Sorting Out the Billy Gillispie and Kentucky Wildcats Mess

This one is starting to get ugly folks. A few days ago Billy Gillispie filed a claim in Dallas, Texas suing the University of Kentucky for $6 million in back pay, punitive damages, attorney's fee and court costs.

Kentucky is counter suing the fired men's basketball coach. Kentucky says they owe Gillispie nothing, because he never signed a contract. It sounds pretty cut and dry, well maybe not.

Gillispie never did sign a formal contract with Kentucky. That is fact. Gillispie worked under a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU).

The MOU states that a "termination without cause by the University" will "require payment of $1.5 million per year for the remainder of the term of the contract, provided the payment for termination without cause does not exceed 48 months.

According to Gillispie's attorney, Houston-based Demetrios Anaipakos the reason for the lawsuit is simple. The MOU is in essence the contract. Anaipakos stated, "Whether you're in Kentucky or Texas, a deal is a deal."

So basically:

* Gillispie never signed a formal contract.

* Gillispie worked under the MOU.

* He was fired.

* Gillispie said he was fired without just cause.

* Gillispie wants money, that he believes is owed him.

* Kentucky says a formal contract was never signed therefore they owe Gillispie nothing.

While the positions of the parties, is clear now, the grey area is the definition of the MOU. Is it a contact or not? Gillispies's lawsuit contends there a several examples where the MOU was cited as contractual agreement between Kentucky and Gillispie.

Included is a July 2007 where Kentucky told Gillispie not to enter in an endorsement deal with a Houston based company, because it was in violation of wording in the MOU. How can Kentucky prove the MOU mattered in this situation, but not in the firing of Gillispie?

Kentucky may be left trying show there was just cause to Gillispie. Kentucky fans might tell you losing to VMI at home, losing to North Carolina by 19, and missing the NCAA's tournament last year is just cause to fire Gillispie. Will that hold up in a court of law?

This is probably an oversimplification of the proceedings, but I hope this provides some clarity of what's going in this case.

Confusing as it is, I believe neither party wants a long drawn out court case arguing the contractual integrity of the MOU. In the end I see this settling out of court, but is anyone going to hire Gillispie afterwords? I guarantee there will be a formal contract signed if he is.