- 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
re: About the Chavis buyout...
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:09 am to Celtic Tiger
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:09 am to Celtic Tiger
quote:
Possibly, hell probably. But Dude. If the contract says the damages for breach are 400k, they're 400k. Since when is 400k just "frick it" money? You work for an OT baller start up or something?
1. How much money will you pay lawyers, experts, etc to collect $400k?
2. what if you lose the suit? You turn a PR nightmare into a laughing stock.
3
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:11 am to euquol
quote:
what if you lose the suit? You turn a PR nightmare into a laughing stock.
Had you ever heard of the Bama lawsuit before I posted the link to it?
This suit won't look like the OJ trial.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:12 am to euquol
What PR? With coaches?
If it comes out that chief ran game on LSU what is the PR fall out? If you lie and breach your contract LSU will hold you accountable?
I think the PR that is most important is LSU is willing to pay $1.33+mm on a multi year Deal to a DC. That is what coaches care about
If it comes out that chief ran game on LSU what is the PR fall out? If you lie and breach your contract LSU will hold you accountable?
I think the PR that is most important is LSU is willing to pay $1.33+mm on a multi year Deal to a DC. That is what coaches care about
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:17 am to supatigah
"We do not comment on ongoing legal matters"
PR "nightmare" solved.
PR "nightmare" solved.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:17 am to supatigah
quote:
Pretty sure the issue is his agent was negotiating on his behalf with TAMU without permission while also negotiating with LSU.
Rumor has it he told miles Monday night and they had an altercation. Which if true tells me that he denied the TAMU deal until he decided to take it. There seems to be a level of betrayal here that miles and Aleva are taking personally. They asked the LSU legal team if LSU has a claim and the legal team felt like there is a claim so they put it out there in the media.
Say what you want about miles but he is a loyal guy so if chief lied to him and Aleva it will come out. LSU won't be the one looking bad here, it will be Chavis for being duplicitous.
Yeah, that's a load right there. I assume you created this rumor. This article says they parted of good terms:
LINK
Again, your AD is trying to deflect criticism off of himself.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:17 am to euquol
1. I would imagine lsu has people on retainer. If not, a shitty trial lawyer would cake walk with that for 40% or so, so that's still 240,000 back in the lsu coffers.
2. If you think they would pursue that and lose, well, I'm not sure what else to tell you, but that would never happen.
2. If you think they would pursue that and lose, well, I'm not sure what else to tell you, but that would never happen.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:23 am to Celtic Tiger
quote:
1. I would imagine lsu has people on retainer. If not, a shitty trial lawyer would cake walk with that for 40% or so, so that's still 240,000 back in the lsu coffers. 2. If you think they would pursue that and lose, well, I'm not sure what else to tell you, but that would never happen.
1. It's not an easy win by any means. There other side has a strong argument that he worked into the. $0 buyout portion of his deal. If I represented Chavis I would advise him not to settle for anything more than a token amount and I'd be happy to fight this one.
2. Chances for a loss would be high. They have several legal hurdles to miss without incident.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 2:29 am to CountryVolFan
Is there payout for winning vs losing the Music City Bowl?
Could that alone be worth a damages claim if it came down to proving actual losses?
Could that alone be worth a damages claim if it came down to proving actual losses?
Posted on 1/2/15 at 3:23 am to fightin tigers
quote:
Is there payout for winning vs losing the Music City Bowl? Could that alone be worth a damages claim if it came down to proving actual losses?
You do realize y'all lost that game b/c Miles inexplicably stopped giving Fournette the ball don't you?
Posted on 1/2/15 at 4:35 am to Hugh McElroy
LSU is not getting $400k from A&M. I will be glad when the butthurt heals for a lot of LSU posters. They are making us look like a bunch of pussies.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 5:01 am to Dr RC
quote:
You do realize y'all lost that game b/c Miles inexplicably stopped giving Fournette the ball don't you?
I would love for offensive strategy to be put on trial.
