LSU admits to altering Chavis contract.

#4
#4
If the AD is not fired over this and the whole Les Miles firing thing, I dont know what to think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
Depends on what was altered, not sure what that means... from what I was told the President/Chancellors name was changed and terms were changed to "days" not "months" before being ratified. Supposedly this was agreed to by Chavis through another agreement. idk, getting this second hand.

From what I was told Chavis signed another contract with TAM in 2014 but they are both saying in filings that he was not hired until 2015. I'll let the process play out. I've "altered" contracts, depends on what was "altered".... I scratch stuff out or modify all the time, usually have the other party initial by the change. If someone wrote the new name of the Chancellor or changed the months to days, which really didn't change the agreement, I don't see anything wrong with it, in general.


If someone at LSU tried to "alter" the language into new terms then that would be a no no. IDK, if the change was made without the approval of Chavis then that too could be a problem if it dealt with the buyout... which a month to day conversion could do.

I think any avenue that can be taken will be as, it was apparent to everyone that Chavis was working for TAM while being employed by LSU. I'll let the process play out but Chavis was working for TAM.


LSU legal counsel.
“The ‘alteration’ issue is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. LSU and Mr. Chavis had a valid employment agreement from 2009 until he left the University at the end of 2014. There were multiple amendments to the employment agreement during that time, including the 2012 amendment that Mr. Chavis claims was altered. Importantly, the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis’ contract with LSU by another year, through the end of 2015.

The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change. Mr. Chavis’ buyout obligation would exist under either reading of the liquidated damages clause, and the alleged “alteration” provided absolutely no benefit to LSU. Just as Mr. Chavis was entitled to his generous salary and other benefits under that agreement, LSU is entitled to enforce the liquidated damages provision of the agreement.

The Court vindicated LSU’s position on its motion to compel and ordered Mr. Chavis to produce records that he has previously withheld. LSU looks forward to obtaining those records and moving this matter toward resolution.”
Click to expand...

My take is the month to day conversion might have been off but under either way Chavis violated the contract and would award LSU liquid damages. From what I can tell LSU is moving forward, duh. Of course, TAM/Chavis are spending a lot more money on this, right now I think they just trying whatever it takes to see if something sticks.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
So, what did Chavis say on Facebook, Twitter and other Social media?


Can those records be subpoenaed?

AJ says............not necessarily.
 
#9
#9
I think its safe to say that its "3rd and Chavis" for that AD.

Not sure how that applies, but its been a while since I've been able to say 3rd and Chavis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
OrangeDog said:
So, what did Chavis say on Facebook, Twitter and other Social media?


Can those records be subpoenaed?

AJ says............not necessarily.
Click to expand...

I would assume LSU already has those, I mean all the pics of Chavis with recruits were being posted in January on twitter. Which is why its strange that Chavis/TAM are claiming he wasn't employed until February. I think what is eventually going to come out is that he was assisting TAM possibly as early as November in recruiting. Chavis already knows he has lost on merits, which is why his attorney is going trying the fling mud at it... and hope some it sticks method.

It sounds like LSU is admitting that the contract was "altered" but like I said that can mean almost anything and is not necessarily "horrible" or "improper", it depends... devil is in the details. Was Chavis aware of the alterations and agreed with the alternations? Did it really alter the terms?

Where I disagree with counsel for LSU is that further discovery is some type of vindication of any "altered" contract dispute. Maybe, maybe not.

If I were to guess, Chavis' attorneys are taking him and TAM for a ride. What I think Chavis is saying is there is no "contract" as far agreed liquid damages, I'll let the process play out as I don't want to eat crow later because we only have limited access to what is really going on.

My guess what happens and this happens a lot:

- Chavis signed a preliminary contract
- Some attorney for LSU probably added language to clarify... president name, months to days, whatever
- (oh my its been altered)
- LSU president signs it
- Copy got back to Chavis
- Later another extension was signed agreeing to the same principles in the contract

Now Chavis is using that as some type of defense.... good luck, happens all the time, yes, initials are best when a written change has been made but he knew all along what they were.

If these are the facts, I fail to see the issue. It certainty doesn't invalidate a whole contract, necessarily, devil in the details.

What Chavis is trying to get out of is probably agreed liquid damages and for good reason, he most probably is going to lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
LSU-SIU said:
I would assume LSU already has those, I mean all the pics of Chavis with recruits were being posted in January on twitter. Which is why its strange that Chavis/TAM are claiming he wasn't employed until February. I think what is eventually going to come out is that he was assisting TAM possibly as early as November in recruiting. Chavis already knows he has lost on merits, which is why his attorney is going trying the fling mud at it... and hope some it sticks method.

It sounds like LSU is admitting that the contract was "altered" but like I said that can mean almost anything and is not necessarily "horrible" or "improper", it depends... devil is in the details. Was Chavis aware of the alterations and agreed with the alternations? Did it really alter the terms?

Where I disagree with counsel for LSU is that further discovery is some type of vindication of any "altered" contract dispute. Maybe, maybe not.

If I were to guess, Chavis' attorneys are taking him and TAM for a ride. What I think Chavis is saying is there is no "contract" as far agreed liquid damages, I'll let the process play out as I don't want to eat crow later because we only have limited access to what is really going on.

My guess what happens and this happens a lot:

- Chavis signed a preliminary contract
- Some attorney for LSU probably added language to clarify... president name, months to days, whatever
- (oh my its been altered)
- LSU president signs it
- Copy got back to Chavis
- Later another extension was signed agreeing to the same principles in the contract

Now Chavis is using that as some type of defense.... good luck, happens all the time, yes, initials are best when a written change has been made but he knew all along what they were.

