- 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: What will break this stalemate between Wade and LSU?
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:33 am to caliegeaux
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:33 am to caliegeaux
A Dawkins plea will have zero effect. The FBI has agreed to share what it has with the NCAA after the last case, which is set for trial in August. There is too much of a lack of understanding of the issues in the April trial. Dawkins is charged with bribery, mainly of assistants. The defense wants Wade and Miller to get on the stand and say they talked to Dawkins and he never tried to bribe them. This case has nothing to do with buying players. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Wade will not be asked about Smart. The only relevance is that he talked to Dawkins, how many times we do not know, and Dawkins never offered a bribe. Frankly, I doubt the defense even gets that. The issue is who you did bribe, not who you did not bribe. The defense is hoping to cloud the issues by arguing that Dawkins did not bribe Miller, Wade and some others who we don't know at this point, to try to prove he did not bribe others. Pretty shaky in my opinion. The bribes were money paid to assistants to get current players to hire Dawkins as agent and financial advisor. Nothing to do with recruiting.
3
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:53 am to Tigerlawyer
Do you have a link showing where the FBI agreed to share information with the NCAA?
If they agreed to share information, why did the NCAA file the motion below, asking the SD of NY to give them access to FBI information that was inadmissible in the first trial.
LINK
I agree with you that Wade is unlikely to testify and even if he does, none of the Smart information is relevant.
If they agreed to share information, why did the NCAA file the motion below, asking the SD of NY to give them access to FBI information that was inadmissible in the first trial.
LINK
I agree with you that Wade is unlikely to testify and even if he does, none of the Smart information is relevant.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 8:54 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 8:58 am to Tigerlawyer
In a case such as Dawkins, who pays the money? Isn't it the shoe companies paying, and not coaches or boosters?
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:24 am to Gus007
The FBI has no control over trial exhibits and sentencing information. Also the FBI has to get permission from the US Attorney to share anything. I doubt there will even be an opposition filed to that motion. All that is nonsense. What the NCAA wants are the taped conversations with coaches that were not admitted into evidence at the trial. That stuff the FBI has already agreed to ptovide.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:26 am to gumbeaux
quote:There is not stalemate. They are working together.
stalemate between Wade and LSU
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:27 am to Gus007
That was true in the first trial as to the 4 recruits who were the subject of that trial. Bowen, Preston, DeSouza and one other whose name escapes me. In the upcoming trial, Dawkins paid it or had it paid on his behalf to assistants like Chuck Person.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:44 am to Tigerlawyer
Where are you getting the information to support your statement that the FBI agreed to provide wiretap conversations to the NCAA? Again, if the NCAA was getting the wiretap calls, why is it asking the court to allow it access to wiretap recordings as part of the motion to intervene? I get it that the FBI has no control of trial exhibits, but why would the NCAA feel the need to get that exhibit (the WW wiretap which was proffered but deemed inadmissible) from the Court if the FBI is going to hand it to them later? That doesn't make sense.
What authority gives the FBI the ability to arbitrarily hand out wiretaps of third parties that can cause unnecessary embarrassment. For decades, the FBI has had a policy against making such information available, to the point of considering it a means and methods exemption to FOIA.
What authority gives the FBI the ability to arbitrarily hand out wiretaps of third parties that can cause unnecessary embarrassment. For decades, the FBI has had a policy against making such information available, to the point of considering it a means and methods exemption to FOIA.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 9:47 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:47 am to Tigerlawyer
quote:
What the NCAA wants are the taped conversations with coaches that were not admitted into evidence at the trial. That stuff the FBI has already agreed to ptovide.
Not saying you are wrong, but he asked for a link. Do you have one?
Posted on 4/1/19 at 9:47 am to gumbeaux
Don't you think that this all about something in his contract?? Alleve had every right to fire him but suspended him. He may be waiting on his testimony in court to prove WW violated some kind of behavior clause in his contract or he made need the NCAA to do something and they are waiting till he testifies under oath.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 9:51 am
Posted on 4/1/19 at 10:34 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Don't you think that this all about something in his contract?? Alleve had every right to fire him but suspended him. He may be waiting on his testimony in court to prove WW violated some kind of behavior clause in his contract or he made need the NCAA to do something and they are waiting till he testifies under oath.
Alleva could have fired him weeks ago...or even at the beginning of the season. The question would be whether LSU owes Wade the remainder of the contract. That issue would be litigated and not resolved for a while (unless both parties would agree to a de facto settlement - ex. Wade is fired and LSU agrees to pay $4.5 mill of remaining $9 mill.)
That said, LSU's waiting to do anything puts them at a big disadvantage in getting a new coach if they ultimately decide to fire Wade. The decision to fire Wade at this point essentially guarantees you're stripping the program to the studs. It's almost assured that if Wade goes, so does most of the team (Smart, Days, E. Williams, and maybe others). You also likely guarantee the entire 2019 recruiting class is gone.
It's not unimaginable to think that a new coach would be left to build almost an entirely new roster. We're talking maybe 1-3 returning scholarship players. So if you think you are ultimately going to fire Wade, it's better to do it now at a time when you still have reasonable time to get into the coaching carousel and give the new hire a small chance to recruit.
Otherwise, you better be willing to stick it out with Wade. Waiting until May to make a decision one way or the other is = to LSU implementing a self imposed death penalty
Posted on 4/1/19 at 10:56 am to magicman0001
The info will get out eventually. Better to just be honest and work Togerther and they can move on Togerther
Posted on 4/1/19 at 11:11 am to gumbeaux
The pending lawsuit.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 11:50 am to Tigerlawyer
quote:
A Dawkins plea will have zero effect. The FBI has agreed to share what it has with the NCAA after the last case, which is set for trial in August.
Wouldn't a Dawkins plea deal have some effect on the stalemate given Wade is a subpoenaed witness in that trial at this time, which is supposedly the reason he can't meet/discuss certain things with LSU admin? I.e., if the Dawkins trial goes away, so does the subpoena and therefore the present impediment to certain things being discussed.
If the Dawkins trial has zero effect on the stalemate, then when does it end? It can't last until August for obvious reasons.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News