Recruiting Forum Football Talk LVII

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've looked through almost all of the leaked information (a lot of time on my hands, what can I say), and I have yet to see anybody in a position of authority say anything about hiring Jon Gruden. At least there was one thing they did right......

Which makes it even more asinine that Currie didn't call Gruden's agent to tell him to release a statement saying that Gruden wasn't interested. To use Gruden as a smokescreen is utter incompetence. Or, there was a power play by other boosters to get it done, and Currie wanted the Haslam way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Umm..no I won't.

Get on the dang train McGill! You're holding us up! :)

getting-on-karma-train-o.gif
 
The Brohm thing has Haslam written all over it. I gotta think it through some more and dig into this before I come up with a full theory.

Starting to think that Brohm was used to make us look bad out of spite.

I was surprised at no emails/texts from any Haslams
 
Sorry if everybody already knows this, but I'm in the John Currie texts (1st phone) document, and there is lots of information that seems to be redacted (blank white blocks among the rest of the text). If you highlight it, copy it, and paste it into Word, you can see all the text.

Can you say what mike Leach texted him that was redacted?
 
Currie had another private phone with them.

His private phone would still be required in FOIA right? Anything related to the job (like his personal email that he wrongly believed wouldn't be released) or any device where he conducts business.
 
His private phone would still be required in FOIA right? Anything related to the job (like his personal email that he wrongly believed wouldn't be released) or any device where he conducts business.

if it's a burner phone UT wouldn't have access to the records.
 
His private phone would still be required in FOIA right? Anything related to the job (like his personal email that he wrongly believed wouldn't be released) or any device where he conducts business.

Yes, it appears that some state courts have broadened requests to include personal phones. But I still think there is an argument to not release it when the person pays for that phone with their own money. As utvols88 said, UT also can't release it if they don't have access to the records.
 
Yes, it appears that some state courts have broadened requests to include personal phones. But I still think there is an argument to not release it when the person pays for that phone with their own money. As utvols88 said, UT also can't release it if they don't have access to the records.

Phone company keeps a log right? Every state employee would just conduct all business in personal devices (ahem, Hillary) if it were that easy to dodge FOIA laws. Burner phone would get around that though.
 
Last edited:
Phone company keeps a log right? Every state employee would just conduct all business in personal devices (ahem, Hillary) if it were that easy to dodge FOIA laws. Burner phone would get around that though.

Well I am probably blurring the lines between a burner phone with private phone anyway. I assume that many smart people wouldn't conduct business on longtime private devices. Those kind of people usually have to change numbers every so often anyway. If it's truly something they want hidden, then you buy a temporary phone for a few months.
 
I'd like to once again thank Butch Jones for making this program a laughing stock. Was just looking on facebook and the SEC Network page wished Peyton Manning a happy birthday. Instead of seeing a lot of "happy birthday" comments, I saw a lot of "champion of life" comments. Hope he gives a 63 effort when he fetches Saban an oatmeal cream pie every morning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top