If these are the facts, I fail to see the issue. It certainty doesn't invalidate a whole contract, necessarily, devil in the details.

What Chavis is trying to get out of is probably agreed liquid damages and for good reason, he most probably is going to lose.
Click to expand...

By the Music City Bowl last year, Chavis had already checked out.

Sign me up as a witness
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
Chavis was recruiting the heck out of Justin Martin for A&M in January. There is no doubt about that.

Edit: And just noticed that on the timeline of Justin Martin's 247 page, there is a note: January 23, 2015 - John Chavis and Terry Joseph of Texas A&M visit Justin Martin.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
Jax_Vol said:
By the Music City Bowl last year, Chavis had already checked out.

Sign me up as a witness
Click to expand...

Pretty much, the players were not happy that week for sure.

I'll let the process work its way out but I would say the article appears to be somewhat misleading or possible click bait, I see yahoo running with the same headline. Of course, this was the intent of Chavis's attorney.

My take (speculation), Chavis has basically lost, so the hope is to get the agreed liquid damages provision thrown out or voided. Proving damages can be much harder to than actually winning on the merits.

The LSU "altered the contract" could be bad or it might be immaterial, it depends, my understanding second-hand corresponds with the general PR of LSU's counsel. For the record, I really have no idea, just going off what was said and I do know how contracts can be changed after the fact i.e. written modifications, extensions, and further agreements just to name a few.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
I may very well be wrong, but Chavis looks just about as bad as LSU's buffoon AD.

Amazing what has happened and is happening at those 2 schools in recent weeks. The only thing missing is if one of them hires Dooley.
 
#16
#16
Chavis' lawyer's argument that the entire contract is void because of the alterations is totally ridiculous. Altering a contract only voids the altered provision, it doesn't void the entire thing unless the alteration is so significant that the agreement can't stand without it. Whatever the alterations might have been, I doubt that they are that significant.
 
#17
#17
bamawriter said:
Chavis' lawyer's argument that the entire contract is void because of the alterations is totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If what I was told is true, I would tend to agree, we'll see if additional facts come out.

My guess what happened, Chavis thought (without consulting with his attorney) that somehow the original contact was void, so thereby the extensions were void. Chavis then felt like he could sign a written contract with TAM.

Since Chavis has claims against LSU for unpaid vacation and bonuses, I don't think I can comment on that but he appears to also be suing for defamation. Those are not great cases to have and appear to be an attempt to muddy the water further, but maybe just let the process work.

This makes for good PR but nothing else.
Jill Craft, attorney for Chavis. “You can’t alter a contract and try to claim it’s valid, and you certainly can’t sue over it. One of the things they did admit that was altered was the buyout provision. In some sense, it’s vindication.”
Click to expand...

Clearly there was meeting of minds, clearly he was getting paid under the contract, not sure how he then claim the contract is void even after he signed extension to the altered contract... cool, give LSU back all your salary for all the years, if you were not employed.

I wonder if the contract specifies who pays attorney costs in the event of breach?

Ole well, very clear to me Chavis didn't have an attorney consulting him in late 2014. It does provide some mild entertainment though.
 
#18
#18
LSU-SIU said:
If what I was told is true, I would tend to agree, we'll see if additional facts come out.

My guess what happened, Chavis thought (without consulting with his attorney) that somehow the original contact was void, so thereby the extensions were void. Chavis then felt like he could sign a written contract with TAM.

Since Chavis has claims against LSU for unpaid vacation and bonuses, I don't think I can comment on that but he appears to also be suing for defamation. Those are not great cases to have and appear to be an attempt to muddy the water further, but maybe just let the process work.

This makes for good PR but nothing else.


Clearly there was meeting of minds, clearly he was getting paid under the contract, not sure how he then claim the contract is void even after he signed extension to the altered contract... cool, give LSU back all your salary for all the years, if you were not employed.

I wonder if the contract specifies who pays attorney costs in the event of breach?

Ole well, very clear to me Chavis didn't have an attorney consulting him in late 2014. It does provide some mild entertainment though.
Click to expand...

Pretext
 
#19
#19
My guess as to what happened is Chavis became unhappy with LSU AD and took another job. Then the AD got mad and tried to hold Chavis to some terms he didn't agree with.

Chavis is a professional and has been through this rodeo many times. Suing a former employer would stain the resume of a lesser DC. LSU's AD and department has proven through this fiasco, Saban's hire, Miles's hire, financial mismanagement, and Miles's WTF situation this year that they are completely inept. I would bet that the fault lies at LSU and not Chavis.
 
#20
#20
Don't worry everyone, LSU-SIU is here to come to the rescue for the LSU AD!

Seriously, LSU-SIU, do you work in the LSU Athletic Dept? It's almost baffling watch you spend so much time trying to spin the situation ON A RIVAL SCHOOL'S MESSAGE BOARD! It's also clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is a HUGE DEAL and you're searching for any excuse to defend it.

Chavis is pretty much the most loyal person you'll find in college football. We're not talking about Lane Kiffin, Bobby Petrino, or Jeremy Pruitt. Chavis is the rare type of coach that likes to set his roots down and stay somewhere. That the LSU AD alienated him so much speaks volumes.

This is completely indefensible. If I were a top-tier football coach, I would not even consider going to LSU until the AD was fired. Joe Alleva is LSU's version of Mike Hamilton.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
I actually agree with Chavis. Altering a contract is not good without all parties consent. Any alteration should void it if presented as factual obligation. Jmo. I'm not a lawyer but this seems pretty easy for me. I think both parties should shut up and walk away imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top