quote:

---

quote:

---

I've got a feeling there is a copius amount of "Bayou Justice" headed CS way, both from the courts and also
on the field at Tiger Stadium come November.

And then what if the NCAA comes sniffing?

Was Chavis recruiting illegally back in January?

What a mess.

---

LOL! A contract dispute does not an NCAA violation make. Put down the purple kool-aid.

You guys did get screwed over that recruit signing a FAA and flipping to Bama, BTW. Ex post facto there.

---

Not a contract dispute but recruiting for A&M when he was "supposedly employed" by LSU might be a problem

Nothing like a lawsuit to heat up a rivalry. Something needed to happen to step this rivalry up a notch. I like it.

quote:

---

Not a contract dispute but recruiting for A&M when he was "supposedly employed" by LSU might be a problem.

---

LSU can't have both ways. Either Alleva considered the contract in material breach and thus no longer in full force and effect when he sent the demand letter for liquidated damages on January 2nd, or he didn't. That's the beginning and end of the NCAA's interest.

I don't think this goes away anytime soon unless A&M pays the buyout.

The assumptions on both sides are a classic lawyer fight.

But when he flew to Texas A&M on Jan 1, I can see how LSU took that as a " I quit" statement.

Maybe A&M didn't know about the terms of the buyout clause so they could of waited till Jan 5 to make the plane flight in?

When he flew to College Station it also could have been because LSU told him to eff off. Miles was beside himself in the post-bowl game presser, and not because of the loss to Notre Dame.

Actually it is not LSU wanting it both ways. It's yall and Chavis. If he wants to say he was employed by LSU then recruiting violations. If not, he owes the money. You should have been able to understand that.

C'mon tigger fans, let the butt hurt flow through you.

Why is Red Stick on here discussing this????

I thought you didn't care about Chavis?? Thought he was washed up and at the end of his career????

Sounds like you're a little more asshurt than you made out a couple months ago????

Your end is near tigger fan. Suck it. Suck it REALLLLLL GOOD.....mmmmm just like that Red Stick. Suck a fatty *****.

Irregarding Chavis

A&Ms statement that there is no dispute between A&M and chavis makes me wonder if fraudulent joinder (or whatever it is called now) will be at issue. Been a while since I looked, but any up-to-speed esquires on here know whether current state of law 1) will make it that there will be not be an issue; 2) will make it afact-intensive issue, or 3) will make it an issue that LSU wins?

quote:

---

C'mon tigger fans, let the butt hurt flow through you.

Why is Red Stick on here discussing this????

I thought you didn't care about Chavis?? Thought he was washed up and at the end of his career????

Sounds like you're a little more asshurt than you made out a couple months ago????

Your end is near tigger fan. Suck it. Suck it REALLLLLL GOOD.....mmmmm just like that Red Stick. Suck a fatty *****.

---

Wow. Just wow.

Were you one of those cheer dudes dressed in whites on the sidelines?



p.s. I don't care about losing Chavis. LSU has come out better. Steele and Orgeron will run circles around Chavis in getting the studs. And without the studs, Chavis will be exposed.

What does bother me is TAMU tampering with Chavis on Music City Bowl game day.

That was low.

quote:

---

What does bother me is TAMU tampering with Chavis on Music City Bowl game day.

That was low.

---

IDK what you are talking about. Any details or a link??? They talked, but who called whom?

quote:

---

quote:

---

C'mon tigger fans, let the butt hurt flow through you.

Why is Red Stick on here discussing this????

I thought you didn't care about Chavis?? Thought he was washed up and at the end of his career????

Sounds like you're a little more asshurt than you made out a couple months ago????

Your end is near tigger fan. Suck it. Suck it REALLLLLL GOOD.....mmmmm just like that Red Stick. Suck a fatty *****.

---

Wow. Just wow.

Were you one of those cheer dudes dressed in whites on the sidelines?



p.s. I don't care about losing Chavis. LSU has come out better. Steele and Orgeron will run circles around Chavis in getting the studs. And without the studs, Chavis will be exposed.

What does bother me is TAMU tampering with Chavis on Music City Bowl game day.

That was low.

---

You sound really stupid. Convincing yourself LSU upgraded at DC is one of the funniest and most classic "over the top irrational super fan" things ever. Nobody anywhere believes that dude.

You need to work on your arguments and the logic supporting them. You're trying to argue that without studs, Chavis will not be good. But he was good at LSU so he must have had studs by your own logic. Who got them? At A&M he has studs and if he or them at LSU which your own logic dictates, it stands to reason he'll continue to be able to do so at A&M. So he ge won't be without the studs that you claim he has to have to be good, which he was, and thus must have gotten.

