LSU sues Chavis for "Loss of Recruits"

[Swamp Donkey]

We FIRED him.. non-compete is null and void if we fire someone..

You can repeat it all you want but you ARE WRONG. Repeat it again. It doesnt change anything.

Firing someone is just another contingency in the contract, which includes payments of certain additional money over a certain time and certain contract terms to be completed. Aparently Fooley negotiated duties that we owed (paying 6 more million over two years) while he didnt include any obligations for his dawgboy lover such as not competing in certain ways. Look there are some restrictions that would be considered unreasonable restraints and voided by law, however limiting certain activities with respect to a conference opponent would certainly be upheld.

Just another reason Fooley is the worlds best AD.

 

[t-gator]

Just another reason Fooley is the worlds best AD.

didn't you just see what the track team accomplished?

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Yes, Fooley would make an excellent Assistant AD of Sports That Don't Matter.

 

[gator1946]

Just stow the judgement on Foley for a few years. His place in Gator history rides squarely on the performance of the new guy. If Mac succeeds, Foley will retire a hero. If Mac fails, the ghosts of Zook, Mush, and Mac will haunt him.

 

[GatorJ]

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.

Yeah. That's not true. I take it that you've never signed a non-compete.

 

[Gator Fever]

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.

I could swear that contract was posted here one time and said he couldn't recruit against us for 1 year if he took an SEC position. Maybe Foley didn't get the language to include if he was fired and it only applied if he left on his own or maybe Foley just decided to ignore it. Another possibility is maybe the language said if he took another head coaching position in the SEC.

 

[TheDouglas78]

I could swear that contract was posted here one time and said he couldn't recruit against us for 1 year if he took an SEC position. Maybe Foley didn't get the language to include if he was fired and it only applied if he left on his own or maybe Foley just decided to ignore it. Another possibility is maybe the language said if he took another head coaching position in the SEC.

I would bet that it was if it was a lateral move. Either way, it's over and it would be tough to prove if Auburn already had them on their radar or not. Also what if the kids decided to contact Auburn upon him going there? That could also always an excuse as well.

 

[TLB]

Also what if the kids decided to contact Auburn upon him going there? That could also always an excuse as well.

Good point, and equally unproveable. (is that a word?)

 

[biggator6]

Yeah. That's not true. I take it that you've never signed a non-compete.

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

 

[oxrageous]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

It's different in the fast food industry, I guess.

 

[TheDouglas78]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

It actually does in many industries.... the higher the paygrade the more restrictive the non-compete usually is.

 

[Concrete Helmet]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

Especially in the state of Florida.....I've signed many and none of them held any water.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

Hint: don't quit your day job because your law career isnt promising.

 

[Gator Fever]

Especially in the state of Florida.....I've signed many and none of them held any water.

It probably depends on the court. Even when there is controlling case law courts love to say why a case is technically different and try to ignore the case law.

 

[GatorJ]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

There's no way you've signed one. I've never signed or seen a non-compete that goes void if you're fired. Florida is a right to work state but non-competes are still held up. Judges usually allow them to be in force for the first year in Florida. The general rule in sales is to not call on your client base for the first year and companies won't pursue legal action.

When you get hired by another company in any high level sales one of the first questions is "can you show us your non-compete?"

 

[biggator6]

There's no way you've signed one. I've never signed or seen a non-compete that goes void if you're fired. Florida is a right to work state but non-competes are still held up. Judges usually allow them to be in force for the first year in Florida. The general rule in sales is to not call on your client base for the first year and companies won't pursue legal action.

When you get hired by another company in any high level sales one of the first questions is "can you show us your non-compete?"

I work in the tech business.. a vague non-compete would essentially be 'you must leave this industry' because at some level you can claim almost everyone as a competitor. Florida (where I do not live anymore) has become more employer-friendly in this case. My friend got sued and lost because he went into a previous customer before that 'first year' you mentioned.

 

[GatorJ]

My noncompete seriously mentions like 20 different companies.

 

[Homer J]

I should sue Muschdawg for wasting 3 years of my life.... and for all the repairs to my walls

 

[rogdochar]

The common sense (logic) for the non-compete is that an employee cannot use the #1 employment "contacts" he
made by virtue of being in the employment of company #1 and then take them away from the company. Sometimes
it's just a geographical area of customer base. Sometimes it's otherwise based …. like no SEC operating. I think
Foley goofed. Even if Auburn & UF had prior contact with a defensive recruit, Muschamp might not have any contact
with the kid,. Just his presence at Auburn could flip the kid. And Foley should have foreseen that UF would be very
"needy" after Messedchomps departure. Lawsuits do occur in this area.

 

[divits]

I have.. and EVERY one I've ever had to sign was null if I was let go. Otherwise, companies could lay off employees and still limit where they could go (hint: that doesn't fly).

Nope, not true. There is case law to prove it. We've had this discussion already.