Official Jon Gruden Thread XLIV

[Dudleys87]

If Haslem owns the Browns, why couldn't he hire CGS there? What am I missing?

Someone said no and it didn't happen can't recall his name right now

 

[sona]

Guys, I appreciate all the information shared but this going down a rabbit hole that makes absolutely zero sense. One conspiracy theory too far for me.

Maybe boosters had an understanding with Gruden camp. I believe AV had reason to be optimistic. But no way the actual university signed anything with Gruden and then walked away from that legal document. Too many smart people wouldn’t let that happen just from a legal standpoint...and risk that info goes my public.

Don’t take it the wrong way but a bridge too far for me.

Good night all. FWIW I do still believe all candidates are back in play. Boosters are fired up so I’ll rebain optimistic.

I agree...if documents were signed with Gruden, even an MOU, that information would be coming out. Maybe it is coming though, and tonight was the beginning of it. If true, these fools just sank the good ship UT.

 

[TenUhSee]

I explained in detail a few posts back. Click on my name and look for my long post where I give an example about me hiring knuck.

i read your post, thanks.

im assuming that knuck is Gruden in your example, right ?

it still makes no sense that the original agreement would be automatically invalidated by a second document.

thats what i was hoping you could explain

 

[volgr]

If Gruden had signed an MOU, someone would be privy to that info and leak it. It would destroy the upper echelons of UT in the process, but it would be coming to light. I'll believe this when I see it.

I agree, there is nothing with Gruden and Currie's name on it. If so, boosters should be smart enough to get that in front of a reporter yesterday.

 

[sona]

i read your post, thanks.

im assuming that knuck is Gruden in your example, right ?

it still makes no sense that the original agreement would be automatically invalidated by a second document.

thats what i was hoping you could explain

If Gruden had an MOU, and we attempted to hire someone else, we just invalidated it and he could sue UT to high heaven. I seriously doubt he is going to come to UT with hat in hand and say "we're still good right" after some BS like that going down. He could sue the pants off of UT, if this was true.

 

[TenUhSee]

If Gruden had an MOU, and we attempted to hire someone else, we just invalidated it and he could sue UT to high heaven. I seriously doubt he is going to come to UT with hat in hand and say "we're still good right" after some BS like that going down. He could sue the pants off of UT, if this was true.

thanks

 

[Leximax]

If MOU was properly executed then UT will have to pay Schiano something.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or cause in-fighting, but that isn't necessarily true. I'm also going to try to keep this as short as I can even though brevity is not one of my strong-suits. First, we don't even know what state law applies in this situation. If the MOU had no choice of law provision, many factors would affect which state's law governs the situation. The rest of my post assumes Tennessee law applies. The issue of proper execution is tenable at best. People are banging the drum about Davenport's failure to sign the MOU, but it is not as relevant as one might think for a few reasons. 1) verbal contracts are enforceable in Tennessee subject to the provisions of the statute of frauds (which would likely come into play here because of the 1 year performance provision of the SOF but even an unsigned MOU may qualify as a "record" fulfilling the requirements of the SOF. 2) Currie likely possessed the apparent authority to bind the university. If Schiano believed Currie had the authority to bind the school and that belief was reasonable, it will be an uphill battle for the school to claim that the contract is invalid bc Bev did not sign it. However, even if the MOU is deemed binding, whether Schiano is owed money depends largely on the terms of the MOU itself (which to my knowledge no one has seen) and whether he suffered any damages as a result of UT's alleged breach. At present, Schiano is still employed at OSU, and has minimal, if any, actual damages. Assuming the MOU is silent on the issue of damages/remedies, the likelihood of Schiano being awarded punitive or treble damages is fairly slim as Tennessee courts are reluctant to award punitive damages in the absence of actual damages. Sorry for the boring legal rant but there is very rarely a definitive answer in the law; it always "depends."

 

[volundeer]

I explained in detail a few posts back. Click on my name and look for my long post where I give an example about me hiring knuck.

Thanks for the info Exile (and thanks to Knuck too). It’s hard to accept the fact that things are so corrupt at my Alma mater but apparently power has, in fact, corrupted horribly. Real change can happen with enough access to information for the fans and with the power of social media as we have seen. Keeping at it seems to be the way to go. Keep demanding better leadership and more transparency and perhaps the situation will improve. Sadly this is sure one beat down fan base.

