Phil Just Got Served?

#376
#376
I tend to think its something along the lines of theory #1.

I can't believe that a deal for immunity would not have been uncovered before now considering the amount of scrutiny this has been under.
 
Last edited:
#377
#377
tennisguy said:
I personally think they were just trying to embarrass Fulmer out of revenge, because they are pissed they got busted.
Click to expand...


I wondered about that, and one could make the argument that the WAY in which he was served sure seems heavy-handed. But, the suit itself and the fact that he's a witness seem like too much trouble for that purpose alone.
 
#378
#378
lawgator1 said:
I wondered about that, and one could make the argument that the WAY in which he was served sure seems heavy-handed. But, the suit itself and the fact that he's a witness seem like too much trouble for that purpose alone.
Click to expand...

Well, I could be wrong, but the reason I think they were doing it to embarrass him is they asked for a waiver by the judge so they didn't have to wait 15 days (which is apparently the law) for it to be served after it was established on Wednesday. The waiver was granted and they served it today. Now, maybe they just wanted to serve it while he was in Alabama, but I think they just wanted to embarrass him in front of 800 media personnel and the entire SEC.
 
#379
#379
tennisguy said:
Well, I could be wrong, but the reason I think they were doing it to embarrass him is they asked for a waiver by the judge so they didn't have to wait 15 days (which is apparently the law) for it to be served after it was established on Wednesday. The waiver was granted and they served it today. Now, maybe they just wanted to serve it while he was in Alabama, but I think they just wanted to embarrass him in front of 800 media personnel and the entire SEC.
Click to expand...


Well, the problem with that theory is that there is at least some reason to think that they HAD to serve him while he was media days, i.e. they couldn't serve him outside of Alabama. Someone else said thay thought that the law on that had changed, but I wonder if that's right.
 
#380
#380
lawgator1 said:
Well, the problem with that theory is that there is at least some reason to think that they HAD to serve him while he was media days, i.e. they couldn't serve him outside of Alabama. Someone else said thay thought that the law on that had changed, but I wonder if that's right.
Click to expand...

I wondered about that too. Maybe they couldn't serve him outside of the jurisdiction. I really don't know. There had to be a reason the judge granted the waiver, unless he is a bammer fan and hates Fulmer too. :)
 
#381
#381
lawgator1 said:
Well, the problem with that theory is that there is at least some reason to think that they HAD to serve him while he was media days, i.e. they couldn't serve him outside of Alabama. Someone else said thay thought that the law on that had changed, but I wonder if that's right.
Click to expand...

But they could have quietly served him without notifying the media and distributing copies of the subpoena to them.
 
#383
#383
If law is right (and I doubt I'll ever type those words again), then there's more to come out of this than originally known...

Law, if I read your post correctly, are you saying this could possibly stem from the fact that Fulmer basically made a deal with the NCAA and they made a deal to with Fulmer to get the goods on Bama? If so, that implies that had something on Fulmer and co. and used it to get to Bama. This has the potential to get even nastier.
 
Last edited:
#384
#384
lawgator1 said:
Well, the problem with that theory is that there is at least some reason to think that they HAD to serve him while he was media days, i.e. they couldn't serve him outside of Alabama. Someone else said thay thought that the law on that had changed, but I wonder if that's right.
Click to expand...

they could not serve him outside of the state. thats why he did not go 4 years ago (to media day).
 
#385
#385
vol_freak said:
But they could have quietly served him without notifying the media and distributing copies of the subpoena to them.
Click to expand...
I agree with your assesment %100. The way it was handled was intended to embarass Coach Fulmer in a sensationalistic manner when the issue itself wasn't involving him as a primary subject. To me it's just a pathetic grand standing effort by Bammer detergent and toilet paper on a stick waving morons.
 
#386
#386
hmanvolfan said:
I agree with your assesment %100. The way it was handled was intended to embarass Coach Fulmer in a sensationalistic manner when the issue itself wasn't involving him as a primary subject. To me it's just a pathetic grand standing effort by Bammer detergent and toilet paper on a stick waving morons.
Click to expand...

They simply want media attention for the case. In their mind, the more coverage the better it is for them.
 
#388
#388
volsforever27 said:
If law is right (and I doubt I'll ever type those words again), then there's more to come out of this than originally known...

Law, if I read your post correctly, are you saying this could possibly stem from the fact that Fulmer basically made a deal with the NCAA and they made a deal to with Fulmer to get the goods on Bama? If so, that implies that had something on Fulmer and co. and used it to get to Bama. This has the potential to get even nastier.
Click to expand...

Since LG did not know the circumstances until this thread, my guess is that what he is saying is merely conjecture.
 
#389
#389
VolDad said:
Since LG did not know the circumstances until this thread, my guess is that what he is saying is merely conjecture.
Click to expand...

Oh, I realize it's conjecture, I'm simply playing the what if game. If for some reason it is true, look out.
 
#390
#390
Late night at the office gator or do you just really like us. LG keeps his friends close and his enemy's closer. Quite literally i might add.
 
#391
#391
On a side note, I have been gone all evening, so I'm not sure. How much national attention is this getting? I don't even see it mentioned on the ESPN.com.
 
#392
#392
volsforever27 said:
If law is right (and I doubt I'll ever type those words again), then there's more to come out of this than originally known...

Law, if I read your post correctly, are you saying this could possibly stem from the possibility that Fulmer basicallly made a deal with the NCAA and they made a deal to with Fulmer to get the goods on Bama? If so, that implies that had something on Fulmer and co. and used it to get to Bama. This has the potential to get even nastier.
Click to expand...


