Sued again, re Soul

It was more of a general post to those who are saying that they are tired of the band getting sued. Some suits are ridiculous (the baseball guy) but this one seems realistic.

On the other hand, it sure pays to be a lawyer for Jon and the band at the moment.

There's also the poor Edmonton guy who is now a quadriplegic and is suing everybody involved but the band.

Yeah I was thinking this suit actually sounds 100% normal, but I went for the tacky Good Guys reference instead.

If the soft drink was the "mijovi" one, then it was Jon suing. I'll Be There For You guy never sued.

This is a standard type of labor-employment lawsuit. Not terribly surprising in light of what happened to the AFL. The outcome will come down to what's in the guy's contract.

I did find this quote interesting:

"The suit said that the defendants 'worked off the . . . Soul's success to promote themselves in all of their many other business, financial and cultural enterprises, and in establishing (in the case of Spencer) and sustaining (in the case of Bon Jovi) themselves as celebrities.'"

Hmm . . . seems to me it was the other way around. There's a reason the Soul was so much more successful than almost all of the other franchises -- JBJ's celebrity brought in a lot of "fans" who were there for anything and everything EXCEPT the (so-called) football. Yes, the Soul Foundation was named after the team, but does anyone think that Jon couldn't have started and had success with the same type of charitable organization if there had never been a team?

And could it be that Jon's comment about "if you see us on the street....." was a sarcastic comment toward the other owners??? It would seem to me Jon would have been the one most upset about the season shutting down, after all he owns the most successful team in the league, having to dismantle the organization and start over in a year after all the hard work everyone did to begin with, must surely have pissed him off.

As for using it to maintain his fame, Jon hardly needs the Soul to do that. I always thought the foundation being hooked to the team was Jon's way of being able to do things he wanted charitably without the spotlight shining totally on him.

I remember several years ago his ex-maid suing him because he didn't pay for her transportation costs.

I think some are honning in one this specific detail when it is a rather small detail. The guy is suing him because he claims he has not received his pay which he says he is entitled to and not Jon's intentions for owning the team. He probably inserted that as what he thought would be a jab towards Jon as well as Craig Spencer.

I realize thet it's a compensation suit, but it's jabs like this that seem uneccessary to me. If you didn't get paid properly then sue the organization for that but leave all the extra opinions out of it. I mean if you can prove you are owed compensation fine, but when you start taking pot shots at the other side it usually means you don't feel you have enough to win and slandering the opposition is a way to boost empathy/sympathy to your side.

Well it's obvious that they guy took exception to this comment by Jon: "If you see us on the street begging for food, please give us a hand". This is something that sounds like it was mostly likely a joke but at the same time especially given current situations, it seems somewhat ridiculous to say to your employees who are losing their source of income.

Could he have kept this to himself or private? Of course but I don't think the "slandering" really effects either party in this situation, especailly because Jon is a public figure and this kind of stuff is said frequently about anybody who has fame.

You are probably right , I just find this kind of trash talk annoying because it very often clouds the real issue and makes the situation seem like a bigger, badder, more complex thing than it is. I have no problem with Krause suiing for his wages if he feels he didn't get properly compensated but I have no idea what the "if you see us in the streets" comment has to do with that. Common sense would say that it was a joke or a sarcastic remark meant toward the other owners who were very quick to want to shut down the season, citing shaky finances as an excuse. Guys like jerry Jones who's buliding a brand new stadium for his precious under achieving Cowboys, or Pat Bolen in Denver who fired his beloved Broncos head coach still owing him 20 million, hmmm.... guess the crush's budget for the year will pay that off .... My point being that this remark has nothing to do with Krause's lawsuit and while I get that he is angry about his wages, there were apparently three years of good things prior to this so why slam the man who gave you the opportunity to begin with??? You might need his recomendation later on. It seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.