Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:53 am to absolute692
quote:
This tells me Chavis' attorneys have very little to win this case.
I'm absolutely shocked Jill Craft would do something like this.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 8:57 am to junkfunky
quote:
Who will want to work at LSU going forward knowing that they alter coaches contracts after signing?
Uhhhh the highest paid coaching staff in the country. Enough said.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 9:01 am to absolute692
It seems the alteration would help Chavis as any other interpretations could only make his buyout period longer. Altering it does not make it invalid.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 9:25 am to absolute692
quote:
Chavis' attorneys have very little to win this case.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 9:35 am to clamdip
quote:
The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change.
I can buy that it was "innocent" and "immaterial" but how the hell was it "unintentional"? It's not like someone's fingers slipped on the computer keyboard and accidentally typed the changes and saved them. He should have just said immaterial, which is probably true.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 9:43 am to Nissanmaxima
There is a difference in having to pay alot for someone to come there and paying alot for them to stay.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 9:57 am to clamdip
quote:unfortunately, people today don't have the critical thinking skills to get past the initial social media shock value accusation. the responses in this thread are proof.
The Court vindicated LSU’s position
chavis knew the change. chavis accepted money under the change. chavis got some bullcrap burr under his saddle because he was mistaken or uninformed. tanked the last few games of the season like a pouting child. told a&m that if he didn't get the money from lsu, he would sue a&m. was supposed to provide documents and hasn't.
BUT LSU SUCKS. hey there's a video on youtube of people shooting firecrackers out of their butts!
Posted on 12/18/15 at 10:00 am to SammyTiger
quote:
It seems the alteration would help Chavis as any other interpretations could only make his buyout period longer.
Which means it could matter.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:52 pm to cardboardboxer
wouodnt a longer buyout favor LSU? So wouldn't the alleged alterations favor Chavis?
It could matter but it doesn't invalidate his contract like his attorney said.
It could matter but it doesn't invalidate his contract like his attorney said.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:06 pm to clamdip
The lawyer representing LSU released a statement supporting LSU.
Shocking. Who would have ever expected that to happen. It is almost like he works for LSU or something.....
Shocking. Who would have ever expected that to happen. It is almost like he works for LSU or something.....
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:13 pm to clamdip
quote:
My source is Tiger Rant.
Yeah, I saw where Chicken said the statement was sent to him directly.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:39 pm to Nissanmaxima
quote:
Uhhhh the highest paid coaching staff in the country. Enough said.
Obviously. That coaching staff couldn't make half that anywhere else. Most schools want more than 8-3 if they're shelling out that kind of cash.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:30 pm to thefloydian
contract altered in 2012 and ratified with MOU in 2013. How is that a problem, whatever change was made seems to have been approved by Chavis.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 2:58 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
At least he willing to admit LSU fricked up even if the rest of those words are spin to deflect from that mistake.
He had no choice.
Compare Chavis' copy to LSU's....somebody changed their copy and it's not that difficult to determine who made the change.
Even if LSU wins the case, they've given themselves a black eye.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News