- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Per Aggies beat writer
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:18 pm
2
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:22 pm to BZ504
awwwwwwww Shiiiiiiiiiit
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:24 pm to DowntheBayouTiger
I respect Brent Z. He's a good reporter. Him and Looch are the best on the Ags end. David Sandhop is respected as well.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:33 pm to Big Kat
my favorite tweet all day:
@marcisenberg
Marc Isenberg Another day in college sports, another victory for billable hours.
@marcisenberg
Marc Isenberg Another day in college sports, another victory for billable hours.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:35 pm to BZ504
from his blog:
quote:
My understanding is this is simply part of the (convoluted) legal process of A&M bolting the Big 12 for the SEC — that it must be documented that A&M courted the SEC, not vice versa, to avoid potential lawsuits. The A&M regents are still expected to hold a teleconference on Monday to discuss “conference alignment.”
When a formal announcement takes place that A&M is headed to the SEC is to be determined. There’s also a hastily-called hearing scheduled Tuesday in the Capitol in Austin to discuss conference alignment. I wouldn’t expect an announcement until at least after that.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:50 pm to 1999
quote:
vice versa, to avoid potential lawsuits.
No matter what happens a lawsuit could be filed. This posturing just helps shorten a lawsuit if it happens
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:53 pm to jacks40
quote:
No matter what happens a lawsuit could be filed. This posturing just helps shorten a lawsuit if it happens
And lowers the settlement value of the case.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:54 pm to Big Kat
I don't buy his whole "tortious interference" thing. Offering another school who is already in another conference is not interfering with any contract. Only if the SEC "forced" A&M to leave the Big 12 could this be a problem. But that's ridiculous to say that a simple offer rises to this level. It would be A&M that would be at legal risk for breaking their contract, not the SEC just for offering.
Rather, I think the other Presidents aren't as gung-ho as Slive is, and they just want some clarity on how many other teams (and who they are) the SEC might expand to.
Rather, I think the other Presidents aren't as gung-ho as Slive is, and they just want some clarity on how many other teams (and who they are) the SEC might expand to.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:56 pm to NaturalBeam
With the $$ involved I guarantee there will be lawyers circling like sharks looking for any possible legal angle. The SEC is smart to play it as safe as possible.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 10:59 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:not a lawyer, i take it?
I don't buy his whole "tortious interference" thing. Offering another school who is already in another conference is not interfering with any contract. Only if the SEC "forced" A&M to leave the Big 12 could this be a problem. But that's ridiculous to say that a simple offer rises to this level. It would be A&M that would be at legal risk for breaking their contract, not the SEC just for offering.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:01 pm to kclsufan
Of course, but the SEC has their own lawyers. It's a non-issue. Out of the conference expansion fiasco last year, and the one so far this year, why do you think this has not been raised until now? Because its a bullshite argument. The SEC is no more worried about being sued for tortuous interference than they are of being sued for assault. People are grasping at straws to make it seem like this deal will absolutely happen tomorrow. Or the next day.
I'm not sold.
I'm not sold.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:03 pm to clamdip
I'll get the bar results in October, so fingers crossed until then.
Would you explain to me why I'm wrong on tortious interference? (it wasn't asked on the past bar, so I'm not afraid of being wrong)
Would you explain to me why I'm wrong on tortious interference? (it wasn't asked on the past bar, so I'm not afraid of being wrong)
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:08 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
but the SEC has their own lawyers
and I'm sure the SEC is following their advice to the letter.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:11 pm to clamdip
I'm a lawyer and I agree with a portion of what Naturalbeam stated. I don't think an offer rises to the level of tortious interference. And there is no evidence that an actual invite to join the SEC was ever made. I believe the decision of the presidents has nothing to do with deflecting potential lawsuits.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:13 pm to kclsufan
How much money did the Big 12 get from the Pac 10/12 over Colorado, or the Big 10 over Nebraska?
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:15 pm to NaturalBeam
Elements of tortious interference
1) The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Check
2) Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Check
3) Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Iffy/probably not
4) Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
Check
5) The contractual relationship is breached.
Check, assuming it happens
6) Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Check, assuming it happens
I agree that it probably doesn't rise to the level, but you better CYA anyway.
1) The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Check
2) Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Check
3) Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Iffy/probably not
4) Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
Check
5) The contractual relationship is breached.
Check, assuming it happens
6) Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Check, assuming it happens
I agree that it probably doesn't rise to the level, but you better CYA anyway.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:17 pm to Lucky Pierre
Jeez the Aggies want in so fricking bad. Reading Texags is hilarious. What a joke.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:17 pm to Lucky Pierre
quote:
I agree that it probably doesn't rise to the level, but you better CYA anyway.
That's all I'm saying.
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:17 pm to Lucky Pierre
the SEC is in CYA mode....lawsuits are bad PR...and really expensive...
Posted on 8/14/11 at 11:20 pm to Lucky Pierre
You know as well as I do that proposing a better offer isn't anywhere close to inducing a breach. This happens daily in the job market (well, before '08 at least). There's not much reason to put the "probably" in front of "no"
What state are those elements from btw?
What state are those elements from btw?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News