That wasn't the question posed.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 5:24 am to Hugh McElroy
Take it out of the $400,000 you owe us from 20 years ago
This post was edited on 1/2/15 at 5:25 am
Posted on 1/2/15 at 5:42 am to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
Take it out of the $400,000 you owe us from 20 years ago
If LSU will sound as whiney as A&M fans over some home and home 20 years ago then frick it.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 6:12 am to fightin tigers
Sounds like LSU thinks the new date is 12/31/2015 based on the extension.
If so I hope the do sue. This has nothing to do with Aggies. LSU has a contract with Chavis.
If so I hope the do sue. This has nothing to do with Aggies. LSU has a contract with Chavis.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 7:19 am to CountryVolFan
quote:
He had the #15 national Defense in 2013 and top 10 in 2014. If that's getting exposed, sign me up for that exposure at UT.
Look, we get it. He left your school, and you are mad. But he's going to be in Texas doing a great job like he has for nearly 20 years as a coordinator.
While I agree, he is a good coordinator, the offense that LSU runs has been a big reason they are ranked as high on defense as they have been. Because we play a run-only type of offense, we control the TOP. This keeps the defense off the field and prevents teams from putting up tons of yards. Looking at "Total Defense" is going to skew reality. He is going to aTm, who plays quickly, which means his defenses are going to be on the field a lot more and with less talent.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 7:19 am to thelawnwranglers
Chavis old contract had a clause which gave LSU an option year (2015) which it exercised meaning Chavis under contract till 12/31/15. He "splits" on 12/30/14. He is in violation of terms and buyout of $400K is due to LSU. He was 366 days away from his contract expiring with zero buyout.
AtM will have to fork this over or Chavis or both as LSU will sue both if they have to.
Yes summary judgement coming...for LSU. Won't get to that as Aggies will pay up. The conference may step in to avoid a pissing contest.
For once, Alleva is right.
AtM will have to fork this over or Chavis or both as LSU will sue both if they have to.
Yes summary judgement coming...for LSU. Won't get to that as Aggies will pay up. The conference may step in to avoid a pissing contest.
For once, Alleva is right.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 7:36 am to CountryVolFan
quote:
CountryVolFan
can't you go back to the Vol board and stop worry about what lsu is/isn't doing or our attorney's for that matter? why do you care?
Posted on 1/2/15 at 7:52 am to LagdonCG
quote:
Chavis old contract had a clause which gave LSU an option year (2015) which it exercised meaning Chavis under contract till 12/31/15. He "splits" on 12/30/14. He is in violation of terms and buyout of $400K is due to LSU. He was 366 days away from his contract expiring with zero buyout.
If it is this cut and dry which I think it might be. I expect LSU to go after this money. They are a public institution supported by tax payer dollars. They shouldn't pick and chose what debts they enforce. That is like your neighbor not getting charged property tax.
Posted on 1/2/15 at 8:03 am to CountryVolFan
quote:
There other side has a strong argument that he worked into the. $0 buyout portion of his deal.
What if Chavis told a recruit he was leaving for A&M and wanted him to follow?
Posted on 1/2/15 at 8:17 am to CountryVolFan
quote:
The fact that Alleva lost his DC over a clause tied to the head coach is almost a vote of no confidence for the head coach. That will most likely be a recruiting tool for all opponents. It's a poor PR move by the AD... he needs to let is die as soon as possible.
Possible. The other possibility, considering that they removed the clause for a 2 year deal, but weren't willing to go to three or four, is that the AD has a pretty good idea that Miles will retire by the end of 2017. Chavis wanted that clause for 4 years and they wouldn't budge off of two. No matter what the fans think, Miles is too entrenched to get dumped for one bad season, and there is enough talent for him to at least pull off average seasons or better.
This explanation is dependent on rumors that have been around for the last year, but when you consider LSU's stance on that clause in combination with the fallout at USCe over Spurrier's quote about impending retirement, there are reasons why this scenario makes sense.
But we will likely never know the full story.
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News