Started By
Message
re: Horrible ruling against LSU
Posted on 2/26/15 at 7:53 pm to whiskeyjohn
Posted on 2/26/15 at 7:53 pm to whiskeyjohn
How is that NOT a contractual agreement?
Contracts don't necessarily need to be in writing. Dude is acting like they have an agreement. LSU acts in reliance on the agreement (proved by the kid's behavior), and now LSU has suffered damages on several levels.
LSU should enforce his behavior as if a letter of intent and force his punk arse to sit out a year before playing elsewhere, plus loss of red shirt.
Contracts don't necessarily need to be in writing. Dude is acting like they have an agreement. LSU acts in reliance on the agreement (proved by the kid's behavior), and now LSU has suffered damages on several levels.
LSU should enforce his behavior as if a letter of intent and force his punk arse to sit out a year before playing elsewhere, plus loss of red shirt.
1
Posted on 2/26/15 at 8:01 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
How is that NOT a contractual agreement?
Contracts don't necessarily need to be in writing. Dude is acting like they have an agreement. LSU acts in reliance on the agreement (proved by the kid's behavior), and now LSU has suffered damages on several levels.
LSU should enforce his behavior as if a letter of intent and force his punk arse to sit out a year before playing elsewhere, plus loss of red shirt.
The FAA is non binding - or at least it is designed to be.But with the ruling by the SEC the FAA is binding - but only to the school. That's messed up. Nothing like a NLOI. Kid signs the FAA, LSU contacts him regularly and within the rules set forth, and then the kid decommits. The SEC comes back on LSU and states that they had impermissable contact with the kid. That's what is BS. It was not against the rules when LSU was contacting him. Then - wait for it - an 18 year old kid changes his mind - and LSU is left to pay for it? BS... BS... BS.
This post was edited on 2/26/15 at 8:02 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News