Started By
Message
They changed Chief's contract
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:14 pm
Did a little extra negotiation after it was signed ...... with themselves
3
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:17 pm to Warrior Poet
Why are they asking for phone records of Chavis?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:29 pm to sms151t
I would assume because they want to know when he spoke with Sumlin. Seems obvious to me, but what do I know.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:31 pm to sms151t
They want to show he was working for A&M as a recruiter in early January. This entitling LSU to some compensation.
It's really hard to get phone records though. Good luck with that shite they'll have to get Verizon/att to cooperate and that is almost impossible.
It's really hard to get phone records though. Good luck with that shite they'll have to get Verizon/att to cooperate and that is almost impossible.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:36 pm to Warrior Poet
What phone did he use? If it was provided by aTm or LSU then it is going to be easy. If it is a personal phone then that will be tough. But also if he put in a request for reimbursement for calls, then I would think it becomes FOIA.
Im not an attorney and glad I am not in the mess.
Just is strange, day it comes public they changed/amended/whatever the contract is the same day the Judge requested records.
Im not an attorney and glad I am not in the mess.
Just is strange, day it comes public they changed/amended/whatever the contract is the same day the Judge requested records.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:38 pm to Warrior Poet
Yeah, I saw that on 247. Absolutely amazing. It'll be awesome, if Chief not only wins that suit, but also wins the defamation suit, making it a double punch to LSU's gut
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:43 pm to sms151t
FIOA does not apply that is federal. Texas has the PIA, I'm sure La has something similar.
That being said almost all open records laws have a "litigation exception" which may be why this is at issue. Or perhaps LSU's attorneys are idiots and didn't think to send a request. But likely LSU is the one that has to get the request and since chief isn't there anymore LSU has no "responsive information" because it's on Chiefs cell phone.
The judge didn't request the records. The judge ordered chief turn them over to LSU. (Actually likely ordered chief sign an authorization allowing LSU to subpoena the records from the phone carrier)
That being said almost all open records laws have a "litigation exception" which may be why this is at issue. Or perhaps LSU's attorneys are idiots and didn't think to send a request. But likely LSU is the one that has to get the request and since chief isn't there anymore LSU has no "responsive information" because it's on Chiefs cell phone.
The judge didn't request the records. The judge ordered chief turn them over to LSU. (Actually likely ordered chief sign an authorization allowing LSU to subpoena the records from the phone carrier)
Posted on 12/17/15 at 2:46 pm to Warrior Poet
You know what is going to happen in this don't you?
It's going to be pay them 300k, LSU pay them 100k for the buyout they never paid in 90's
Now for wasting my time you are both getting fined for something trivial and the fines will be 300k and 100k.
Both sides win and both sides lose.
ETA:
I really do not care what happens as it does not effect me or my life, just been crazy stupid thing that has drawn out and people are trying to decide who has the bigger and shinier brass balls.
It's going to be pay them 300k, LSU pay them 100k for the buyout they never paid in 90's
Now for wasting my time you are both getting fined for something trivial and the fines will be 300k and 100k.
Both sides win and both sides lose.
ETA:
I really do not care what happens as it does not effect me or my life, just been crazy stupid thing that has drawn out and people are trying to decide who has the bigger and shinier brass balls.
This post was edited on 12/17/15 at 2:49 pm
Posted on 12/17/15 at 9:01 pm to Warrior Poet
quote:
Did a little extra negotiation after it was signed ...... with themselves
Is this at all criminal? Is it common? Why would LSU be so foolish?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 9:05 pm to TexAgChill
Could be depending on what they tried to do with it. Otherwise it's just civil fraud.
They are probably so dumb they didn't realize they were unintentionally changing the contract's meaning. It doesn't relieve chief of liability but it does change the important dates for determining the same.
They are probably so dumb they didn't realize they were unintentionally changing the contract's meaning. It doesn't relieve chief of liability but it does change the important dates for determining the same.
Page 1 of 1
Latest Texas A&M News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News