Official Jon Gruden Thread XLIV

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,277
#3,277
If any of this is true, this must be given to the most reputable media person one can find. Give them the scoop and let them do the job of informing those who are completely blind to all of this. That is the only way to really fix this mess. It would immediately end the career of Currie and destroy all influence that the Haslams have in all of their business dealings. On top of that, it would vindicate the actions of the Tennessee fan base this weekend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,278
#3,278
UTVolinExile said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think the second MOU rises to the level of an effective repudiation if Currie was acting outside the scope of his actual authority in pursuing Schiano? I think an argument could be made that Currie's actions were nothing more than a material breach, and that the university could cure said breach by honoring the terms of the original MOU, such that it would not be rendered unenforceable in its entirety. Obviously, that assumes there was ever an actual agreement with Gruden. I am still clinging to my Gruden dreams. haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,279
#3,279
UTVolinExile said:
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.
Click to expand...

Or just realize its's all based on speculation and false info. Knuckleheadvol left a classic cliffhanger. "I know something big, but its so disgusting I can't tell it".

Since then we've played lawyer, considered Currie a pedophile, and guaranteed that this time, this time, we had Gruden signed and then signed another guy just to screw it all up.

Now we owe everyone millions and Sexton twice.

Just follow it and watch it form from nothingness, the smoky hearsay, the cryptic conclusions leaping from a cauldron like Crowley's fabled homonuculus.

The smallest little thing can get a life of its own in here, and it ain't always natural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,280
#3,280
JawjaVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. The boosters had to know Haslam could pull something like this as he did previously. I just keep thinking back to AV post after the Calhoun fiasco, he didn't sound like anything had been signed- in fact he said you can't force someone or something along those lines...
 
#3,281
#3,281
A lot of people were saying that they didn't think the university was capable/willing to hire anybody worth a dang. That it was going to be like the hires of doo and butch.
I was thinking, just give them a chance. Different admin is here this time, and I really felt good about Gruden.
But this could not be any more of a disaster. The common denominator throughout these hires is the Haslams. Then and now.
Until their reign of power is over, I can't see anything changing for the better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#3,282
#3,282
volsfan199 said:
A lot of people were saying that they didn't think the university was capable/willing to hire anybody worth a dang. That it was going to be like the hires of doo and butch.
I was thinking, just give them a chance. Different admin is here this time, and I really felt good about Gruden.
But this could not be any more of a disaster. The common denominator throughout these hires is the Haslams. Then and now.
Until their reign of power is over, I can't see anything changing for the better.
Click to expand...

Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,283
#3,283
Lovesomebigorange said:
I wondered the same thing. The boosters had to know Haslam could pull something like this as he did previously. I just keep thinking back to AV post after the Calhoun fiasco, he didn't sound like anything had been signed- in fact he said you can't force someone or something along those lines...
Click to expand...

Another question to be answered. This sounds eerily similar to 2012 so why wasn’t something put in place to prevent this? Also, the OSU AD said we contacted them two weeks ago about Schiano sooooo why didn’t anyone see this coming?
 
#3,284
#3,284
The common denominator is going to continue to destroy UT if UT doesn't do something. But he has paid some good to hold his reign in tight. It will take a total Tennessee fan backlash at the University for them to relent. And some of the inside to stand up and put immense pressure. But if they let him reign on I will not spend another dime there. That is not a idle threat. Just try this fan base this time, go ahead and be known as the Laughingstock of Puppet World!!!!!
 
#3,285
#3,285
JawjaVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is basically like a law school exam question. haha. First off, I cannot believe I am analyzing a contract that may or may not exist and of which I do not know the terms. Despite the foregoing, the issue in both cases really boils down to damages. If on some off-chance, there really was an MOU with both Gruden and Schiano, I do not presently see how UT could have massive exposure relating to Gruden because we could presently honor the terms of the original agreement since we do not have a coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,287
#3,287
Leximax said:
This is basically like a law school exam question. haha. First off, I cannot believe I am analyzing a contract that may or may not exist and of which I do not know the terms. Despite the foregoing, the issue in both cases really boils down to damages. If on some off-chance, there really was an MOU with both Gruden and Schiano, I do not presently see how UT could have massive exposure relating to Gruden because we could presently honor the terms of the original agreement since we do not have a coach.
Click to expand...

That makes sense- Schiano isn't our coach thank God so why couldn't the original agreement be upheld and Currie fired with cause for exposing the university to such detriment?
 
#3,291
#3,291
Lovesomebigorange said:
That makes sense- Schiano isn't our coach thank God so why couldn't the original agreement be upheld and Currie fired with cause for exposing the university to such detriment?
Click to expand...

