Terry Pegula is ALLEGED to have said something very foul in the Jim Trotter lawsuit against the NFL

[Mango]

28 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

So Trotter is lying in so far as the law suit is the only place where he's made the allegation and he never actually insisted to the league that Terry in fact made those comments. Got it. 

I don’t know what to tell you man. 
 

Trotter filed a report about an allegation somebody else made to his employer. Trotter is saying that his employer didn’t investigate it and instead retaliated. Under those circumstances the language in the report is protected. 
 

That seems fair. The issue is with the league. 
 

Based on Goodells recent comments that contradict each other by saying they both have looked into this and will look into this to see if it here is any evidence, the leaguer messed up. 
 

HR is there to protect the company. Doesn’t sound like they did. Now here we are.

[Coach Tuesday]

2 hours ago, Dukestreetking said:

Coach: spot on w all of your analysis, including re Wigdor. Many thanks. Brief thought to add:

 

The case theory, per Statement, is strange: NFL as a "system"--owners, coaches, corporate, media leadership--is discriminatory, and profoundly centralized.

 

Simplistically put: because the system is so, my employment was not re-newed, I was harmed during my tenure, etc. Textually, they are linked.

 

And here's the things that support my theory of systemic bias: Gruden, my own management, Pegula, etc.

 

Given this, I would think he has to "prove" a preponderance of the beams and cement exist (i.e., allegations) in order to demonstrate the superstructure (i.e., system). I could be wrong, but that's the way it presents.

 

I won't get into the Causes of Action.

 

Anyway, I believe it's a flawed overall strategy. There's a skinnier way to get from A to B. This is to say nothing of the fact pattern issues.

 

@Bob Jones I'm not a lawyer but b/c of my background in a certain field, I review these all the time for case and deposition strategy/tactics, blah, blah.

 

You are exactly right and the converse is true - if he can't prove any of his key "beams," it will negatively affect his credibility and could rot the entire foundation.  That's one reason that terrorist pleading like Wigdor does is so dangerous for his own clients.  All of the extraneous crap has to be proved up or it impacts the plaintiff's credibility and can affect the whole case - and much of it isn't even necessary to the case (but it helps Wigdor brand his firm).

[Buffalo03]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

So Trotter is lying in so far as the law suit is the only place where he's made the allegation and he never actually insisted to the league that Terry in fact made those comments. Got it. 

Trotter is bitter about losing his job at NFL Network. He got laid off when they did the lay offs a few months back and blamed it on him being black

[Motorin']

30 minutes ago, Mango said:

I don’t know what to tell you man. 
 

Trotter filed a report about an allegation somebody else made to his employer. Trotter is saying that his employer didn’t investigate it and instead retaliated. Under those circumstances the language in the report is protected. 
 

That seems fair. The issue is with the league. 
 

Based on Goodells recent comments that contradict each other by saying they both have looked into this and will look into this to see if it here is any evidence, the leaguer messed up. 
 

HR is there to protect the company. Doesn’t sound like they did. Now here we are.

 

So the league saying it was investigated, found nothing, but will look again is a contradiction?

 

Sounds like a narrative someone made up for clicks. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, uticaclub said:

Pain? Trotter has nothing to lose and the more Terry sues him, the more he will look like a martyr while Pegula looks like an old white racist in the media, regardless of the facts.

Lawsuits are a painful nuisance. If you getting sued, You need a lawyer, you might have court dates, you might actually lose and owe sone money… 

 

I wouldn’t do it because I cared about wining, I’d do it because how dare that ####### lie about me and brand me a bigot? Time to make his life hell. 

[Buffalo03]

13 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Even if Terry didn’t do it, he should get his players together and say that he apologizes for the distraction

What? Why? This would be like saying that a guy that's falsely accused of sexual assault or rape should just apologize and admit guilt anyway for all the women that do get sexually assaulted and raped. It's stupid lol

[Nebillzfan]

I swear someone else said this awhile back like Dan Snyder or something. It could have been Jerry Jones. I just thought I remeber it being said by someone not Terry by any means. 

[Just in Atlanta]

17 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

 

The quote sounds like something a black person thinks a white person would say. I don’t buy it either.
 

At worst, some sort of terrible misinterpretation. People who are messed up in the head often mishear things by other people. Happens all the time. 

As for the quote thing, that was my thought as well. I've never heard anyone say that before, except in a Public Enemy album. 

 

But then again, I was called a "honkey" recently. Thought that word retired in the 70s. What a weird thing to call someone. 

[Mr. WEO]

59 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Trotter is bitter about losing his job at NFL Network. He got laid off when they did the lay offs a few months back and blamed it on him being black

 

He didn't get laid off.

 

Has no one read this complaint?  Or any of the many press reports of why he filed the suit?

 

Of course not---why read it?

[Just in Atlanta]

Google his name - 10 out of 10 news articles and nearly everything above the fold on a regular search has this accusation in it.

 

In an age of Google, all it takes is a second-hand accusation. It will take years to clear his name on the Internet zeitgeist. 

[phypon]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Are you surprised?  WEO believes everyone accused of something is guilty and/or has no defensed.  Except Bobby Kraft...

Weo and buchanan HAVE to think he's guilty.  There is no innocence!  

[Pecos Bills]

1 minute ago, Just in Atlanta said:

Google his name - 10 out of 10 news articles and nearly everything above the fold on a regular search has this accusation in it.

 

In an age of Google, all it takes is a second-hand accusation. It will take years to clear his name on the Internet zeitgeist. 

Is it surprising that the top news results on a topic are all related to that topic's big news story that came out literally yesterday?  I'd be surprised if fewer than 9 of 10 searches for "Terry Pegula" today were looking for anything else.  His statement on the Bills official page is #3 in my google news search, for what it's worth.  Sure, "the internet is forever," but online search results are constantly changing, and this story will stay relevant or fade away depending on how it plays out.

[Peter]

2 hours ago, Mango said:

An attorney over an Sabrespace has mentioned a few times that the “quote” from Pegula has immunity.

 

 

 

Suits has been trending and now we are all internet lawyers.

 

Can’t wait until @HOUSE starts trending again and we can all trade in our (myself included) internet law degrees for internet medical degrees.

We shall see whether Trotter and his lawyers dare to repeat their allegation in a press conference or outside the courtroom.

 

I suspect that they will not or do everything they can to avoid doing so. That should tell us something about what they think of the allegations.

2 hours ago, Pecos Bills said:

This thread has so many instances of

"he has an Asian wife and children so he can't be racist"/

"his daughter dated a black player so he can't be racist"

that I almost wonder if you're all cribbing from the same substack or what? 🤨

 

 

So what you are saying is that none of that has any bearing on whether Pegula actually is a racist or that he only is a racist when he allegedly said something that Trotter never heard and the NFL investigation confirmed that no one else heard it at the time.

 

Interesting take.

[Buffalo03]

33 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

He didn't get laid off.

 

Has no one read this complaint?  Or any of the many press reports of why he filed the suit?

 

Of course not---why read it?

They did a bunch of lay offs. Which technically is the same as being fired. He was in the group of people that got let go. They didn't let him go by himself

[Peter]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

They did a bunch of lay offs. Which technically is the same as being fired. He was in the group of people that got let go. They didn't let him go by himself

It is my understanding his contract was not renewed.  

[Buffalo03]

1 minute ago, Peter said:

It is my understanding his contract was not renewed.  

And the NFL Network was letting a group of people go which included Rachel Bonnetta and some others and he was part of that group. I don't know if all their contracts were up and they were cutting back on staff or what. All I know is, they didn't let him go separately from other people. He was part of a group that they let go a few months back

[Doc]

17 minutes ago, Peter said:

It is my understanding his contract was not renewed.  

 

What's the difference?  In either case he wasn't being brought back.

[GoBills808]

That doesn't sound like Terry

 

it's grammatically correct and everything

[Motorin']

3 hours ago, uticaclub said:

Pain? Trotter has nothing to lose and the more Terry sues him, the more he will look like a martyr while Pegula looks like an old white racist in the media, regardless of the facts.

 

Who is the "unnamed" reporter that claims to have heard it first hand, and why are they afraid to speak up and demand Terry be held accountable? 

 

Sounds like a classic case of bull ***** to me. Actually can't tell if it's more chicken ***** than it is bull *****. 

 

 

[Peter]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What's the difference?  In either case he wasn't being brought back.

 

He had no guaranty that his contract would be renewed. 

