ESPN is reporting that Kendrall Thomkins is waiting on release from UT

#126
#126
volstexans said:
CLK did not violate his contract. He had an out clause that he executed.

If there's a lawsuit for breach of contract by a football coach, then your premise works.

I think Hammy is taking the correct stance. Hold everybody to their contracts. Players and coaches.

He should have just negotiated a better one for CLK, imo.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
#129
#129
nickknx865 said:
Any of the other EE's for us this year should be allowed to be granted release from the LOI, considering the situation.

However, say this is 2005 and Fulmer is still coaching this team. He shouldn't be granted a release.
Click to expand...
What if Dooley takes off for Georgia next year, hypothetically speaking? All the recruits he brought in that wanted to play for him and his staff are no different predicament than he is. The timing of it changes nothing. One day, one week, One year...2 years...it's all the same. THAT is why they don't sign LOI's to coaches...but the University.
By telling folks he's waiting get a release, it shows exactly why he had to go to JUCO in the first place.

Let him sit out another year like everyone else, or get his but in here by this fall and play...as his LOI states...he's not special.
 
#130
#130
BearCat204 said:
I still fail to see what punishing the kid will do for anyone envolved. Players commit to coaches all the time, see florida and bama. It is pretty ignorant to think that kiffin bolting didnt affect these kids in some way and that things have changed in a major way for some recruits. I just think some of you are not seeing that it benefits UT in no way to force a kid to stay that doesnt want to be here.
Click to expand...
I fail to see what the point is in holding me to a contract if I purchase and automobile, and a few months later try to take it back to the dealership and tell them I changed my mind.

Why punish me if I really don't want the vehicle? :crazy:
 
#131
#131
volstexans said:
CLK did not violate his contract. He had an out clause that he executed.

If there's a lawsuit for breach of contract by a football coach, then your premise works.

I think Hammy is taking the correct stance. Hold everybody to their contracts. Players and coaches.

He should have just negotiated a better one for CLK, imo.
Click to expand...


+1 Good post! :good!:
 
#132
#132
I think he should be held to the contract that he signed...He committed to Tennessee, not Kitten...because Kitten screwed him over by leaving after KT signed his LOI, he should have to abide by the contract (LOI) or sit out a year...I'm tired of my University being screwed over by anyone...coaches, players, or the media...GBO!
 
#133
#133
let the guy go if he wants to go....tells me that the new recruits have scared him off....if he's that limp of a competitor then the Vols don't need him....
 
#134
#134
rote said:
I think he should be held to the contract that he signed...He committed to Tennessee, not Kitten...because Kitten screwed him over by leaving after KT signed his LOI, he should have to abide by the contract (LOI) or sit out a year...I'm tired of my University being screwed over by anyone...coaches, players, or the media...GBO!
Click to expand...

There's nothing to be gained from forcing someone to come to UT who clearly doesn't want to anymore.
 
#136
#136
TENNaciousUTfan said:
I fail to see what the point is in holding me to a contract if I purchase and automobile, and a few months later try to take it back to the dealership and tell them I changed my mind.

Why punish me if I really don't want the vehicle? :crazy:
Click to expand...
Again, apples to oranges. Say you signed the contract to buy that car and when they brought it out, it was white instead of black.
 
#137
#137
TENNaciousUTfan said:
I fail to see what the point is in holding me to a contract if I purchase and automobile, and a few months later try to take it back to the dealership and tell them I changed my mind.

Why punish me if I really don't want the vehicle? :crazy:
Click to expand...

In the case above there was an equal value exchange by you and the dealership and a clear 'meeting of the minds'

Obviously KT does not feel he is getting the same value and no exchange has taken place yet ...only the intent to exchange 'football for scholarship' Also KT obviously does not feel like a meeting of the minds took place given the coaching change.

so it is a good thing this is not a contract and only an organizational memo ( NCAA ) ...or we would lose this one.

Let him go ...he affects us none
 
#138
#138
BearCat204 said:
Again, apples to oranges. Say you signed the contract to buy that car and when they brought it out, it was white instead of black.
Click to expand...

Don't try to use common sense with him. He'll just put you on ignore like he did to me.
 
#140
#140
SGMVols said:
There's nothing to be gained from forcing someone to come to UT who clearly doesn't want to anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this argument. Even if the UT administration upholds the LOI, it doesn't force him to come here. It prevents him from participating in athletics elsewhere for 1 year. If he really doesn't want to be here, he could go somewhere else and sit out for a year.

Think of it in the reverse situation. Say a previous coach had offered a very low rated kid a scholarship. The kid signs the LOI. Then the new coach comes in and vehemently disagrees with the decision. Should the kid have to let us off the hook even though he made have forgone other opportunities because we no longer want him?
 
Last edited:
#141
#141
The kid signed an LOI with the University of Tennessee, not the University of Kiffin... IMO the school has the right to hold him to that.

There is a backlash with recruiting using the 'we can get you to the pros' or the 'allstar staff' selling points and I think we are seeing a case of it now. Unfortunately in this day an age of kids looking for the fast track to a high round draft pick this is what you have to do to get the 'big time' recruits.

All that being said, as much as I would like to see peoples feet held to the fire for 'contracts' that they sign, UT should probably give him his release. The AD and the new staff have enough on their plate and don't need anymore distractions.
 
Last edited:
#142
#142
Why is it a lot of you all don't see this as a matter of someone being held to a contract that he willing signed . UT held up there end this young man must be made to HONOR is end of the deal period weather thats sit out a year or play here thats his choice not ours. Young people are not to often made to HONOR there commitments . That is why some people are made a example of from time to time to show what happen's when you don't think out your choices in life. Frankley i don't want him here but UT upheld there end and so should he . O and didn't a bb coach from here do the same thing to a player when he was first hired
 
#144
#144
rkvdg said:
Why is it a lot of you all don't see this as a matter of someone being held to a contract that he willing signed . UT held up there end this young man must be made to HONOR is end of the deal period weather thats sit out a year or play here thats his choice not ours. Young people are not to often made to HONOR there commitments . That is why some people are made a example of from time to time to show what happen's when you don't think out your choices in life. Frankley i don't want him here but UT upheld there end and so should he . O and didn't a bb coach from here do the same thing to a player when he was first hired
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree for the most part. Trouble is, as stated above, he can't be made to come to UT and play. The most that happens if UT stands their ground is he sits a year... That's pretty much it
 
#145
#145
ptclaus98 said:
No he doesn't. He wants to go to OU.
Click to expand...

If that's true, then let him go. Boomer Sooner.

He'll never be a problem for us as long as we don't make a BCS bowl in the next two years, and if we make a BCS bowl in the next two years and play Oklahoma, we're all going to be so ecstatic that we won't give a sh*t if he's there or not.
 
#146
#146
cbp didn't let t smith out of his loi .and with those values we have a man that bleeds orange
 
#148
#148
bosgap. Stop posting stuff that makes absolutely no sense. Stanley cant count, Thompkins is also an idiot without math cred,and you are killing me with the spelling. lol! GBO
 
#149
#149
nickknx865 said:
He went after Ambles because Ambles decommitted.
Click to expand...

"Don't go to class tomorrow." You would have to be a fool to think that he just de-committed. The only reason that he showed up at UT on the last weekend was to try to undermine DR.
 
#150
#150
onevol74 said:
"Don't go to class tomorrow." You would have to be a fool to think that he just de-committed. The only reason that he showed up at UT on the last weekend was to try to undermine DR.
Click to expand...

If he wasn't enrolled, he was fair game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top