Started By
Message

re: Tortious interference? Curious why it has not been pursued.

Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:56 am to
Posted by mdomingue
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2010
42276 posts
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:56 am to
The contracts almost always have a buyout if the coach leaves. I think that may present an issue, as it sort of indicates that those types of inducements by third parties are expected. But I'm no lawyer, so maybe one of the TD legal types could pipe in.
Posted by Oates Mustache
Member since Oct 2011
25975 posts
Posted on 11/30/25 at 8:56 am to
There definitely needs to be changes. This way is shitty and really screws players and the school. It's messed up.
Posted by Coonass
Buckhead
Member since Sep 2005
2833 posts
Posted on 11/30/25 at 9:06 am to
Every contract has a safety valve (here a buyout clause) that allows partys to terminate theor contract. For example, termination for a party’s convenience clause (i.e., can terminate for almost any reason, but you have to pay).

And LSU ran this proposal through several intermediaries and the media to signal their willingness to meet and pay. It would be hard to prove in court even wothout the saftey valve clauses noted above.

Finally, think of all the websites the promote job openings. Are they all running afoul of tortious interference? No. For the reasons above, AND your right to work has more layers of protection than a typical contract.

first pageprev pagePage 2 of 2Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram