Carr, Entercom make their cases
Tue Oct 16 14:54:47 EDT 2007
That should read "they allegedly made no MOVE to do so"--a typo and
nothing but a typo.
Dan Strassberg (email@example.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan.Strassberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Don A" <email@example.com>;
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Carr, Entercom make their cases
> As I understand it, had he not signed the contract with Greater
> until his contract with Entercom had expired (last month), he would
> off the hook, and Entercom, having failed to get him to re-sign with
> them (they allegedly made no more to do so), would have been
> completely out of luck. Not waiting a few weeks to sign the contract
> with GM sure sounds like gross stupidity to me. If the story as I
> heard it is correct and Mintz Levin nevertheless really OKed his
> signing the Greater Media contract when he signed it, I would say
> Howie has a great case against his own attorneys--assuming that he
> find a lawyer who will take such a case.
> One thing you can count on, though, is that Carr, being a radio
> personality, has the overwhelming weight of public opinion on his
> side, not that that necessarily gets him anything in court. Then
> are those of us who regard him as the lowest of the low and a
> scourge upon society--but we are in a small minority, I'm sure.
> Dan Strassberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> eFax 1-707-215-6367
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don A" <email@example.com>
> To: "Dan.Strassberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Bob Nelson"
> <email@example.com>; "BRI"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Carr, Entercom make their cases
>>> It would be absolutely wonderful to find out that Carr could not
>>> legally work in Boston radio until 2012--and all because of his
>>> avarice (and stupidity).
>> Stupidity? Like any wise person, he sought out some very good
>> advice from the gang at Mintz Levin (Not too shabby...).
>> And for most of us laymen...we do what the lawyers tell us.
>> However, in the end, we are reminded that all lawyers give us is
>> their "read" or "opinion".
>> No one really knows the answer until it gets before a judge.
>> I, too, am surprised that the judges don't find the "right of first
>> refusal" to be just another instrument to effect a
>> "non-compete"...which we now know is illegal.
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest