Started By
Message
re: LSU now suing in federal court
Posted on 4/4/15 at 1:38 pm to TexAgChill
Posted on 4/4/15 at 1:38 pm to TexAgChill
Just when you think this can't get any dumber in walks the A lister of complete fricking idiots. We may remind you of TT but when you look up at the scoreboard you remember who we are every year
This post was edited on 4/4/15 at 1:40 pm
0
Posted on 4/4/15 at 1:42 pm to TexAgChill
LSU A&M Aggies
All LSU. All the time.
All LSU. All the time.
Posted on 4/4/15 at 1:44 pm to TexAgChill
quote:
Texas Tech was the angry, partying little cousin who could surprisingly beat us sometimes in football.
Now that's fu**ed up. Who is angry when they party? People in Texas are obviously doing it wrong. And the only thing more "surprising" than LSU beating Aggie at football would be LSU NOT beating Aggie at football.
Posted on 4/4/15 at 2:30 pm to TexAgChill
quote:
LSU is really reminding me more and more of our relationship with Texas Tech. Texas Tech was the angry, partying little cousin who could surprisingly beat us sometimes in football.
Nice shiny hook. I was simply pointing out to your friend that in a lawsuit between LSU, John Chavis, and tamu, Joe Alleva's competence really isn't going to come up.
quote:
The degree of the contact with regards to the degree of the contract breach will get resolved
Sumlin has already admitted to talking to Chavis the day of the Music City Bowl. This is before Chavis tendered his 30 day notice. Even once he gave notice, he was still under contract with LSU, yet he was out recruiting for tamu.
I don't get what the ags are so gun-ho about with regards to this suit, other than trying to rustle some jimmies.
Either: a) Sumlin and Chavis had contact before the notice of resignation, breaching his contract with LSU which required LSU to have notice and give consent for the contact, b) Chavis was out recruiting for tamu while still under contract at LSU (breaching the contract), c) Chavis and Sumlin had an oral agreement before January, which regardless of breach of Chavis' contract subjects him to the $400,000 buy out clause or d) Chavis didn't work for LSU after Jan 1 but didn't work for tamu until February, meaning that all of those encounters with recruits on tamu's behalf opens them up to major NCAA recruiting violations.
quote:
who could surprisingly beat us sometimes in football
LSU leads the all time series 30-20-3, winning the last 4.
Posted on 4/7/15 at 8:55 am to TexAgChill
quote:
Most people think LSU is playing the childish games. LSU sued Chavis
No. LSU did not sue Chavis. Chavis sued LSU, asking for a judge to declare that he didn't owe LSU any money. If you really do not owe money to someone, do you run out and sue them, asking for a judge to declare you don't owe them any money? If that were normal, everyone in the world would have 7 billion lawsuits pending against everyone they don't owe money to. If you don't actually owe someone money, you don't need a judge to tell you that.
quote:
Chavis lawyers advised him to sue a few hours earlier. Good move on his part.
Not really. It makes him look like the guy who calls police and denies killing his wife before the body has even been discovered.
quote:
It's time for LSU to move on
We have. We're just defending the lawsuit he filed against us. It's typical of the Chavis/A&M mentality to play these kind of immature games, but it's no big deal and we'll win in court just like we always do on the field.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:12 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
When it comes to bump time I am not going to be the one that looks ridiculous.
quote:
I am just saying Joe has a motivation to take this case to court simply for the optics of it. It looks like he is trying hard to make sure a villian doesn't walk off with the school's money, which win or lose gives him political cover when he needs to spend big in the future.
quote:
And then LSU fans will have a new reason to be pissed at their AD.
Vindicated
This post was edited on 12/17/15 at 2:14 pm
Page 21 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News