Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 35 of 35
  1. #31
    RK.'s Avatar
    RK.
    RK. is offline Ring of Fame Rally Cross II Champion
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    4,460
    2beers you seem to be under the impression that people who run companies don't keep track of what the people who work for them are doing, nor should they. I got news for you, people who run companies and are paying out millions in salary require those that are getting that money to report to them on a regular basis as to what they are up to and why.

    I agree that during a game you don't call down to the field from the booth and tell your coach what plays to call, however I have never heard of the Wilfs doing that.
    Last edited by RK.; 01-05-2014 at 08:20 AM.

    WWBGD

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Isanti, MN
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Anderson View Post
    I'm not trying to defend them unduly. I'm just looking at the facts, if that makes me sound like a PR guy to you, try doing the same.

    It was always a civil suit all the way. They are not criminals. I seriously doubt there is anyone on this site who knows more about the New Jersey code of criminal justice than I do. I'm not an expert on financial crime or the Wilfs' business practices, but I know that the Wilfs were never charged criminally or even subject to a criminal investigation. Liars, cheats, shysters, probably, but they are by definition, not criminals.

    And if an owner is willing to pay for players and offers a coach a good contract, why does the coach care about the owners' non-football business ventures? They've given both of the coaches they've hired time to succeed, too much in fact.

    The lack of a stadium and lack of a QB are the real red flags for coaches considering coming here.
    Wilson found that Zygmunt Wilf, along with his brother, Mark, and their cousin, Leonard, committed fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and also violated the state's civil racketeering statute, or RICO...

    Zygi Wilf loses suit claiming he used "organized crime-type activities" to scam partners
    I bet you could use a cool one huh Clark...Now you're talkin Eddie...

  3. #33
    2beersTommy's Avatar
    2beersTommy is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,764
    BUT, they are not criminals because it was a civil suit haha

  4. #34
    Mr Anderson's Avatar
    Mr Anderson is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,692
    Quote Originally Posted by battleaxe4cheese View Post
    civil

  5. #35
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,869
    Quote Originally Posted by battleaxe4cheese View Post
    Sounds like you need to learn the definition of splitting hairs. The only reason they are not going to prison is because they had the money and attorneys to drag it out for over twenty years. They committed crimes by New Jersey definition. That makes them criminals. If somebody robs a bank and never goes to prison does that somehow not make him a criminal and a thief?

    Besides that you somehow are missing the whole point of this post....The Wilfs are not a good selling point for a prospective business transaction with a prospective coach.

    Slips on sidewalk? Huh?

    You sound like the Wilfs PR guy.
    I highly doubt any prospective coach cares much about the civil suit against the Wilf's that will more than likely be fought out in the courts for another few years. It was two business partners that went south, I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around and the retiring judge appeared to take a personal stance against the Wilf's due to their arrogance, demeanor, or whatever. Or perhaps they were guilty as sin. She knew when she ruled that it would be appealed or at least moved to a much smaller settlement.

    They were never found guilty of committing any crimes. If you are referring to the racketeering statement by the judge, there is civil as well as criminal racketeering. The judge has no ability to rule or comment on any criminal activity because this was not a criminal case.

    Not saying one way or the other if the Wilf's are guilty terrible human beings, just saying that it is pretty hard to have strong feelings one way or the other based on the information reported.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •