing about all this.

But, again, same question:


Define bully? Do you mean holding someone to their contractual obligations?

I mean, I get it's 2020 and every time something doesn't go your way you just call someone a bully, but you need to get a grip. Why should a company, any company, allow revenue to leave without cause and with a contract in hand?

Do you call your mortgage company and say "You know what, fvck it. I want to move so you can pick up the payments from here and I'm just going to buy something else where my landscaper just moved to."

[Unregistered]

Not Tim, just another parent laughing about all this.

But, again, same question:


Define bully? Do you mean holding someone to their contractual obligations?

I mean, I get it's 2020 and every time something doesn't go your way you just call someone a bully, but you need to get a grip. Why should a company, any company, allow revenue to leave without cause and with a contract in hand?

Do you call your mortgage company and say "You know what, fvck it. I want to move so you can pick up the payments from here and I'm just going to buy something else where my landscaper just moved to."

You can sell off your house and move whenever you please. I might not move to follow the landscaper but if my neighbor wants to do that, go ahead.

[Unregistered]

You can sell off your house and move whenever you please. I might not move to follow the landscaper but if my neighbor wants to do that, go ahead.

Right, you exit the contract in a manner which the holding party agrees to and is written into it.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Unregistered]

Right, you exit the contract in a manner which the holding party agrees to and is written into it.

Thank you for proving my point.

you are talking in riddles for some reason. parents take their players to a club of their choosing and buy soccer lessons. if they want to go buy their soccer lessons somewhere else then they go do that. Whatever. it is kid soccer lessons. i really dont see any court getting involved. that is laughable.

[Unregistered]

you are talking in riddles for some reason. parents take their players to a club of their choosing and buy soccer lessons. if they want to go buy their soccer lessons somewhere else then they go do that. Whatever. it is kid soccer lessons. i really dont see any court getting involved. that is laughable.

If you contract someone to provide those lessons, then you fulfill the contract. Expenses are managed based on an expectation of revenues. It's the same with any contract you sign.

Yes, it's laughable....but reading through the posts there is a faction who firmly believe that other than to wipe someone's azz, the contract means nothing.

[Unregistered]

If you contract someone to provide those lessons, then you fulfill the contract. Expenses are managed based on an expectation of revenues. It's the same with any contract you sign.

Yes, it's laughable....but reading through the posts there is a faction who firmly believe that other than to wipe someone's azz, the contract means nothing.

I don’t think anyone is saying that parents shouldn’t fulfill contracts. Usually all revenue is collected up front. But once the contract is done, the club doesn’t hold a claim on any player.

I think the ‘bullying’ is when clubs try to scare off coaches from revenue outside the existing contract.