 

[wildorange]

If the Boosters had a MOU with Gruden then they need to come out with it. The court of public opinion would obliterate Currie, Haslam and any and all that tried the end around with Schiano. No way if they truly had a signed MOU with Gruden that they don't bring that to light. It would only help validate that Currie was given the green light from higher up to end around. If we don't hear the boosters bringing this up soon then it don't make any sense.

 

[UTVolinExile]

i read your post, thanks.

im assuming that knuck is Gruden in your example, right ?

it still makes no sense that the original agreement would be automatically invalidated by a second document.

thats what i was hoping you could explain

It's a legal concept called "repudiation," where one party takes action that indicates his intent not to honor the provisions of the contract. When a contract is successfully repudiated, it cannot be enforced against the other party, but that other party could possibly seek relief for the repudiation.

Again, sorry to revisit law school with everyone.

 

[sona]

Just imagine if this was true and Gruden sued us!

Bought a useless house in Knoxville. x3
Walked from an ESPN contract worth millions. x3
Endorsements dropped, worth ???...but yeah that is x3 as well.
Value of the contract? x3
That's just getting started, and just money...the destruction done to UT would be of Biblical proportions.

As much as I would like to think we were close to landing him, I REALLY hope nothing was ever signed. If so we have a literal Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

 

[TenUhSee]

It's a legal concept called "repudiation," where one party takes action that indicates his intent not to honor the provisions of the contract. When a contract is successfully repudiated, it cannot be enforced against the other party, but that other party could possibly seek relief for the repudiation.

Again, sorry to revisit law school with everyone.

no need for an apology.

much thanks for your patience and time with all this

 

[Dudleys87]

And if Davenport hates UT as much as we all think she does why would she agree to take on a full buyout and 10M?

Just asking

 

[UTVolinExile]

Guys, what I hope the upshot of this whole conversation is, Currie (at Haslam's direction) created an absolute God-awful pit of misery here, and not in the fun "dilly dilly" sense. The cancers MUST be cut out and eradicated if our program is going to survive. Currie first, then Haslam. The damage they have done to the program is just sickening, and it has to stop.

Keep up with the emails and tweets tomorrow.

 

[BIGORANGEBUBBA]

Somebody tell Beaver to get Kiffin for us

 

[wildorange]

Just imagine if this was true and Gruden sued us!

Bought a useless house in Knoxville. x3
Walked from an ESPN contract worth millions. x3
Endorsements dropped, worth ???...but yeah that is x3 as well.
Value of the contract? x3
That's just getting started, and just money...the destruction done to UT would be of Biblical proportions.

As much as I would like to think we were close to landing him, I REALLY hope nothing was ever signed. If so we have a literal Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

If there wasn't a university official signing the MOU the University could not be liable for Gruden I would think. I find it hard to believe at this point he did have one anyway. If we did the boosters should be exposing it as proof that Currie and crew tried to sabotage this hire.

 

[Lovesomebigorange]

Just imagine if this was true and Gruden sued us!

Bought a useless house in Knoxville. x3
Walked from an ESPN contract worth millions. x3
Endorsements dropped, worth ???...but yeah that is x3 as well.
Value of the contract? x3
That's just getting started, and just money...the destruction done to UT would be of Biblical proportions.

As much as I would like to think we were close to landing him, I REALLY hope nothing was ever signed. If so we have a literal Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

This is unbelievable to even read! Good Lord wouldn't the boosters who were behind this deal with Gruden be putting that out yesterday to all media? Currie and Haslam would be buried! Even beaver didn't allude to anything like that yesterday just that Currie and Haslam must be removed.

 

[sona]

Apparently they are fast tracking another terrible hire...wonder who it might be?

[twitter]https://twitter.com/VolsScotchGolf/status/935389194859319296[/twitter]

 

[Squints]

 

[volsfan199]

If the Boosters had a MOU with Gruden then they need to come out with it. The court of public opinion would obliterate Currie, Haslam and any and all that tried the end around with Schiano. No way if they truly had a signed MOU with Gruden that they don't bring that to light. It would only help validate that Currie was given the green light from higher up to end around. If we don't hear the boosters bringing this up soon then it don't make any sense.

If this is what happened (boosters had an mou with gruden), isn't that exactly what happened in 2012?
Seems like gruden would we very wary to even go about it that way again.

