Emmis says it had an option with Big Boy to match iHeart's salary. Big Boy still went across town. Does Emmis have a case against Big Boy? Or, once his contract expired, did Big Boy have a right to go anywhere? And even if he did, why rock the boat and leave Power 106, if the money was the same? There's plenty of risk that comes with moving homes.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Does Emmis Have a Case Against Big Boy?
- Thread starter Doctah
- Start date
T
Thomps2525
Guest
Well, then I will specuilate that Emmis has a case. I'm basing my speculation on an Emmis news story about the Emmis lawsuit. It appears on the Emmis website, Emmis.com. Here is the pertinent paragraph of Emmis's announcement, which, to no one's surprise, includes the name "Emmis" several times:
"Emmis' complaint, filed in Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, asserts that Alexander, who remains under contract to Emmis through February 28, 2015, breached his employment agreement by failing to honor its 'right of first refusal' provision to match an offer from an Emmis competitor. Under the terms of Alexander’s employment agreement, he specifically agreed that if he received an offer from an Emmis competitor – and Emmis agreed to provide employment on terms 'substantially similar' to the competitor – Alexander would enter into a new and exclusive employment agreement with Emmis and would not move to a competitor radio station. Despite acknowledging Emmis' matching offer, Alexander turned his back on his radio home of more than 20 years and plans to move to a Los Angeles-area radio station operated by iHeartMedia, which would immediately launch a new format as a director competitor to Emmis."
http://www.emmis.com/emmis-radio-fi...-protect-emmis-rights-big-boys-employment-ag/
"Emmis' complaint, filed in Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, asserts that Alexander, who remains under contract to Emmis through February 28, 2015, breached his employment agreement by failing to honor its 'right of first refusal' provision to match an offer from an Emmis competitor. Under the terms of Alexander’s employment agreement, he specifically agreed that if he received an offer from an Emmis competitor – and Emmis agreed to provide employment on terms 'substantially similar' to the competitor – Alexander would enter into a new and exclusive employment agreement with Emmis and would not move to a competitor radio station. Despite acknowledging Emmis' matching offer, Alexander turned his back on his radio home of more than 20 years and plans to move to a Los Angeles-area radio station operated by iHeartMedia, which would immediately launch a new format as a director competitor to Emmis."
http://www.emmis.com/emmis-radio-fi...-protect-emmis-rights-big-boys-employment-ag/
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
None of us know the specific language in the Emmis-Alexander contract, although what Emmis states in the press release Steve reposted from their website sounds like standard boilerplate for a contract covering high-rated air talent.
But ... Alexander is also represented by counsel, and certainly his agent would have a contract reviewed by an attorney specializing in entertainment law before it was signed, so we must presume the Emmis-Alexander contract was so reviewed before it was signed.
If his legal counsel advised him that he was clear to take the iHeart offer, then either there is some language in there that will likely come out during the trial or that attorney should be sued for malpractice. If he was advised to stay at Emmis and he jumped anyway, then he is an idiot. Since I do not believe that he is an idiot or that he was advised by incompetent counsel, there must be something we do not yet know.
Emmis obviously thinks they have a case. It may well turn on language which is subject to interpretation.
But ... Alexander is also represented by counsel, and certainly his agent would have a contract reviewed by an attorney specializing in entertainment law before it was signed, so we must presume the Emmis-Alexander contract was so reviewed before it was signed.
If his legal counsel advised him that he was clear to take the iHeart offer, then either there is some language in there that will likely come out during the trial or that attorney should be sued for malpractice. If he was advised to stay at Emmis and he jumped anyway, then he is an idiot. Since I do not believe that he is an idiot or that he was advised by incompetent counsel, there must be something we do not yet know.
Emmis obviously thinks they have a case. It may well turn on language which is subject to interpretation.
T
Thomps2525
Guest
"Interpretation." Indeed. I have no idea who came up with this adage but I've often heard it said that all legal cases are resolved in the favor of whichever side has the lawyer who is the better liar. Slate.com's Michael Kinsley wrote a fascinating article titled "Why Lawyers Are Liars." I like his comment that judges should be "open-minded, not empty-headed." 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2006/01/why_lawyers_are_liars.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2006/01/why_lawyers_are_liars.html
K
K.M. Richards
Guest
You're probably more right with that than wrong, Steve, at least where "interpretation" is involved. In cases like these, the attorneys are more spin doctors than legal counsel while making arguments in the courtroom.
- Status