Started By
Message
Statement from B.Barton (LSU Counsel) re: Chavis contract
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:50 am
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:50 am
My source is Tiger Rant.
quote:
The ‘alteration’ issue is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. LSU and Mr. Chavis had a valid employment agreement from 2009 until he left the University at the end of 2014. There were multiple amendments to the employment agreement during that time, including the 2012 amendment that Mr. Chavis claims was altered. Importantly, the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis’ contract with LSU by another year, through the end of 2015.
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change. Mr. Chavis’ buyout obligation would exist under either reading of the liquidated damages clause, and the alleged “alteration” provided absolutely no benefit to LSU. Just as Mr. Chavis was entitled to his generous salary and other benefits under that agreement, LSU is entitled to enforce the liquidated damages provision of the agreement.
The Court vindicated LSU’s position on its motion to compel and ordered Mr. Chavis to produce records that he has previously withheld. LSU looks forward to obtaining those records and moving this matter toward resolution.
13
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:51 am to clamdip
Who will want to work at LSU going forward knowing that they alter coaches contracts after signing?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:51 am to clamdip
quote:
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment
At least he willing to admit LSU fricked up even if the rest of those words are spin to deflect from that mistake.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:53 am to clamdip
So they only did something unethical 'a little bit' and that's ok?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:54 am to clamdip
quote:
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change
So blah blah blah Lsu altered the contract but it's no big deal?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:54 am to clamdip
quote:
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change.
That sentence is what gets me. How does one unintentionally change a contract after it's been signed?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 7:57 am to clamdip
He is saying nothing.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:00 am to clamdip
Germans
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:01 am to piggilicious
quote:
That sentence is what gets me. How does one unintentionally change a contract after it's been signed?
What's the change in the contract? What did it say before the change and what did it say after? No one has spelled that out. Could be a huge deal if it is a material change. But no one has addressed that.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:01 am to piggilicious
quote:
quote:
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change.
That sentence is what gets me. How does one unintentionally change a contract after it's been signed?
The rare double deflection !
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:06 am to cardboardboxer
Most important part of the statement:
quote:meaning Chavis and his counsel should have been aware of the most current contract.
the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis’ contract
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:13 am to clamdip
quote:
Statement from B.Barton (LSU Counsel) re: Chavis contract
Most important part of the statement:
quote:
the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis’ contract
meaning Chavis and his counsel should have been aware of the most current contract.
If the change/wording occurred in the 2012 contract, wouldn't it be null and void the moment the 2013 contract was signed? and if Chavis knew of the change at the time, and still cashed his check every week......seems like that would be acceptance. You can't have it both ways. He's claiming the contract was void, yet he accepted $$$ and benefits from said contract.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:15 am to clamdip
quote:
meaning Chavis and his counsel should have been aware of the most current contract.
Translation: "We sent him a letter."
Sure, you did.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:24 am to clamdip
LSU has to fire their AD after this fiasco plus all the shite that happened with Miles this season. It would be really easy to negative recruit LSU right now about the future of Les (and the rest of the coaching staff).
Either AD needs to go and the new AD needs to publicly back Lester or Miles needs to go (or both of them).
Either AD needs to go and the new AD needs to publicly back Lester or Miles needs to go (or both of them).
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:25 am to HailToTheChiz
Chavis was willing to accept his generous pay under this 'altered' contract. Wasn't he?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:31 am to clamdip
Those Joe Alleva / LSU athletic dept legal contracts are legendary for their complexity. I'm sure we'll be okay !
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:32 am to Fats
quote:
Who will want to work at LSU going forward knowing that they alter coaches contracts after signing?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:32 am to clamdip
"It was only a little white lie 
"
/lsulogic
" /lsulogic
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:33 am to spslayto
quote:
What's the change in the contract? What did it say before the change and what did it say after? No one has spelled that out. Could be a huge deal if it is a material change. But no one has addressed that.
It has been addressed.
Per Chavis' attorney:
quote:
Craft said changes involve wording of the buyout date periods from "between 24 months to 36 months" to "between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining." Also changed was language of the dates from "between 11 months and 23 months" to "between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month."
This tells me Chavis' attorneys have very little to win this case.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 8:35 am
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:46 am to Fats
Unless Chavis signed off (literally) on the "amendments" this is nothing but lawyerspeak trying to cover their arse.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News