Being able to put that together while you can't is probably why people pay me hundreds of dollars an hour while you.....umm.....

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is called being given an immediate release after you give notice. Happens when you are privy to sensitive information (such as recruiting scoop) so your employer cuts you loose early. Anybody think Les Miles wanted Chavis around his recruits?

Had it happen to me and I got to start a new job early and draw 2 paychecks for a while. If Chavis worded his resignation letter correctly he is golden.

The LSU black eye just keeps getting bigger as this drags on.

---

Except LSU never gave him a release. He left first.

---

So you are saying that when they interviewed all of those DC candidates, and hired Steele on January 13th, LSU still considered Chavis their employee as DC??? Isn't there a rule regarding the allowable number of coaches??? And did Steele do any recruiting for LSU before NSD??

---

No, I'm saying LSU informed Chavis he owed $400,000 on Jan 2. Two days before he supposedly gave notice. Read this. Has points made for both sides:

quote:

---

Coughlin's Law: Things always end badly, or else they wouldn't end.It's safe to say that the Chavis-LSU divorce is officially ugly, now that Chavis has filed suit against LSU for breach of contract. Chavis went to the 272nd District Court in Brazos County, Texas to file. Now, I can't imagine why he would do a thing like that?Oh, because Texas A&M is located in Brazos County. When litigation seems inevitable, it's always best to be the side that picks its forum by filing first. I think it's pretty clear who won the race to courthouse.Essentially, Chavis' argument is that the term of his contract with LSU ended on December 31, 2015 and per the terms of the contract, he would not incur a penalty for terminated the contract in the last 11 months of the term. So, that meant the first day he could terminate the contract without cause and walk away free of any liability was January 31, 2015.Of course, Chavis didn't terminate his contract then, he terminated his contract right after the bowl game. Or did he?According to his petition, Chavis turned in his 30-day notice terminate his employment on January 5th, which would make his last day February 5th. That would, according to his argument, mean that Chavis did not terminate his contract until within the last 11 months of the deal.What doesn't make sense is that his petition also claims that Joe Alleva demanded that Chavis pay the university $400,000 in liquidated damages on January 2nd. For those of you scoring at home, that would be two days BEFORE Chavis claims he gave proper 30-day notice of his termination.Now, why would Alleva spontaneously ask Chavis for $400,000 in liquidated damages for breach of contract if Chavis hadn't already, you know, breached the contract? The petition is silent on this issue, but you can bet your bottom's dollar LSU will bring it up in their counterclaim. Especially when they start throwing around terms like "baseless" and "frivolous complaint".I do give Chavis points for a creative legal argument. He's claiming that even though he said "I quit" on January 4, those words weren't effective until February 4. Even better, he didn't provide notice that he was quitting until somehow LSU already knew he was quitting. He's trying to set up an argument that it was LSU that breached first, firing him before he had the chance to quit. And when he provided 30-day notice of his termination, LSU waived those 30-days solely to stay within the period in which Chavis would incur a penalty. That would also make LSU the breaching party. So he's got two bullets in his legal gun.This is par for the course. When one party sues for breach of contract, it's almost guaranteed the other party will sue him right back for breach. Both sides are arguing that the other one is the bad guy, and the breaching party. Because whether LSU gets a check from Chavis really depends on that question: who breached first?So what does LSU do now? Well, they sue right back and try and get the case moved back to the friendly confines of Baton Rouge. The contract almost certainly has a choice of venue clause which states any litigation needs to be in Baton Rouge courts. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense. This contract was formed in Baton Rouge, performed in Baton Rouge, and then terminated in Baton Rouge. The lawsuit should be there, too. I'm not sure what their jurisdictional hook is for Brazos County, other than the fact Chavis is there now.Really, this just drags Texas A&M to the dispute, and makes it all the more likely LSU will accuse A&M of tortious interference with an existing contract. Now, there's your jurisdictional hook to Brazos County, punk. Honestly, this likely never sees the inside of a courtroom. This is all just a move by Chavis to lower the buyout, as he doesn't have $400,000 lying around. LSU is playing hardball with Chavis, and now he's playing hardball right back. The question is, how far is he willing to go with this? Because there's really no chance LSU just rolls over and takes it.

---

http://www.andtheval...chavis-sues-lsu

---

No wonder you're so misinformed. You're getting your information from a source that doesn't know what they're talking about. And yes, I'm a lawyer.

By next November everyone will know the truth.

Orgeron, while a good recruiter, was a poor DL position Coach in his last try at it. I don't think LSU will open the can of worms about when Chavis started recruiting for A&M because they have a similar situation with Orgeron who was on recruiting trips before he was announced.

There was a reason for the WVU billboards with oranges and "70 is more than a speed limit" after Steele's last game as a DC.

