Started By
Message
re: So the lawsuit that Chavis filed says his last day at LSU was Feb 4...
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:26 pm to JuiceTerry
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:26 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Haha y'all paid him to recruit for the Aggies!
A&M will end up footing that bill.
0
Posted on 2/27/15 at 10:32 pm to Projectpat
quote:
Wait wait wait wait wait
Chavis doesn't recruit, so this argument is invalid.
Corndogs are worse than the sips at talking out of both sides of their asses.
Posted on 2/27/15 at 11:31 pm to Broski
I'll forward this thread to Cheney Joe
Posted on 2/28/15 at 12:11 am to Draconian Sanctions
His last day was clearly before the fricking Notre Dame game.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 5:19 am to RB10
quote:
So the lawsuit that Chavis filed says his last day at LSU was Feb 4...
quote:
He's not asking for reparations and there is no proof that he breached his contract based on the contract information that has been discussed.
He gave 30 Day notice on January 5. He has pictures of himself recruiting for aTm In mid January. That's breach of contract if he is still an LSU employee. If he wasn't an LSU employee at that time then his contract was terminated with over 10 months left on it, therefore he would LSU money.
You seem to be the expert around here with this mess, so I'm going to ask you. Does it matter at all if (A) Chavis didn't sign the Contract Extension, (B)Gave his resignation (30 day), and (C)was then told to hit the road by LSU brass, so they could begin looking for his replacement/recruiting with a full staff towards NSD? Would he be at fault still or would it be LSU that actually terminated his contract early, since he wanted to end it on Feb. 4th?
How does LSU justify searching (before) and officially hiring Steele on Jan. 13th? LSU had The DC position contractually obligated to Chavis still, right? Cause that's the claim being made here.
Only way I see this going is that Chavis put in his resignation, LSU said ok, "bye", and they then began to fill the vacant DC position ... Otherwise they would be violating the terms of the contract by hiring (A) extra coaches on staff or (B) making a hire for the DC spot that was still "under contract" to Chavis. Chavis and A&M would then have a great argument that LSU's actions revoked any final notice (30 day resignation) obligations regarding Chavis, since he had obviously been shown the door once Miles and LSU began looking for and signing a new DC before Chavis' contract was actually terminated, by LSU's own terms. All the while A&M never officially announced Chavis as the DC till mid February.
Thanks for your thoughts on this.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 5:33 am to JuiceTerry
quote:
Haha y'all paid him to recruit for the Aggies!
And they still finished behind us in the recruiting rankings.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 9:29 am to Vanilla Coke
All of this stupid and the way I see it is that its going to come down to some legal technicality and strict letter of the law. Who wins is anyone's guess.
My view
All the contract stuff and legal wording should be meaningless but in law it seems black and white rules the day and leaves out the gray areas and the human element or just common fricking sense.
I see it like this, what was the intent on TAM and Chavis part? People keep saying it matters that LSU told him to kick rocks so they will be responsible for breaking the contract. But what about the reality. Do any of you think TAM was gonna wait until Feb for Chavis to be on the staff and help close the 15 class? Meaning, I don't think there is any way TAM was willing to sit around for a month while Chavis fulfilled the 30 day period as some intern or dead weight on the LSU staff. They needed and wanted him in college station immediately and would have paid the buyout to get Jim there immediately. That's where common sense should come into play. There's no way anyone should believe that TAM and Chavis weren't going to buy their way out of that 30 days in purgatory. Their intent was to buy it out and get Chavis there immediately.
This thing that keeps getting repeated about TAM delaying the announcement is just stupid. As others have said, Chavis was recruiting for TAM and there are multiple photos of it. Articles detailing things said between Chavis and recruits. I guess the guy was a "family friend or advisor" to about 20 kids around the country. Its hollow. Also you can bet your arse it breaks down one of 2 ways. In order for Chavis to be out recruiting, he had to file paperwork with the NCAA and if he didn't then TAM is looking at major, major recruiting violations. So since I assume most of us would give TAM the benefit of the doubt that they weren't stupid enough to send a rouge agent out to recruit on their behalf, therefore committing multiple major violations that would cripple the program, we also have to assume that Chavis officially filed the proper paperwork with the NCAA. That means that according to the NCAA, Chavis was officially an employee of TAM in the month of January. While the NCAA crap means nothing in the courts, their paperwork can be used as evidence that Chavis was an employee of TAM. If the courts rule he wasn't legally then the NCAA will be coming. They will want to know why TAM has a nonemployee out recruiting kids on their behalf. Looking at major sanctions and possible players being ineligible at TAM. If I'm TAM I'm careful about fighting too hard on the non employee angle. It may save them 400 k but cost them years of worth in the football program. We would be talking multiple loss of scholarships and players being ineligible to play at TAM if Chavis is found to have been recruiting on their behalf while not an employee.
Again this is all just stupid.
What's wrong TAM, are you guys this hard up for money? 400 k gonna break the program? Isn't that what TAM fans constantly say to LSU fans about the money stuff?
My view
All the contract stuff and legal wording should be meaningless but in law it seems black and white rules the day and leaves out the gray areas and the human element or just common fricking sense.
