ChubbyHubby said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

Everyone with a brain knows he knew he was taking the job during the CWS, but no one can prove it

---

Say you're not a lawyer without saying you're not a lawyer

---

Anyone who thinks there is going to be a lawsuit is just hopelessly naive about how these coaching hires work

---

Why are you here?

---

I'm an Aggie following this story like all of you. I'm just saying get over the lawsuit idea, that's not going to happen. When has a school ever sued another school for stealing their coach?

---

Who said anything about suing the school?

At this point you want to feed the craven liar weasel narrative with Lossnagle but otherwise time to get on with landing a coach

well_endowed_ag said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It won't need pics but will be damning in a suit

---

Lol, I know you know absolutely nothing about the law, or how a lawsuit of any sort works.

There is not a coaching contract in this world that requires a coach to live in a certain house on a certain day.

So it would certainly not be "damning" in a court.

---

You're the one who doesn't know how the law works. Circumstantial evidence, like moving out of your house before the championship game, is absolutely admissible in court and frankly is used to make cases more often than direct evidence. You almost never have smoking gun direct evidence. 95% of cases are made with indirect circumstantial evidence exactly like that. If I'm on a jury, and somebody tells me a head coach moved out of his house days early and magically had a new contract at another school, plus contracts for all of his coaching staff, within hours after finishing the CWS, I would sure as **** know that, more likely than not, he had set it up beforehand. And that's without doing a lick of discovery. Again, proving he was orchestrating all beforehand will not be the problem. The problem will be proving damages.

---

If that goes down like you say, how is it actionable? His contract provides for him leaving with its buyout. Assuming the buyout is paid, what are you suing him for?

blacksox said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It won't need pics but will be damning in a suit

---

Lol, I know you know absolutely nothing about the law, or how a lawsuit of any sort works.

There is not a coaching contract in this world that requires a coach to live in a certain house on a certain day.

So it would certainly not be "damning" in a court.

---

You're the one who doesn't know how the law works. Circumstantial evidence, like moving out of your house before the championship game, is absolutely admissible in court and frankly is used to make cases more often than direct evidence. You almost never have smoking gun direct evidence. 95% of cases are made with indirect circumstantial evidence exactly like that. If I'm on a jury, and somebody tells me a head coach moved out of his house days early and magically had a new contract at another school, plus contracts for all of his coaching staff, within hours after finishing the CWS, I would sure as **** know that, more likely than not, he had set it up beforehand. And that's without doing a lick of discovery. Again, proving he was orchestrating all beforehand will not be the problem. The problem will be proving damages.

---

If that goes down like you say, how is it actionable? His contract provides for him leaving with its buyout. Assuming the buyout is paid, what are you suing him for?

---

Because we are angry your honor!

Not fulfilling his duty as a coach while still employed.

Not disclosing his interest in another head coaching job in a timely manner.

ChubbyHubby said:

---

Everyone with a brain knows he knew he was taking the job during the CWS, but no one can prove it

---

Of course it can be proven, plenty of people close to him already knew

you mean the rest of the staff?

blacksox said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It won't need pics but will be damning in a suit

---

Lol, I know you know absolutely nothing about the law, or how a lawsuit of any sort works.

There is not a coaching contract in this world that requires a coach to live in a certain house on a certain day.

So it would certainly not be "damning" in a court.

---

You're the one who doesn't know how the law works. Circumstantial evidence, like moving out of your house before the championship game, is absolutely admissible in court and frankly is used to make cases more often than direct evidence. You almost never have smoking gun direct evidence. 95% of cases are made with indirect circumstantial evidence exactly like that. If I'm on a jury, and somebody tells me a head coach moved out of his house days early and magically had a new contract at another school, plus contracts for all of his coaching staff, within hours after finishing the CWS, I would sure as **** know that, more likely than not, he had set it up beforehand. And that's without doing a lick of discovery. Again, proving he was orchestrating all beforehand will not be the problem. The problem will be proving damages.

---

If that goes down like you say, how is it actionable? His contract provides for him leaving with its buyout. Assuming the buyout is paid, what are you suing him for?

---

Already answered on previous pages.