Well, that's the doomsday scenario. I don't have any particular reason to think that's true, other than the speculation of others who have posted in this thread.

The original situation is one that I don't know much about. Seemed like other folks thought that Fulmer might have been the "rat" on the 'bama program and that he got something in return. Now, it may well be that he did it for competitive reasons. Its just that some on here seem to think he was traded immunity of some sort.

I repeat that I dunno.'

As I say, the other scenario that comes to mind is that this plaintiff wants to show that Fulmer did not tell the NCAA what the NCAA claims he told them. I can't say that the NCAA does it this way, but having worked on cases generally involving enforcement actions of one kind or another there would probably be a huge paper trail regarding statements made by sources.

So, for example, the NCAA might be defending the lawsuit against it by saying, hey, our notes show that CPF told us the following..... Plaintiff might want to depose CPF to see if he really did say those things.

It does mean that he would be exposed as the source of something. But it might be minor, you just don't know. Some people (hat, in particular) would be put off by that, not that he needs another reason to dislike Fulmer.

Honestly, even for me as a rival fan, I wouldn't be much impressed by new allegations of cheating that are going back 5, 6, 7 or more years. It would suck to weather that storm, and I suppose it could have some effects on recruiting, but I just think people wouldn't be all that swept up in it.

The one exception would be that story that Fulmer arranged a $50k credit line for a player. Someone posted that earlier. Now, if that happened, he'd have some 'splainin to do. My guess is that the university wouldn't wait for the fallout on something like that and the Fulmer era would be over. But gosh how do you keep something like that from being other than rumor for 6 years? Can't see it as likely. Its a far fetched scenario, in my eyes.

Truth is -- and I am no fan of Fulmer -- I'd say odds are that today's story on service of process is about 5 x worse than what actually comes of it.
 
#393
#393
I would agree with that. I think it's purely a show the lawyer(s) wanted to put on for some media coverage. I don't think much will come from it, but in situations like these it's the parts of the story we don't know about that worry me. We can guess the motivation for it, but until we get proof, it's nothing more than a guess.
 
#394
#394
lawgator1 said:
Well, that's the doomsday scenario. I don't have any particular reason to think that's true, other than the speculation of others who have posted in this thread.

The original situation is one that I don't know much about. Seemed like other folks thought that Fulmer might have been the "rat" on the 'bama program and that he got something in return. Now, it may well be that he did it for competitive reasons. Its just that some on here seem to think he was traded immunity of some sort.

I repeat that I dunno.'

As I say, the other scenario that comes to mind is that this plaintiff wants to show that Fulmer did not tell the NCAA what the NCAA claims he told them. I can't say that the NCAA does it this way, but having worked on cases generally involving enforcement actions of one kind or another there would probably be a huge paper trail regarding statements made by sources.

So, for example, the NCAA might be defending the lawsuit against it by saying, hey, our notes show that CPF told us the following..... Plaintiff might want to depose CPF to see if he really did say those things.

It does mean that he would be exposed as the source of something. But it might be minor, you just don't know. Some people (hat, in particular) would be put off by that, not that he needs another reason to dislike Fulmer.

Honestly, even for me as a rival fan, I wouldn't be much impressed by new allegations of cheating that are going back 5, 6, 7 or more years. It would suck to weather that storm, and I suppose it could have some effects on recruiting, but I just think people wouldn't be all that swept up in it.

The one exception would be that story that Fulmer arranged a $50k credit line for a player. Someone posted that earlier. Now, if that happened, he'd have some 'splainin to do. My guess is that the university wouldn't wait for the fallout on something like that and the Fulmer era would be over. But gosh how do you keep something like that from being other than rumor for 6 years? Can't see it as likely. Its a far fetched scenario, in my eyes.

Truth is -- and I am no fan of Fulmer -- I'd say odds are that today's story on service of process is about 5 x worse than what actually comes of it.
Click to expand...
Man, that sure was a long post to state you don't know what it's all about. If you would just read some of the links and listen to the news you would know it's about some dude wanting to subpoena CPF for his lawsuit against the NCAA in the middle of football season. If you believe what you said in the bold type section, then maybe you would've just ignored this dumbass thread.
 
#395
#395
volsforever27 said:
I would agree with that. I think it's purely a show the lawyer(s) wanted to put on for some media coverage. I don't think much will come from it, but in situations like these it's the parts of the story we don't know about that worry me. We can guess the motivation for it, but until we get proof, it's nothing more than a guess.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is they just hate fulmer. They'll do anything to embarrass,belittle or just attack his integrity. I remember seeing some spoof of phil protraying the devil. Thats how bad they hate him.
 
#396
#396
Cartervol said:
The fact of the matter is they just hate fulmer. They'll do anything to embarrass,belittle or just attack his integrity. I remember seeing some spoof of phil protraying the devil. Thats how bad they hate him.
Click to expand...

I know they hate him, but like I told hman I think part of it is strictly for publicity purposes.
 
#397
#397
volsforever27 said:
I know they hate him, but like I told hman I think part of it is strictly for publicity purposes.
Click to expand...
Sure why not. In a way its good it'll get the rivalry fired back up as if it needed it. I bet phil wishes media days were somewhere else besides birmingham.
 
#399
#399
There's no question that this subpoena was a pander to sensationalism. Whether there's anything in the complaint that might implicate Fulmer in an unpleasant light is yet to be seen.

But, I really believe that this is something orchestrated by the Alabama "conglomerate" -- hoping to achieve some type of "rally around the flag, motivational" edge.

There are definitely scenarios that could be headline news, but in this case -- just based on how Fulmer was served and the whole timing of the thing, it's not going to be a big deal in the end.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top