- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Regarding the Chavis contract...
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:05 pm
Yes, I know there's a thread on it. I also know from reading the one here and on the SEC rant that almost no one read the article. Cries from "fire alleva" to "omgz! We changed the whole contract" show how much folks read a headline and infer what it means.
From the article in The Advocate that everyone has linked.
So, as you can see, it was simply clarification of the dates to mean the beginning of the month to the end of the month, or visa versa. Neither of which have anything to do the breech of contract. As to the legality of it and whether it voids the contract, who knows. The courts will decide that. But Alleva didn't change it.
Just the more you know folks.
From the article in The Advocate that everyone has linked.
quote:
Three lines of the contract were changed, according to a side-by-side comparison of the contracts that The Advocate obtained through the court. Chavis received a copy of a new three-year contract on Jan. 1, 2012, signed it and returned it to LSU. The contract was not approved by the LSU Board of Supervisors until June of that year. During the gap of time between those two events, LSU President John Lombardi was removed from his position. President William L. Jenkins was replaced him in an interim role. Lombardi’s name was included in Chavis’ signed contract. Mark Ewing, LSU’s senior association athletic director for business, or someone at Ewing’s “discretion” removed Lombardi’s name from the contract and added Jenkins’ name, the documents say.
Two lines of the buyout clause in the original contract were also changed in early April. On April 3, the document says, someone from the school’s Finance and Administrative Services or the LSU Systems Office called Ewing about rewording the dates of the buyout section of the contract. Ewing changed the language regarding the buyout dates from “between 24 months to 36 months” to “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.” He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”
So, as you can see, it was simply clarification of the dates to mean the beginning of the month to the end of the month, or visa versa. Neither of which have anything to do the breech of contract. As to the legality of it and whether it voids the contract, who knows. The courts will decide that. But Alleva didn't change it.
Just the more you know folks.
This post was edited on 12/17/15 at 3:27 pm
8
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:08 pm to Fratigerguy
I did not read the article but I thought it was strange LSU would admit to altering anything significant.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:08 pm to Fratigerguy
Sounds to me like they changed the contract
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:08 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
So, as you can see, it was simply clarification of the dates to mean the beginning of the month to the end of the month, or visa versa. Neither of which have anything to do the breech of contract. As to the legality of it and whether it voids the contract, who knows. The courts will decide that. But Alleva didn't change it.
It still seems like an incredibly stupid decision regardless of whether dishonesty was involved or not.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:08 pm to Fratigerguy
Still cant change a contract after its been signed
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:14 pm to Fratigerguy
Our fans will be sad to learn that their overreactions weren't warranted.
But, then again, they should be used to that by now.
But, then again, they should be used to that by now.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:14 pm to Fratigerguy
That's not just a clarification. It adds sixty days to the buyout term. It's shady at best.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 3:33 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
That's not just a clarification. It adds sixty days to the buyout term. It's shady at best.
How so? If I tell you that you can go to the movies from the 1st to the 15th of the month, does that mean you can only go on the dates of the 2nd through the 14th? Would it be "adding time" if I specified that you could go from 12:01 AM on the 1st through midnight on the 15th?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:30 pm to Fratigerguy
The ONLY way this matters at all is if Chavis' flirtation with aTm occured in some time now disputed due to the changes. Otherwise it is Moot.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:36 pm to NeverRains
quote:
Still cant change a contract after its been signed
Had LSU already signed? When was the contract effective (according to its terms)?
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:36 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
Love how at least 75% of people talking about what you can and cannot do on a contract have no clue what they are talking about.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:40 pm to kevg33
quote:
Love how at least 75% of people talking about what you can and cannot do on a contract have no clue what they are talking about.
So provide us with your insight.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:44 pm to Pax Regis
quote:
That's not just a clarification. It adds sixty days to the buyout term. It's shady at best.
No, it's clarification. The original wording does not explicitly exclude the 36th and 24th months. It was ambiguous, hence the change for clarity.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:45 pm to kevg33
I certainly don't know, which is why I said the courts will decide. My whole point in posting this was because folks were acting like the change was something LSU did that directly affected this situation with him leaving. When, in fact, it didn't. The timelines that were "changed" did not come into play here. Again, whether that voids it, I don't know.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:46 pm to Mo Jeaux
Making minor changes to a contract may invalidate that one part but doesn't invalidate the whole thing. If I have an employee and his pay and bonus is set in the contract. What if I decide to pay him more than the contract but don't amend the contract officially. I just change the numbers. Is the entire contract null? No. The employee would still have to follow the other terms of the contract. People are just so ready to have a problem. So ready to see someone fired. Chavis is a douche. He knows he is breaking his deal.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 4:59 pm to Fratigerguy
quote:
So, as you can see, it was simply clarification of the dates to mean the beginning of the month to the end of the month, or visa versa. Neither of which have anything to do the breech of contract.
It was everything to do with what Chavis views as a breech of contract. He can argue that the first statement implies he's free from his contract exactly a certain amount of months (perhaps a month is defined as 30 days earlier) from when it was enacted. In other words the version he held may have released him in the middle of the calendar month, while the amended version held him til the end of the calendar month.
That's a huge difference when you're talking about a matter of a few weeks that he was out recruiting for aTm while according to LSU's version he was still under contract. It literally is the entire issue.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 5:02 pm to kevg33
quote:
Making minor changes to a contract may invalidate that one part but doesn't invalidate the whole thing.
Maybe, maybe not.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 5:15 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
[quote]That's a huge difference when you're talking about a matter of a few weeks that he was out recruiting for aTm while according to LSU's version he was still under contract. It literally is the entire issue.[/quote]
This. And the LSU atty's opinion that both readings of the contract force Chavis to pay are meaningless. The Judge will decide.
This. And the LSU atty's opinion that both readings of the contract force Chavis to pay are meaningless. The Judge will decide.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 6:01 pm to Fratigerguy
Chavis knew the contract was subject to Board approval. If he also knew of the changes, did not contest them, and continued to work then he legally accepted the terms.
Posted on 12/17/15 at 6:07 pm to Tigerinasia
It's pretty big since the issue is the date in which he started working for atm. We changed it by 30 days.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News