Chavis' D carried the LSU team and LSU will regret screwing him around with his contract terms.

Never underestimate the potential for stupidity to overrule prudence. Alleva is a loose canon, and the PTB at LSU have apparently given him free rein.

Chavis filed the most restrained attempt to resolve this, in a declaratory judgment action. And Alleva responded with claims for damages exceeding the liquidate damages, requesting damages for, among other things, loss of ticket sales and potential recruits. The latter being a not-so-subtle hint.

If this gets removed to federal court as is highly likely, most of that garbage will be struck for failure to state a claim. But, it was never included for that purpose in the first place.

So stupid and counter-productive.

I love the rekindling of an old rivalry. The corndogs are a better rival than the queers in Austin. They're more passionate and much less homo (humping your aunt is not homo). They're not very bright, but they're fun.

This is interesting.

quote:

---

LSU is understandably upset over this litigation. This is the second lawsuit by a former coach against LSU involving athletic director Joe Alleva in less than three years. LSU wants its $400,000, but it seems a little desperate considering its bank account.

In reality, Alleva wants to get back at Chavis just as he wanted to get back at tennis coach Tony Minnis, whom he not only fired but tried to strip of his lifetime health benefits from LSU after two decades of service. Alleva originally claimed Minnis missed that deadline by a few weeks before relenting when lawyers got involved. Alleva is now claiming Chavis missed his $400,000 deadline by a few weeks. Minnis' case was eventually dismissed but only after LSU spent thousands upon thousands in legal fees delaying it when more professional behavior by Alleva toward Minnis could have meant no lawsuit. Minnis and his attorney, by the way, have appealed.

---

quote:

---

LSU, by the way, has had language clarity issues with its coaches' contracts in the past, and it has another one regarding Chavis' deal.

---

quote:

---

Yet, Alleva is playing hardball for this $400,000 that really didn't need to be in the contract in the first place. Obviously, Alleva didn't think Chavis was good enough for what Chavis wanted anyway. So now, Chavis is firing back.

Funny, if it was up to Miles, Chavis would have gotten the $1.7 million he wanted instead of the $1.3 Alleva insisted upon. Chavis also had a problem with Alleva because Alleva did not give him a three-year deal after the 2013 season.

So, Tiger fans, if Steele's defense is not as good as that of Chavis next season, do not blame Miles. Blame Alleva. Chavis got angry and overreacted when he didn't get exactly what he wanted, but Alleva seemed to forget that Chavis has clearly been the best assistant at LSU since he got here in 2009. LSU's defenses not its offenses were among the best in the SEC and in the nation for the most part since Chavis' arrival. We shall see if that remains.

---

quote:

---

Now, Chavis did not work actually work at LSU through Feb. 4. His last active day was spent "coaching" the Tigers' defense in the Music City Bowl on Dec. 30 in Nashville. (Though some would debate that date since he and his defense looked like they were hardly working as Notre Dame piled up 449 yards in a 31-28 win.) Nevertheless, Chavis could have used accrued vacation time and other leave to get him to Feb. 4.

People postdate their last day of work legally very often in other fields of work. "Here's my three week notice, but you owe me two weeks of vacation. This is not a busy time anyway, so I'm out of here in a week." Therefore, one can be at an old job for those last two weeks on paper, but actually be house hunting in the new town over that span

---

LINK

I'm not worried, but I have seen one of those Cajun lawyers plea his client's sodomy charge down to "following to close."

quote:

---

C'mon tigger fans, let the butt hurt flow through you.

Why is Red Stick on here discussing this????

I thought you didn't care about Chavis?? Thought he was washed up and at the end of his career????

Sounds like you're a little more asshurt than you made out a couple months ago????

Your end is near tigger fan. Suck it. Suck it REALLLLLL GOOD.....mmmmm just like that Red Stick. Suck a fatty *****.

---

LOL. please.

Jealousy and envy are unbecoming, but they are comical.

Can Female Cheerleaders be far behind???

You guys bought a DC. Good. You needed one desperately enough to overpay. LSU "lost" one who had gone stale wasn't getting the job done recruiting his position. LSU went and bought a DC AND a DL coach who are killing it on the recruiting front.

Both better off. Shouldn't we just leave it at that?

I am pretty sure the NCAA doesn't care who is employed when and by whom or under contract. They just care that each school only has a certain number of designated guys who are allowed to recruit.

Many head coaches don't even sign their contracts until months and months later, there would be a huge cluster with recruiting if t's and i's had to be crossed and dotted by all these state entities before a coach was allowed to meet a recruit.

There wasn't a choice of venue clause in Chavis' LSU contract which mandated East Baton Rouge as the venue for suit. (According to the link in Gabe's post stickied at the top.)