 

[sona]

If there wasn't a university official signing the MOU the University could not be liable for Gruden I would think. I find it hard to believe at this point he did have one anyway. If we did the boosters should be exposing it as proof that Currie and crew tried to sabotage this hire.

I sincerely hope he had nothing in hand. If so, big time boosters get to choose between leaking it for vengeance on the ones responsible for torpedoing the deal or sitting on it and hoping Gruden doesn't sue us into oblivion of his own accord.

Lol...so ridiculous but if this mess is true, Gruden would be the one deciding whether those stadium upgrades happened or not.

 

[undertakervol]

Just imagine if this was true and Gruden sued us!

Bought a useless house in Knoxville. x3
Walked from an ESPN contract worth millions. x3
Endorsements dropped, worth ???...but yeah that is x3 as well.
Value of the contract? x3
That's just getting started, and just money...the destruction done to UT would be of Biblical proportions.

As much as I would like to think we were close to landing him, I REALLY hope nothing was ever signed. If so we have a literal Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

If they did have Gruden signed, and if they actually pulled a screwjob, I'm done until the ship is righted. Respect is earned to a degree, and they will have to earn mine back.

 

[CoaxialOrange]

Apparently they are fast tracking another terrible hire...wonder who it might be?

[twitter]https://twitter.com/VolsScotchGolf/status/935389194859319296[/twitter]

Damn

 

[wildorange]

The fans need to keep at it, that is the best way this day in time to get action. The fans keep voicing their displeasure is starting to make the media move in their favor. Sometimes it takes a movement and social media these day helps it. The smoke of our disfunction cannot be put back in the box, it's time to fan the BIG ORANGE flames, it's time to go to battle for the good of the University and all it stands for. These types won't relent as long as they think people will buy their BS. Haslam just wants to take a chance on somebody cheap that doesn't come with any leverage. They hide behind a AD and administration puppets that try to sell the fans BS about academics when it really is all about power and control of all things. As long as the people pour in the big house and the money keeps flowing they are happy. Then when the wheels fall off in 3-5 years they rinse and repeat the process. It's time for the CRAP to stop and the only way is to stop it at the top.

 

[JawjaVol]

I'm not trying to be a jerk or cause in-fighting, but that isn't necessarily true. I'm also going to try to keep this as short as I can even though brevity is not one of my strong-suits. First, we don't even know what state law applies in this situation. If the MOU had no choice of law provision, many factors would affect which state's law governs the situation. The rest of my post assumes Tennessee law applies. The issue of proper execution is tenable at best. People are banging the drum about Davenport's failure to sign the MOU, but it is not as relevant as one might think for a few reasons. 1) verbal contracts are enforceable in Tennessee subject to the provisions of the statute of frauds (which would likely come into play here because of the 1 year performance provision of the SOF but even an unsigned MOU may qualify as a "record" fulfilling the requirements of the SOF. 2) Currie likely possessed the apparent authority to bind the university. If Schiano believed Currie had the authority to bind the school and that belief was reasonable, it will be an uphill battle for the school to claim that the contract is invalid bc Bev did not sign it. However, even if the MOU is deemed binding, whether Schiano is owed money depends largely on the terms of the MOU itself (which to my knowledge no one has seen) and whether he suffered any damages as a result of UT's alleged breach. At present, Schiano is still employed at OSU, and has minimal, if any, actual damages. Assuming the MOU is silent on the issue of damages/remedies, the likelihood of Schiano being awarded punitive or treble damages is fairly slim as Tennessee courts are reluctant to award punitive damages in the absence of actual damages. Sorry for the boring legal rant but there is very rarely a definitive answer in the law; it always "depends."

I’ve been thinking along these lines regarding any alleged MOU or contract with Gruden. When you get into discussions of “apparent authority,” Gruden could have a case for damages even if he never actually had formal contact with UT or there is no document with Currie’s signature on it.

For all of the non-lawyers, courts can find damages base on formal contracts, agreements written on the back of a napkin, oral agreements, etc., if one party relied on it to their detriment. So if Gruden was dealing with a booster to come up with the rough outline of what would later possibly become an MOU or contract, if an “agreement” was reached, and Gruden reasonably believed the booster had the authority to speak for UT, and then relied on that agreement to buy a house, unwind endorsement deals, etc. then there could be a real problem here.

The real question is, if this is the case, can this potentially massive exposure for UT not be used as further leverage for a leadership change in order to just honor the deal with Gruden?