LSU sues Chavis for "Loss of Recruits"

[GatorJ]

Hmmmmmmmm......



http://theadvocate.com/multimedia/walthandelsman/animations/11717272-171/lsu-being-sued-by-former

 

[Gator Fever]

Sounds like LSU has a good case but they will probably end up settling for a figure less than the 400K most likely. I doubt Chavis would fare to well with a jury in Louisiana.

 

[GMDGator]

Too bad we can't sue Mushdawg

 

[Jand3k]

Aaand here we go.

 

[NavetG8r]

Gee, I guess they must have had some kind of clause in his contract that said he couldn't continue to recruit players he'd been recruiting to LSU. Some people might could learn a lesson from this.

 

[TLB]

Nav, I think the general rule (I cannot link or quote) is that if a school is recruiting a kid prior to a coach switching schools, that's fine. The problem is if A&M had not been recruiting a kid, but suddenly landed the kid once Chavis switched programs. Had there been any kids that AU was not chasing, but landed (or even chased) once WM switched, I'm sure we would have heard a lot more about it. As it was, there was just a general groaning and moaning about him stealing kids, but if AU already had been courting them, as seems the case, then there are no grounds for anything beyond sour grapes. I'll admit, this deep insight of mine is based solely on what I've read in these forums, so I can't speak with absolutes or with any legal basis, just what I've read and the lack of any true teeth to such allegations regarding WM.


===================

Having read the link, and some of the related articles, it appears Chavis tried to obey the letter of the contract (last day of work being within 11 months of end of contract), but he was not even in the same area code of the intent of the contract. He appears to be playing games in submitting resignation Jan 5 and claiming last date of employment being Feb 4....and yet there are photos of him with Sumlin on Jan 1 and with recruits for A&M in January? Such photos would sink him in court, as there is no way to spin 'still working for LSU until Feb 4' when he is obviously doing work for A&M at that time. I don't have anything against A&M, but they will be on the hook for the $400k, or whatever damages are agreed to, as Chavis screwed LSU with his actions, IMO. Overall, a minor blip on the news feeds, Chavis ends up with a black eye he earned, and LSU gains an extremely minor motivation for this annual matchup.

 

[Go Gata]

Will henceforth be know as the "Jilted Lover" Clause

 

[NavetG8r]

Will henceforth be know as the "Jilted Lover" Clause

I like that. Someone should make this official!

 

[Swamp Donkey]

so I can't speak with absolutes or with any legal basis, just what I've read and the lack of any true teeth to such allegations regarding WM..

You absoluely can put no compete clause in a coaches contract and enfoce them for the length of the contract.

We either chose not to add one or chose not to enforce it if we did.

That's as far as I will go. I know that I Love Will trampstamp is embarrassing enough for you.

 

[GatorJ]

Nav, I think the general rule (I cannot link or quote) is that if a school is recruiting a kid prior to a coach switching schools, that's fine. The problem is if A&M had not been recruiting a kid, but suddenly landed the kid once Chavis switched programs. Had there been any kids that AU was not chasing, but landed (or even chased) once WM switched, I'm sure we would have heard a lot more about it. As it was, there was just a general groaning and moaning about him stealing kids, but if AU already had been courting them, as seems the case, then there are no grounds for anything beyond sour grapes. I'll admit, this deep insight of mine is based solely on what I've read in these forums, so I can't speak with absolutes or with any legal basis, just what I've read and the lack of any true teeth to such allegations regarding WM.


===================

Having read the link, and some of the related articles, it appears Chavis tried to obey the letter of the contract (last day of work being within 11 months of end of contract), but he was not even in the same area code of the intent of the contract. He appears to be playing games in submitting resignation Jan 5 and claiming last date of employment being Feb 4....and yet there are photos of him with Sumlin on Jan 1 and with recruits for A&M in January? Such photos would sink him in court, as there is no way to spin 'still working for LSU until Feb 4' when he is obviously doing work for A&M at that time. I don't have anything against A&M, but they will be on the hook for the $400k, or whatever damages are agreed to, as Chavis screwed LSU with his actions, IMO. Overall, a minor blip on the news feeds, Chavis ends up with a black eye he earned, and LSU gains an extremely minor motivation for this annual matchup.

They offered a CB that we offered after Muschamp got there and he signed with them.

 

[TheDouglas78]

They offered a CB that we offered after Muschamp got there and he signed with them.

Just can't prove they didn't already have them as a target before then, or that he didn't contact them due to Muschamp going there... too much of a gray area.

 

[NavetG8r]

They offered a CB that we offered after Muschamp got there and he signed with them.

That was a crazy period of time and I thought it looked like that but I wasn't sure so never said anything. If true, and AU really had never offered the kid before that, Foley should be suing the hell out of WM.

 

[TLB]

With the 'nice guy' attitude Foley extended to WM longer than warranted, I wonder if Foley would actually have gone after WM legally had they found some violation like this. The lack of any news about it also supports the idea they already had the same kids on their board prior to WM leaving UF. Even if UF didn't pursue any action, you can bet the media would have dug it up and waved it around for extra attention if they added any of our recruits to their board after the coaching change. As Dougie points out, it is probably pretty hard to prove out one way or the other.

You absoluely can put no compete clause in a coaches contract and enfoce them for the length of the contract.

We either chose not to add one or chose not to enforce it if we did.

That's as far as I will go. I know that I Love Will trampstamp is embarrassing enough for you.

You want to beat that dead horse some more, about what can and should be in coaches contracts? Be my guest.

As for the tramp stamp, it says "Law can kiss me here (arrow down)"

 

[PatDooleySucks]

"That's as far as I will go."

The crying sign of a loser with no facts (per the usual) to back himself or herself up.

 

[Captain Sasquatch]

To me, it looks as if they're suing him because he didn't fulfill his entire contract length, not because he stole recruits.

 

[MJMGator]

A&M will be writing a check for $400k. That's a sh*tload of corndogs.

 

[LagoonGator68]

$0.75 after lawyers fees.

 

[biggator6]

You absoluely can put no compete clause in a coaches contract and enfoce them for the length of the contract.

We either chose not to add one or chose not to enforce it if we did.

That's as far as I will go. I know that I Love Will trampstamp is embarrassing enough for you.

We FIRED him.. non-compete is null and void if we fire someone. It's in place so they can't leave of their own free will and compete against us.

 

[t-gator]

We FIRED him.. non-compete is null and void if we fire someone. It's in place so they can't leave of their own free will and compete against us.

exactly. There's a difference between our situation and the situation with chavis. Chavis left on his own and muschamp was fired.

 

[GatorJ]

A&M will be writing a check for $400k. That's a sh*tload of corndogs.