Once Currie repudiated any prior agreement by signing with Schiano, he legally can't walk back and say "Psych! I bailed on Schiano, now let's go back to that agreement I asked you to sign before. We still good, right?"

Edit: I mean, I suppose Currie COULD try that. In which case he would likely be met with the ole "double Rashaan Gaulden." He can't enforce that prior agreement once he repudiates it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,292
#3,292
Lovesomebigorange said:
That makes sense- Schiano isn't our coach thank God so why couldn't the original agreement be upheld and Currie fired with cause for exposing the university to such detriment?
Click to expand...

My question is this: Could Gruden possibly collect damages even if UT was willing to now honor the agreement? Assume he would say "FU" to UT at this point, I know I would.

Could he have realized damages based on UT's actions? Obviously not a lawyer...but it seems that even if UT now wanted to honor the contract, Gruden could have a case against them.

Who knows. UT is a mess.
 
#3,293
#3,293
Leximax said:
methinks its because there was no MOU with Gruden, even thought it pains me to say that
Click to expand...
There is no way in hell there was an MOU with Gruden. HE WORKS FOR ESPN!!! The story would have hit the ticker bar as fast as the poor intern in Bristol could type.
 
#3,295
#3,295
JFreak said:
It said that Currie is currently trying to fast track another bad hire. Beav deleted it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is pretty much it. "Several forces in UT including the incompetent administration", trying to fast-track another horrible hire.

I wonder who the other forces are?
 
#3,296
#3,296
UTVolinExile said:
Once Currie repudiated any prior agreement by signing with Schiano, he legally can't walk back and say "Psych! I bailed on Schiano, now let's go back to that agreement I asked you to sign before. We still good, right?"
Click to expand...

How would an MOU that Davenport didn’t sign supersede a contract Gruden supposedly did?

You’d have to be pretty dang stupid to take a contract to Gruden and say we’ll get Curries signature later.
 
#3,297
#3,297
UTVolinExile said:
Once Currie repudiated any prior agreement by signing with Schiano, he legally can't walk back and say "Psych! I bailed on Schiano, now let's go back to that agreement I asked you to sign before. We still good, right?"

Edit: I mean, I suppose Currie COULD try that. In which case he would likely be met with the ole "double Rashaan Gaulden." He can't enforce that prior agreement once he repudiates it.
Click to expand...

Why couldn't Currie be personally liable then if this actually happened since it is his signature on each document?
 
#3,298
#3,298
So... What if ergen wanted gruden and haslam what schiano? They are head butting. Haslam says fine get gruden. Goes behind his back. Slides currie a check. Says dont worry about ergen, get it done. Makes ergen believe he is getting gruden. Hurrys to sign schiano. Someone in the ergen camp gets word releases it to the public. We cause an uproar. Reverse the MOA with schiano.... now the 2 biggest donors are going at it.... but back to haslam.... Haslam told currie to get schiano and not to worry about ergen because he has dirt on ergen. Haslam gets his way because he knows ergen will back off. But considering there is no dirt on the fans he cant contain our mouths.... Which he didnt expect and is blindsided by. Now haslam is mad he didnt get his way and is willing to expose ergen anyway?


Just a thought that might be so far off but maybe not.... Not trying to run anyones name in the mud. Just using those name because they are the big dogs.
 
#3,299
#3,299
Guys it’s pretty obvious there was nothing signed between the university and Gruden.

I do still believe there were many prominent boosters sorting out the deal, and Gruden was on board to get official talks with the university started.

He never got the official call - like he said.

But let’s be honest, with Currie and Haslam leading this program there is no way Gruden comes.

But if we get rid of Currie and bring in Gruden’s old buddy Blackburn who won’t bow down to Haslam? Who knows what could happen.

Gotta get Currie out first though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,300
#3,300
UTVolinExile said:
Once Currie repudiated any prior agreement by signing with Schiano, he legally can't walk back and say "Psych! I bailed on Schiano, now let's go back to that agreement I asked you to sign before. We still good, right?"

Edit: I mean, I suppose Currie COULD try that. In which case he would likely be met with the ole "double Rashaan Gaulden." He can't enforce that prior agreement once he repudiates it.
Click to expand...

The real question isn’t whether Currie would have the audacity to try such a move, the question is a) if such a situation existed at all, can’t it be used as additional leverage to can Currie?, and b) would Gruden still be open to coming if Currie is gone, or will it take more than just Currie gone, or is Gruden done with us at this point? We’re piling speculation on top of speculation, but that’s what this thread is all about, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement



Back
Top