re: tOffical TA/247 war thread

If Hamm wants to go for broke, based on the Perroni comments, he could sue for defamation of character based on postings. It would likely be thrown out, but if it made discovery...

quote:

---

Hamm owns the gigem247 site. He's not going anywhere. And 247's influence will continue to grow.

---

Hamm doesn't own it. If 247 wanted to fire him, they have every right too. If the site didn't get the viewership 247 was seeking, they could pull the plug on it. He may run that site, but he doesn't "own" it. They could just as easily let him go and move Perroni up to the main guy.

These two things aren't his first instances of mucking it up. He was doing similar things when he was with Aggie Yell back in the day. Not as far as following someone into the boys room, but on the Chigbu level.

And with Perroni's little message, nothing seems wrong with the interview because there was nothing wrong with the questioning itself, it was his lack of informing people he was doing the interview, which is the first thing they teach you in that line of work

I don't know Hamm so I really prefer not to make judgments about him. I don't however, like his message board persona and like what you are saying, he has a bad rep otherwise. So it bugs me that you've got me defending him but I will because I think this whole ordeal is a bit of a witch hunt and against the best interest of my alma mater.

quote:

---

Hamm doesn't own it. If 247 wanted to fire him, they have every right too. If the site didn't get the viewership 247 was seeking, they could pull the plug on it. He may run that site, but he doesn't "own" it. They could just as easily let him go and move Perroni up to the main guy.

---

Sort of. Hamm like all the site owners, is an independent contractor. I'm certain their contracts have certain measures and reasons to terminate them, but he owns gigem247. I can imagine there being language as far as a buyout as well in their contracts because 247 may choose to go another direction. But it's not as simple as firing him since he doesn't work for them technically. It was this model that allowed them to attract some of the best mods from other sites.

quote:

---

And with Perroni's little message, nothing seems wrong with the interview because there was nothing wrong with the questioning itself, it was his lack of informing people he was doing the interview, which is the first thing they teach you in that line of work

---

This is an assumption. Recruiting is fraught with miscommunications because you are dealing with so many people and it's all phone. It happens to coaches too. We rarely hear about them because people rarely post emails minutes after they are sent and before the two sides can clear up the differences.

Anyway, as I suspected, that is exactly what happened here. This was just posted by the coach that wrote the email. This shite should never have been in the public arena prior to this discussion and I'm annoyed that the pissing match between the two sites allowed this to happen.

LINK

quote:

---

Hey guys, I'm Michael's position coach and it was my email that ended up on TexAgs, and then migrated to many other boards. I would like to clarify a few things because there were multiple misunderstandings on multiple levels regarding Taylor's article and the subsequent stories.

1. The reason I contacted Taylor initially was because I was under the impression that Michael was unaware his conversation with him was an interview. It has become readily apparent to me that Taylor did inform Michael that he was interviewing him and even omitted quotes, as good journalists do.
2. I regret basically threatening Taylor with contacting the A&M SID office and have apologized to him for doing so as it was patently uncalled-for.
3. Re: the screenshot: an individual close to our program with ties to schools in Alabama has multiple vendettas against practically our entire staff (among others) and was privy to information (my email acct) that he should have never been able to gain access to. (I understand most of you will be justifiably skeptical, but due to privacy concerns on many levels especially regarding Michael, I cannot elaborate further).

I would like to make it known that after speaking with Taylor, I believe he has the best interest of the athletes he covers in mind. I feel that he is honest and credible and I very much regret that this situation has devolved into a stereotypical example of message board assault on his character. I would appreciate if you guys allowed this situation to fizzle on its own because there's absolutely no reason for it to go further (and it shouldn't have even happened to begin with). I would be very disappointed if something like this were to affect Michael's recruitment in any way and his best interests are paramount to me.

Thank you for your understanding.
Mark Twain

---

So basically Looch just got caught perpetuating a silly fight and needs to apologize and call his fanboys off.

That changes things greatly in my book.

quote:

---

Only thing TA didn't do was shite it down immediately. It was on for a few hours at night and was gone in the morning. This was Wareagle044 (or whatever his username is).

---

Didn't they also call this whole incident out though? I don't think Hamm was mentioned by name, but Liucci made a strong implication that it was 247....?

And the twitter fight offer? Really? Like I said in the other thread, this whole incident is what finally drove me to cancel. TexAgs now has serious egg on their faces about this whole thing, and a public apology is definitely in order.

quote:

---

What? no, like they said wareagle made a thread about it on there, TA had nothing to do with it and never commented on that email as far as I know.

Also, it wasn't a fight? A poster offered to have them both go to a basketball game with him and discuss there issues, the fight thing was a joke started on here..

---

Geez, obviously I can't even keep what's real and whats fantasy separate.