actually, yes, they could. unless you have a contract you are an at will employee and can be fired for any reason that is not a violation of any protected class.
The article states he was interviewed in relation to the one murder and they attempted to contact him in regards to the other. The article relays facts, it is up to the individual reader to interpret the reported facts. While the article is clear that Jackson was never a suspect, the detective felt he might get some useful information by questioning Jackson. The article was also clear that Jackson disputed that $250K was the amount stolen. So it appears that the article was not wrong as you posted, you just don't like the conclusion some people are coming to after reading the article.
Just because the police questioned him doesn't mean shit. I had cops question me about friends in a crime I didn't see or talk to for over 10 years. And they knew that.
Tell your buddy chris5533 that the police questioned Jackson because chris5533 said the article was wrong and the police did not question him. I posted those excerpts to show that he was in fact questioned. I never said being questioned meant anything, the article also never stated it went beyond that.
You're actually piecing things together and accusing me of doing exatly what your doing . Here's the article I'm referring to.m http://mweb.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-o...jackson-not-involved-in-gang-related-killings
Is there a source for Idzik ever having worked as an accountant? And by the way- the last GM was a lawyer, which isn't really related to being a GM either. If he's an "accountant" just because he came from the cap/negotiation side of the front office- that's the same background that Tannenbaum had (though at least Idzik has coaching experience and made efforts to learn as much about scouting as he could, and did some scouting while at Seattle.) Were you calling Tannenbaum an accountant? If not, why not? The GM ultimately is the one responsible for all personnel decisions, so it makes sense for him to be making those decisions. He's set out the strategy for the team, and if others can override him, he won't be able to execute his strategy and at that point there might as well not even be a strategy. People can definitely disagree with his strategy and think he's making one terrible blunder after the next, but at this point there aren't really any results to support that. There also isn't anything to support that he's doing an amazing job yet either. As for the "we only drafted 1 good player last year" thing, you can't really judge how good a GM is at drafting based on how one draft class does in its rookie season. So far Richardson has been great, Ivory has been a very good trade for us, and we could very well see Milliner and/or Smith taking a step forward in 2014. Winters could wash out or end up being a dependable guard, we still have to wait and see how things pan out before we can get a good sense of how Idzik's first draft class went.
Your article mentions that they did interview him in relation to the first murder, being this article mentioned the original nj.com article and addresses both murders that article had brought up wouldn't it make sense for you to also look at the nj.com article which was referenced? Especially since you said he was not questioned in regards to the murders but he clearly was. How exactly am I piecing things together? I read the original article, you read a subsequent article which left a few points out.
Like you said earlier.mi guess its a matter if interpretation. I view follow up article to nj.com as disputing there broad claims, I guess you see it as validating.
I wish idzik was a lawyer, may help him learn how to negotiate a little better. The term accountant I use to describe him, as I'm frustrated with his lack luster approach to things. He's definitely squeezes the quarter till the eagle screams. A majority of his existence in the nfl has been on the admin side. I get this is very important aspect, but there needs to be flexibility which he seems to lack. I don't think that he doesn't want to make certain deals, I feel he doesn't know how to close. I'm asking what real coaching experience and scouting experience does he have? I have no faith in his approach and don't think it will work the way the nfl is set up currently.
then your hypothetical was either dishonest because your personal situation doesn't apply to the broader laws you were questioning that allow employers to fire employees, or you don't understand the situation you are questioning if you don't grasp the difference.
He has college and Euro league coaching experience, which is more than can be said of a lot of GMs. I think it's better to have some coaching experience than none, as is the case with many GMs. As for his scouting experience, he has plenty of it, and he was a scout before he even got into the administrative side of football. Let's check out the proof: The Seahawks' GM John Schneider said of Idzik: "I met him a long time ago as a pro scout, so I know he was scouting before he got into the whole cap stuff. He did the cap stuff because when the cap came into effect, he was the smartest man in the building to negotiate contracts. Those guys tend to get [pidgeonholed]." (Emphasis supplied.) The Cardinals' former GM Rod Graves, who hired Idzik in 2004 said: "John will be very methodical in how he acts, and you will not see him flying by the seat of his pants. He will think things out very carefully. John is extremely thorough, and he has a big benefit in having worked on the scouting end of it, in the administrative end of it and on the salary-cap end of it." (Emphasis supplied.) He goes on to give Idzik credit for persuading him to extend Anquan Boldin rather than letting him test free agency as was Graves' plan, and he says Idzik was right. (This was before John Idzik hired his old boss to be the Sr. Director of Football Admin. for the Jets.) Those quotes are from: http://www.ganggreennation.com/2014/3/30/5564028/ny-jets-from-those-who-know-idzik-best The Cardinals' current GM, who worked with Idzik at the Cardinals said: "Coming up through the scouting department, John was always thought of in many league circles as a money guy, as a salary-cap guru. That, to me, is the farthest thing from the truth." He goes on to say: "John is also a football guy. He knows players, he knows talent. He has a unique eye for evaluating players. And I think he's one of those guys when I look at the big picture and spectrum in the NFL, he's one of those general managers who has it all. He has the ability to do the business and the managing side, the money side, as well as understanding the talent side. A lot of general managers have strengths and weaknesses. I don't see where John has any weaknesses.'' (Emphasis supplied.) The quote is from: http://www.newsday.com/sports/footb...-is-meticulous-and-highly-respected-1.5111058 You can still disagree with his strategy and/or with specific signings or non-signings, but that doesn't change the fact that he has an excellent background for the job. It's very clear that he has much more than just a token amount of personnel experience; he's a legit and highly respected personnel guy who also happens to be an excellent cap guy. You shouldn't buy into the narrative from Cimini and Mehta about him being a glorified capologist.
He's being smart, growing the team through the draft and saving money to pay players who perform, not buy other teams' unwanted players or players asking for too much money. When a team spends their money on home-grown talent, it shows the young players that they can be rewarded by their own organization if they improve their game. It's the right way to build a team. Also, teams are required to have spent 89% of their previous 4 year's cap space. If we are saving money now, we'll be spending later when we are real superbowl contenders.
Jackson didn't walk away with any check for being released. He had already been paid his guaranteed money and his contract permitted them to release him without any further payments. Perhaps your union has an arrangement for compensation, I wouldn't know. But that doesn't change the fact that you were clearly questioning whether you could be fired for such, regardless of compensation.