He is suing him tampering with players seeing how he has already completely agreed to be the head coach of a rival team

again, any suits need to be done to have any defendants in court during May and June.

Wait so your telling me that that the coach of the A&M team, that I bought tickets at a very high price to see play Sunday and Monday, actually had a conflict of interest that potentially kept him from delivering the product I purchased (a chance to watch a game where both teams were fully invested to compete for a national championship). Seems like me and everyone else in the stadium or maybe anyone else that invested ~6 hours of their time watching on tv has reasonable cause for a class action lawsuit. Come on I saw a lot of lawyers on billboards between here and Omaha. Surely one of you guys wants to make a name for him or her self. All kinds of legal precedents are being set to uncover shady practices in college sports. Might as well go after this one.

What about the people that gambled on a level game?

TexasRebel said:

---

What about the people that gambled on a level game?

---

Add them to the list!

TexAggie1999 said:

---

Bronco6Gen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

Everyone with a brain knows he knew he was taking the job during the CWS, but no one can prove it

---

Say you're not a lawyer without saying you're not a lawyer

---

Anyone who thinks there is going to be a lawsuit is just hopelessly naive about how these coaching hires work

---

Don't be so naive. In the new world of NIL, there are untold countless damages that can come from **** like this. I could argue he just hurt the "brand" of every current Aggie player causing them to lose current and future deals. If all of this was not done on the up and up, lawsuits will happen.

---

You could argue it could hurt NIL value of players EVERY time a coach leaves a program. You can file a lawsuit for anything, but it would just be thrown out. If anyone sued over something like this, it would be pathetic. Truly sad you think a lawsuit is justified just because a coach leaving impacts NIL value.

---

What are you taking about ? Dude agreed to be the coach with 2 months left in the season and started trying to steal players for his new gig.

chmicr said:

---

I don't think he lived in snook. I used to do Uber and when he first came to college station, I took his daughter that was going to school at TCU to his house in traditions neighborhood.

---

He sold his Traditions home last November. He owns a property (horses) in Burleson county, near Snook apparently.

Quote:

---

He is suing him tampering with players seeing how he has already completely agreed to be the head coach of a rival team

---

And if it's all done through agents (which it was, and even TexAgs staff is telling you that is where they are getting a significant amount of info), you could never say that there was "tampering".

Guess what- players aren't under a contract. So you are certainly not "tampering" with them unless you aren't following the NCAA guidelines.

Everybody in baseball knows how to work the NCAA game. If a coach talks to agents, or a collective member, who is not a coach, reaches out to a player, that's all allowed.

And there is no legal standing in court, outside of the NCAA, bc the kids are not employees.

There is no such issue, whatsoever, if contact is done via agents, or even parents. And as long as the school/coach doesn't get caught paying them bribes, or Jim Harbaugh hamburgers, and stays within the NCAA guidelines of communication times, there is not a damn thing anyone in the world can do about "tampering".

Which is why you've never seen a single legal case of it. And why there is such a business for agents.

millertime40 said:

---

TexAggie1999 said:

---

Bronco6Gen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

Everyone with a brain knows he knew he was taking the job during the CWS, but no one can prove it

---

Say you're not a lawyer without saying you're not a lawyer

---

Anyone who thinks there is going to be a lawsuit is just hopelessly naive about how these coaching hires work

---

Don't be so naive. In the new world of NIL, there are untold countless damages that can come from **** like this. I could argue he just hurt the "brand" of every current Aggie player causing them to lose current and future deals. If all of this was not done on the up and up, lawsuits will happen.

---

You could argue it could hurt NIL value of players EVERY time a coach leaves a program. You can file a lawsuit for anything, but it would just be thrown out. If anyone sued over something like this, it would be pathetic. Truly sad you think a lawsuit is justified just because a coach leaving impacts NIL value.

---

What are you taking about ? Dude agreed to be the coach with 2 months left in the season and started trying to steal players for his new gig.

---

This right here is the part you can't prove. He didn't sign the contract until the day after the season ended…how are you going to prove he agreed to anything before that? And as far as trying to steal the players, I would think they did that through third parties and untraceable means…if not then go for it

TexasRebel said:

---

What about the people that gambled on a level game?

---

If Aggies want something done, Aggies are going to have to do something. The admin will do nothing but take their pay, release PR statements and hold onto their cush positions

Texags needs to prove things 4chan style

The goal shouldn't be to prove anything about him taking the job early or whatever. The goal should be to get him fired

Widen the search. Expose him. Trevor Bauer pitches in Mexico.

HarryRocket said:

---

The goal shouldn't be to prove anything about him taking the job early or whatever. The goal should be to get him fired

Widen the search. Expose him. Trevor Bauer pitches in Mexico.

---

This.

blacksox said:

---

well_endowed_ag said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

It won't need pics but will be damning in a suit

---

Lol, I know you know absolutely nothing about the law, or how a lawsuit of any sort works.

There is not a coaching contract in this world that requires a coach to live in a certain house on a certain day.

So it would certainly not be "damning" in a court.

---

You're the one who doesn't know how the law works. Circumstantial evidence, like moving out of your house before the championship game, is absolutely admissible in court and frankly is used to make cases more often than direct evidence. You almost never have smoking gun direct evidence. 95% of cases are made with indirect circumstantial evidence exactly like that. If I'm on a jury, and somebody tells me a head coach moved out of his house days early and magically had a new contract at another school, plus contracts for all of his coaching staff, within hours after finishing the CWS, I would sure as **** know that, more likely than not, he had set it up beforehand. And that's without doing a lick of discovery. Again, proving he was orchestrating all beforehand will not be the problem. The problem will be proving damages.

---

If that goes down like you say, how is it actionable? His contract provides for him leaving with its buyout. Assuming the buyout is paid, what are you suing him for?

---

Y'all are some simpletons. How do you not understand that the accusation is he breach his contract.

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

He is suing him tampering with players seeing how he has already completely agreed to be the head coach of a rival team

---

And if it's all done through agents (which it was, and even TexAgs staff is telling you that is where they are getting a significant amount of info), you could never say that there was "tampering".

Guess what- players aren't under a contract. So you are certainly not "tampering" with them unless you aren't following the NCAA guidelines.

Everybody in baseball knows how to work the NCAA game. If a coach talks to agents, or a collective member, who is not a coach, reaches out to a player, that's all allowed.

And there is no legal standing in court, outside of the NCAA, bc the kids are not employees.

There is no such issue, whatsoever, if contact is done via agents, or even parents. And as long as the school/coach doesn't get caught paying them bribes, or Jim Harbaugh hamburgers, and stays within the NCAA guidelines of communication times, there is not a damn thing anyone in the world can do about "tampering".

Which is why you've never seen a single legal case of it. And why there is such a business for agents.

---

That is for a jury to decide.

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

You know cowardly and lazy lawyers.

TAMUallen said:

---

ChubbyHubby said:

---

Everyone with a brain knows he knew he was taking the job during the CWS, but no one can prove it

---

Say you're not a lawyer without saying you're not a lawyer

---

Are you a lawyer?

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

I'm a trial lawyer (which you are probably not, if a lawyer at all).

The theories being discussed have legs.

Caesar4 said:

---

Remember Chavis?

---

We need to find SchLoss' pool boy for intel.

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

Also, please spell "judgment" correctly going forward.

You are not a serious person.

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

What would be the basis for summary judgment? Do tell.

Also, it's spelled "judgment." Classic sign of somebody who has never practiced law is that they spell "judgment" with an extra "e."

well_endowed_ag said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

What would be the basis for summary judgment? Do tell.

Also, it's spelled "judgment." Classic sign of somebody who has never practiced law is that they spell "judgment" with an extra "e."

---

Dead giveaway every time.

Corner Post said:

---

bizag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That is for a jury to decide.

---

It's not, because no lawyer that could win a case would take it.

And one were stupid enough to, it would never get past summary judgement.

---

I'm a trial lawyer (which you are probably not, if a lawyer at all).

The theories being discussed have legs.

---

Wow, such a lack of responses

I will ask for hypothetical advice on open records but I'm not in the right mind currently