That's amazing to me, but reading about other recent issues with LSU's contracts, puts it in a clearer context. There is some degree of disarray in Baton Rouge.

I guarantee you that Alleva is not calling the shots on this. This is coming from above.

Lucky that Jindal is the absent governor of Louisiana and is killing LSU. If Huey P. Long was in power, Chavis would be arrested as soon as the plane landed in Baton Rouge..lol

quote:

---

I love the rekindling of an old rivalry. The corndogs are a better rival than the queers in Austin. They're more passionate and much less homo (humping your aunt is not homo). They're not very bright, but they're fun.

---

I agree and it's fun to watch them getting scared. They know the days of us owning them are here. Sorry kittens, there's a new sheriff in town. Gig 'em

I do so enjoy the comical aspect of this site.

http://www.nola.com/...nator_john.html

http://www.nola.com/..._medium=twitter



Recruiting violation anyone?

http://tamu.247sport...artin--34933741

Did they ever actually pay us all of what was owed for breaking the contract back in the 90s?

quote:

---

I do so enjoy the comical aspect of this site.

http://www.nola.com/...nator_john.html

http://www.nola.com/..._medium=twitter



Recruiting violation anyone?

http://tamu.247sport...artin--34933741

---

I guess this needs to be said again. I am pretty sure the NCAA doesn't care who is employed when and by whom or under contract. They just care that each school only has a certain number of designated guys who are allowed to recruit.

Many head coaches don't even sign their contracts until months and months later, there would be a huge cluster with recruiting if t's and i's had to be crossed and dotted by all these state entities before a coach was able to meet a recruit.

The only thing that would stop him from being added as one of A&Ms full time recruiting staff would be employment at LSU but LSU had already either fired or dismissed him, or considered him already gone by officially asking him to pay the buyout well before January 15.

The NCAA does some asinine things but I doubt they will wade into whether a coach must be 100% signed and under contract and approved by the university boards and all that garbage before being allowed to recruit.

The rest is a contract dispute, there won't be recruiting violations.

We could be in some trouble here, it definitely looks like sumlin and Chavis screwed the pooch on this one. Let's hope they just cut a check and it goes away quietly.

I'd be pissed too if Kevin Steele was at my program. They mad.

quote:

---

Never underestimate the potential for stupidity to overrule prudence. Alleva is a loose canon, and the PTB at LSU have apparently given him free rein.

Chavis filed the most restrained attempt to resolve this, in a declaratory judgment action. And Alleva responded with claims for damages exceeding the liquidate damages, requesting damages for, among other things, loss of ticket sales and potential recruits. The latter being a not-so-subtle hint.

If this gets removed to federal court as is highly likely, most of that garbage will be struck for failure to state a claim. But, it was never included for that purpose in the first place.

So stupid and counter-productive.

---

You think A&M if fraudulently joined? Otherwise why would the federal court not just remand it?

quote:

---

We could be in some trouble here, it definitely looks like sumlin and Chavis screwed the pooch on this one. Let's hope they just cut a check and it goes away quietly.

---

And so the reality sets in.

You guys better hope your SEC Big Brother LSU is feeling benevolent or you might get embarrassed big time.

I guess you could run to Slive in Birmingham.

Maybe jump in his lap and look up into his eyes endearingly. If that fails, maybe run in circles and pee on the carpet a bit.

Maybe he'll go to LSU and take up for you.

Lol. You could have a nice conversation with ILuvAgLand in a dark corner Red Stick. Tell him he's the greatest aggie ever and how "rational" things got when he showed up.

quote:

---

You think A&M if fraudulently joined? Otherwise why would the federal court not just remand it?

---

No, I didn't say that. At the time of that post I was under the impression that there was a choice of venue clause in the LSU contract and severance of the actions between the LSU contract and the A&M indemnification action would be the more likely result.

Alleging fraudulent joinder because there is a difference of opinion as to "necessary and indispensable parties" is brash bluster. Unprofessional if the lawyers for LSU go there. Just message board blather otherwise. A simple petition for removal to federal court doesn't require allegations of fraudulent joinder.

Same with the recruiting issues. Reporters and message board posters can make those insinuations and threats, if LSU's lawyers make those threats in writing, however, well, let's just leave it at that would be an unwise choice on their part.

My experience as a clerk for a federal judge was that fraudulent joinder was very difficult to prove. A&M is really aligned with Chavis so arguably there is no diversity so maybe it can stay in federal court.

quote:

---

My experience as a clerk for a federal judge was that fraudulent joinder was very difficult to prove. A&M is really aligned with Chavis so arguably there is no diversity so maybe it can stay in federal court.

---

You meant state court, correct??