I see it like this, what was the intent on TAM and Chavis part? People keep saying it matters that LSU told him to kick rocks so they will be responsible for breaking the contract. But what about the reality. Do any of you think TAM was gonna wait until Feb for Chavis to be on the staff and help close the 15 class? Meaning, I don't think there is any way TAM was willing to sit around for a month while Chavis fulfilled the 30 day period as some intern or dead weight on the LSU staff. They needed and wanted him in college station immediately and would have paid the buyout to get Jim there immediately. That's where common sense should come into play. There's no way anyone should believe that TAM and Chavis weren't going to buy their way out of that 30 days in purgatory. Their intent was to buy it out and get Chavis there immediately.
This thing that keeps getting repeated about TAM delaying the announcement is just stupid. As others have said, Chavis was recruiting for TAM and there are multiple photos of it. Articles detailing things said between Chavis and recruits. I guess the guy was a "family friend or advisor" to about 20 kids around the country. Its hollow. Also you can bet your arse it breaks down one of 2 ways. In order for Chavis to be out recruiting, he had to file paperwork with the NCAA and if he didn't then TAM is looking at major, major recruiting violations. So since I assume most of us would give TAM the benefit of the doubt that they weren't stupid enough to send a rouge agent out to recruit on their behalf, therefore committing multiple major violations that would cripple the program, we also have to assume that Chavis officially filed the proper paperwork with the NCAA. That means that according to the NCAA, Chavis was officially an employee of TAM in the month of January. While the NCAA crap means nothing in the courts, their paperwork can be used as evidence that Chavis was an employee of TAM. If the courts rule he wasn't legally then the NCAA will be coming. They will want to know why TAM has a nonemployee out recruiting kids on their behalf. Looking at major sanctions and possible players being ineligible at TAM. If I'm TAM I'm careful about fighting too hard on the non employee angle. It may save them 400 k but cost them years of worth in the football program. We would be talking multiple loss of scholarships and players being ineligible to play at TAM if Chavis is found to have been recruiting on their behalf while not an employee.
Again this is all just stupid.
What's wrong TAM, are you guys this hard up for money? 400 k gonna break the program? Isn't that what TAM fans constantly say to LSU fans about the money stuff?
Posted on 2/28/15 at 9:56 am to OleRockyTop
quote:
Free mother fricking country bitch
Apparently this concept of "contract" as a legally binding document hasn't made it to the intellectually paradise that is Tennessee.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:04 am to Drizzt
I actually feel sorry for the Aggies. Get hopes up every year, only to watch a purple and gold gang rape on national tv happen. Pretty sad
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:07 am to LSUNV
quote:
I actually feel sorry for the Aggies. Get hopes up every year, only to watch a purple and gold gang rape on national tv happen. Pretty sad
I have a much different understanding of what constitutes "gang rape."
But, frickLSU®. I think we can all agree on that.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:07 am to Tecate
Does Aggy college have a law school? If so, is it accredited? Yall are some dumb SOBs.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:09 am to GRTiger
Really? How long have you been practicing, dumbfrick? Give us your legal analysis, Learned Hand.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:15 am to GRTiger
While we're waiting for Ben Cardozo to give us his opinion and holding, I will give you a summary of mine:
frickLSU®.
Thanks and Gig'em.
frickLSU®.
Thanks and Gig'em.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:17 am to KaiserSoze99
To borrow a bit of Aggy oral diarrhea, nice melt.
I hope chief enjoys working conditions with an employer he successfully sued for 400k. Yikes.
I hope chief enjoys working conditions with an employer he successfully sued for 400k. Yikes.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:21 am to GRTiger
quote:
I hope chief enjoys working conditions with an employer he successfully sued for 400k.
You are not a lawyer, are you? You have no idea why his lawyer would include A&M as a defendant, do you?
Thanks for your input, Scalia.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:25 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
You have no idea why his lawyer would include A&M as a defendant, do you?
No, I have no clue. Maybe you can stop melting long enough to explain it to me. Please educate the class, counselor. Make Aggy law proud, little man.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:26 am to KaiserSoze99
Damn look at those titties on Chavis
Texas BBQ beware
Cant wait for Arse in Mouth to cough up that cash and get sanctioned
Texas BBQ beware
Cant wait for Arse in Mouth to cough up that cash and get sanctioned
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:29 am to GRTiger
I'll give you some hints. Check out these legal buzzwords:
Forum Selection
Article III
Removal
Diversity Jurisdiction
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Joinder
When you are done reading up on these issues, you will probably understand this case a whole lot better.
Forum Selection
Article III
Removal
Diversity Jurisdiction
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Joinder
When you are done reading up on these issues, you will probably understand this case a whole lot better.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:32 am to KaiserSoze99
Wow, you totally came out of nowhere with that one. Thank you for the lesson. That lock of a strategy totally invalidates all other potential findings.
It's all fun and games until you find out the judge is a UT grad.
It's all fun and games until you find out the judge is a UT grad.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 10:37 am to Broski
3rd and Chavis + aTm = screwed
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News