 

If you are under contract, you have the expectation that your employment will last until the expiration of the contract and, if you are fired, you will still receive your salary unless you breached the contract.

 

I don't currently have a contract with the NFL Network . . . and neither does Trotter.

26 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

And the NFL Network was letting a group of people go which included Rachel Bonnetta and some others and he was part of that group. I don't know if all their contracts were up and they were cutting back on staff or what. All I know is, they didn't let him go separately from other people. He was part of a group that they let go a few months back

 

I wonder what the demographics were of the others. Probably most the same as Rachel Bonneta. 

 

Trotter has an uphill battle.

[Sherlock Holmes]

On 9/12/2023 at 11:47 AM, Bob Jones said:

Well, if it's in a lawsuit, it must be true.....hold on, Matt Araiza is on line 1. LOL

They cancelled Araiza for not doing anything wrong, can they just dump our owner like a pile of bricks covered in dog ***** the same way? No chance he is a billionaire, this goes away even if it wasn't taken out of context.

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

He had no guaranty that his contract would be renewed. 

 

If you are under contract, you have the expectation that your employment will last until the expiration of the contract and, if you are fired, you will still receive your salary unless you breached the contract.

 

I don't currently have a contract with the NFL Network . . . and neither does Trotter.

 

The difference is you never had one.  He did and it wasn't renewed because they needed to cut costs, so what better way to lay him off than not renewing his contract?

[PetermansRedemption]

15 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

I believe Trotter is saying another reporter on a Zoom meeting relayed the allegation to 40 co-workers on the call. 

 

 

So we are talking 3 levels of hearsay. 

[Peter]

Just now, Doc said:

 

The difference is you never had one.  He did and it wasn't renewed because they needed to cut costs, so what better way to lay him off than not renewing his contract?

Do you understand how contracts work?

 

He had one for a period of time. He did not have one after that period of time. During the latter period of time, he and I both do not have a contract with the NFL Network. Just because he had one at one time, does not mean that the NFL was under any obligation to give him or me a contract after his expired.

[leonbus23]

23 minutes ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

They cancelled Araiza for not doing anything wrong, can they just dump our owner like a pile of bricks covered in dog ***** the same way? No chance he is a billionaire, this goes away even if it wasn't taken out of context.

Cancelled:

 

[Buffalo03]

45 minutes ago, Peter said:

 

He had no guaranty that his contract would be renewed. 

 

If you are under contract, you have the expectation that your employment will last until the expiration of the contract and, if you are fired, you will still receive your salary unless you breached the contract.

 

I don't currently have a contract with the NFL Network . . . and neither does Trotter.

 

I wonder what the demographics were of the others. Probably most the same as Rachel Bonneta. 

 

Trotter has an uphill battle.

Mike Giardi was another bigger name from the network let go as well. Trotter wasn't the only one. And if he still has his job, there probably is no suit

[Sherlock Holmes]

40 minutes ago, leonbus23 said:

Cancelled:

 

Is that a rape whistle?

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:

And the NFL Network was letting a group of people go which included Rachel Bonnetta and some others and he was part of that group. I don't know if all their contracts were up and they were cutting back on staff or what. All I know is, they didn't let him go separately from other people. He was part of a group that they let go a few months back

 

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

What's the difference?  In either case he wasn't being brought back.

 

For those who still refuse to read what the suit is about:

 

"Despite the disagreement, Trotter, who was employed by the NFL Network for five years, had expected to be offered a contract extension this spring. According to the complaint, Sandra Nunez, a vice president who oversees the NFL Network's on-air talent, told Trotter’s agent last November that she “could not envision any reason why his contract would not be renewed” in March 2023, and asked if he wanted to expand his role.

 

But in February, just before the Super Bowl, Trotter asked Commissioner Goodell at a news conference about the league’s commitment to diversity and why a Black person had never been hired as a senior manager in NFL Network’s newsroom. The question was similar to one Trotter had asked Goodell at the previous season’s Super Bowl news conference.

 

The next day, according to Trotter’s complaint, his supervisor asked one of his colleagues: “Why does Jim keep bringing this up?”

At the beginning of March, Trotter claims F.Nunez asked if he was “in alignment” with the N.F.L., to which he replied that he was not in alignment with a newsroom without “Black representation in decision-making positions.” On March 24, Nunez told Trotter’s agent that Trotter’s contract was not being renewed."

 

 

There it is..THAT is why he is suing the NFL.

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

Who is the "unnamed" reporter that claims to have heard it first hand, and why are they afraid to speak up and demand Terry be held accountable? 

 

Sounds like a classic case of bull ***** to me. Actually can't tell if it's more chicken ***** than it is bull *****. 

 

 

 

He/she works for the NFL...

36 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

Mike Giardi was another bigger name from the network let go as well. Trotter wasn't the only one. And if he still has his job, there probably is no suit

 

 

obviously.

[Buffalo03]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

For those who still refuse to read what the suit is about:

 

"Despite the disagreement, Trotter, who was employed by the NFL Network for five years, had expected to be offered a contract extension this spring. According to the complaint, Sandra Nunez, a vice president who oversees the NFL Network's on-air talent, told Trotter’s agent last November that she “could not envision any reason why his contract would not be renewed” in March 2023, and asked if he wanted to expand his role.

 

But in February, just before the Super Bowl, Trotter asked Commissioner Goodell at a news conference about the league’s commitment to diversity and why a Black person had never been hired as a senior manager in NFL Network’s newsroom. The question was similar to one Trotter had asked Goodell at the previous season’s Super Bowl news conference.

 

The next day, according to Trotter’s complaint, his supervisor asked one of his colleagues: “Why does Jim keep bringing this up?”

At the beginning of March, Trotter claims F.Nunez asked if he was “in alignment” with the N.F.L., to which he replied that he was not in alignment with a newsroom without “Black representation in decision-making positions.” On March 24, Nunez told Trotter’s agent that Trotter’s contract was not being renewed."

 

 

There it is..THAT is why he is suing the NFL.

 

He/she works for the NFL...

And what does this prove? Nothing. He makes it sound like this is why he was let go. He has no proof of that. Anyone can say "I see no reason why we can't renew your contract" and then choose not to renew it at any time. If he doesn't lose his job and his contract gets renewed, there is no lawsuit

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, Buffalo03 said:

And what does this prove? Nothing. He makes it sound like this is why he was let go. He has no proof of that. Anyone can say "I see no reason why we can't renew your contract" and then choose not to renew it at any time. If he doesn't lose his job and his contract gets renewed, there is no lawsuit

 

 

They say they can't think of "a reason" why they would not renew.

 

He asks Goodell a question he asked a year ago.  This prompts the same VP who told asked him if he wanted an expanded role in his next contract to now ask if he "was in alignment with the NFL" (wink wink).

 

He restates his concerns and beliefs.  

 

 

He is soon notified that they weren't renewing---i.e. they found a reason to contradict their previous reassurance about his contract.

 

 

Does that make it more clear for you? No?

[Lost]

8 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

For those who still refuse to read what the suit is about:

 

"Despite the disagreement, Trotter, who was employed by the NFL Network for five years, had expected to be offered a contract extension this spring. According to the complaint, Sandra Nunez, a vice president who oversees the NFL Network's on-air talent, told Trotter’s agent last November that she “could not envision any reason why his contract would not be renewed” in March 2023, and asked if he wanted to expand his role.

 

But in February, just before the Super Bowl, Trotter asked Commissioner Goodell at a news conference about the league’s commitment to diversity and why a Black person had never been hired as a senior manager in NFL Network’s newsroom. The question was similar to one Trotter had asked Goodell at the previous season’s Super Bowl news conference.

 

The next day, according to Trotter’s complaint, his supervisor asked one of his colleagues: “Why does Jim keep bringing this up?”

At the beginning of March, Trotter claims F.Nunez asked if he was “in alignment” with the N.F.L., to which he replied that he was not in alignment with a newsroom without “Black representation in decision-making positions.” On March 24, Nunez told Trotter’s agent that Trotter’s contract was not being renewed."

 

 

 

 

Sounds like the guy was demanding a senior management position and they got the sh*ts of it and decided not to renew.   I woulda let his contract expire too.   People who deserve promotions are almost never the ones demanding them.   

[Buffalo03]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

They say they can't think of "a reason" why they would not renew.

 

He asks Goodell a question he asked a year ago.  This prompts the same VP who told asked him if he wanted an expanded role in his next contract to now ask if he "was in alignment with the NFL" (wink wink).

 

He restates his concerns and beliefs.  

 

 

He is soon notified that they weren't renewing---i.e. they found a reason to contradict their previous reassurance about his contract.

 

 

Does that make it more clear for you? No?

It still proves nothing. You can be part of a jobs plans one minute and not the next. They can say "we like you and see you as part of this company" and then the next minute decide "we don't see you as a fit". It doesn't matter how "clear" it seems. It proves nothing. And why is he asking Goodell? Goodell has no say over who the NFL Network hires or promotes

Edited September 13, 2023 by Buffalo03

[Mr. WEO]

8 minutes ago, Lost said:

 

Sounds like the guy was demanding a senior management position and they got the sh*ts of it and decided not to renew.   I woulda let his contract expire too.   People who deserve promotions are almost never the ones demanding them.   

 

The suit doesn't allege he asked for or was turned down for "a senior management position".

 

So, no.

 

5 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

It still proves nothing. You can be part of a jobs plans one minute and not the next. They can say "we like you and see you as part of this company" and then the next minute decide "we don't see you as a fit". It doesn't matter how "clear" it seems. It proves nothing. And why is he asking Goodell? Goodell has no say over who the NFL Network hires or promotes

 

One minute it's raining...the next minute it's not----you're right!!

 

I can't tell if you are pretending not to understand the lawsuit or you really can't figure out that sequence of events.

 

I'm not saying he wins the suit, but I'm pretty sure that NFL Media's law team will not tell VP's and other management to say what you suggested above while being deposed.  They would get torn up.  

 

And he asked Goodell mostly because he's the Commissioner and the public face of the League.  Your claim that he is not involved in the hiring of any staff--literally has "no say" how. NFL Media is run is....pretty funny--but exactly what I would expect you would say/believe.

[Buffalo03]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The suit doesn't allege he asked for or was turned down for "a senior management position".

 

So, no.

 

 

One minute it's raining...the next minute it's not----you're right!!

 

I can't tell if you are pretending not to understand the lawsuit or you really can't figure out that sequence of events.

 

I'm not saying he wins the suit, but I'm pretty sure that NFL Media's law team will not tell VP's and other management to say what you suggested above while being deposed.  They would get torn up.  

 

And he asked Goodell mostly because he's the Commissioner and the public face of the League.  Your claim that he is not involved in the hiring of any staff--literally has "no say" how. NFL Media is run is....pretty funny--but exactly what I would expect you would say/believe.

I understand, trust me I do. I get it, I understand it. I promise you. And I understand the sequence of events in how he "says" it happened. What I am saying is when you are going contract to contract, you can be told one thing and then told something else the next. They can tell you to your face that they really like you when behind closed doors, they can't stand you. And this is all something that Trotter is alleging. Is there any proof he was told this? Was it recorded? Was there something in writing? Or was it just a "they said this but did this" sort of thing. He is gonna have a hard time proving anything if this was just words said to him. How do we know he isn't making some of this stuff up? We don't. I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying. One minute you may be safe at a job or so you think. Maybe they don't wanna keep you but tell you they do and then the next minute they decide to let you go or not renew your contract. Either way, we don't know if he is bitter about the situation or any of this happened but if it was just something he was told, he will have a hard time proving it

Edited September 13, 2023 by Buffalo03

[Mr. WEO]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

I understand, trust me I do. I get it, I understand it. I promise you. And I understand the sequence of events in how he "says" it happened. What I am saying is when you are going contract to contract, you can be told one thing and then told something else the next. They can tell you to your face that they really like you when behind closed doors, they can't stand you. And this is all something that Trotter is alleging. Is there any proof he was told this? Was it recorded? Was there something in writing? Or was it just a "they said this but did this" sort of thing. He is gonna have a hard time proving anything if this was just words said to him. How do we know he isn't making some of this stuff up? We don't. I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying. One minute you may be safe at a job or so you think. Maybe they don't wanna keep you but tell you they do and then the next minute they decide to let you go or not renew your contract. Either way, we don't know if he is bitter about the situation or any of this happened but if it was just something he was told, he will have a hard time proving it

He alleges they decided not to resign him only after asking him if he was in alignment with the NFL.  His agent is listed as the person the VP told the reassurance about his renewal previously.  

 

Certainly doesn’t sound like it just dawned them that they didn’t want him anymore…or that they secretly hated him and were just messing with him when they initially told him not to worry.  That makes zero sense. 

 

it’s clear you don’t understand that 

 

 

[Reks Ryan]

Trotter didn't even say that he heard it directly.   Supposedly, Someone else told Trotter that Pegula said it.   It's hearsay and gossip from Trotter 

 

 

[Buffalo03]

20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

He alleges they decided not to resign him only after asking him if he was in alignment with the NFL.  His agent is listed as the person the VP told the reassurance about his renewal previously.  

 

Certainly doesn’t sound like it just dawned them that they didn’t want him anymore…or that they secretly hated him and were just messing with him when they initially told him not to worry.  That makes zero sense. 

 

it’s clear you don’t understand that 

 

 

I DO understand that. I already told you I understand the sequence of events. You are clearly not understanding that I am saying, that unless this is recorded or in writing that any of this really happened. He has nothing. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about, about 10 years ago, I worked for a company for 3 and a half years. The company ran on year to year temp contracts. I had excellent reviews year after year. Busted my a** for the place and was told that they were gonna be keeping people on at the end of the contract to hire as official employees and that I was "on the right track". 4 months later, I got a group email that included about 30 people that there was a "meeting" that we had to attend. We find out at the end of the meeting that they weren't keeping us on as employees while hiring another group of people to stay on. When I and a few other people asked one of the managers specifically as to why we were not chosen, they told us "we had a certain criteria that we went by. Unfortunately you didn't meet it". When I asked what criteria they were referring to, I was specifically told it was something they weren't going to disclose. But it was completely contradictory of what they told me all the other prior reviews and what I was just told 4 months prior. The contract expired one month later and me and the group of people were never given a clear explanation as to why. True story

 

Do you understand what I am saying to you? Telling you "we like you, we see no reason why we can't renew your contract and make you a bigger part of this company" means absolutely nothing because they can let you go when that contract runs out if they so choose. You can't be this naive

Edited September 14, 2023 by Buffalo03

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, Buffalo03 said:

I DO understand that. I already told you I understand the sequence of events. You are clearly not understanding that I am saying, that unless this is recorded or in writing that any of this really happened. He has nothing. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about, about 10 years ago, I worked for a company for 3 and a half years. The company ran on year to year temp contracts. I had excellent reviews year after year. Busted my a** for the place and was told that they were gonna be keeping people on at the end of the contract to hire as official employees and that I was "on the right track". 4 months later, I got a group email that included about 30 people that there was a "meeting" that we had to attend. We find out at the end of the meeting that they weren't keeping us on as employees while hiring another group of people to stay on. When I and a few other people asked one of the managers specifically as to why we were not chosen, they told us "we had a certain criteria that we went by. Unfortunately you didn't meet it". When I asked what criteria they were referring to, I was specifically told it was something they weren't going to disclose. But it was completely contradictory of what they told me all the other prior reviews and what I was just told 4 months prior. The contract expired one month later and me and the group of people were never given a clear explanation as to why. True story

 

Do you understand what I am saying to you? Telling you "we like you, we see no reason why we can't renew your contract and make you a bigger part of this company" means absolutely nothing because they can let you go when that contract runs out if they so choose. You can't be this naive

before they let you go, did they come to you and ask if you would be a team player by limiting the things you say in public about the company?

 

I’m getting a pretty good idea of which criteria of theirs you did not meet to be hired full time….

[Coach Tuesday]

26 minutes ago, Reks Ryan said:

Trotter didn't even say that he heard it directly.   Supposedly, Someone else told Trotter that Pegula said it.   It's hearsay and gossip from Trotter 

 

 

What!?  No one has mentioned this above.

[Buffalo03]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

before they let you go, did they come to you and ask if you would be a team player by limiting the things you say in public about the company?

 

I’m getting a pretty good idea of which criteria of theirs you did not meet to be hired full time….

They didn't say anything to me about anything like that. I'm not dumb enough to publicly put online how I feel about a company I work for and no, there was no warning of anything. I promise you, I was not told a thing. I liked the place. Anything I did happen to maybe say in public was positive. I never even really talked to anyone I worked with outside of work. You have no clue what this criteria was, nor do I. So stop making assumptions that you wish were true much like you are doing with the Trotter situation 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Buffalo03