John Adams article on settlement

#2
#2
Clicking on it would just give Adams the satisfaction. Not gonna do it because there is nothing that Adams could write that would be the least bit interesting to any Vol fan including this one.

Wonder how long Adams would keep his job if no one clicked on his crap sandwich articles?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22 people
#5
#5
This guy seems incapable of understanding that these things get to a point where the bad publicity isn't worth it. Businesses make settlements like this all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#8
#8
But the pay-it-away plan is generally regarded as good business in college athletics, especially at Tennessee. I find this interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
GAVol said:
It's all good. I've just seen this guy's act for 20 years. He's a journalistic troll in a dying medium.
Click to expand...

It's so obvious he has an agenda that he enjoys pushing on anyone that will listen or read his garbage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#10
#10
TNV said:
Clicking on it would just give Adams the satisfaction. Not gonna do it because there is nothing that Adams could write that would be the least bit interesting to any Vol fan including this one.

Wonder how long Adams would keep his job if no one clicked on his crap sandwich articles?
Click to expand...

It's how I feel about listening to the sports animal morning show.
 
#12
#12
Slydell said:
But the pay-it-away plan is generally regarded as good business in college athletics, especially at Tennessee. I find this interesting.
Click to expand...

It works this way quite often with large entities looking to squash the things.
 
#13
#13
UT would have spent that amount and probably more just going thru the discovery and deposition phase. It was a wise decision and good one in Knoxville for a change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Oohh John Adams the boogeyman!

Of course Tennessee always pays its way out of bad situations. And of course it was financially responsible to settle. That's the bull**** litigious society we live in. I would like to live in a society where justice is served and the frauds are exposed.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 13 people
#15
#15
Time to move on and change for the better. That's what the troll Adams should have written. There is positive news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#16
#16
golfballs said:
Oohh John Adams the boogeyman!

Of course Tennessee always pays its way out of bad situations. And of course it was the financially responsible to settle. That's the bull**** litigious society we live in. I would like to live in a society where justice is served and the frauds are exposed.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head
 
#17
#17
The reaction of people on this site never ceases to amaze me. So Adams article is rubbish because of what exactly? Because it's poorly written (it's not), he has a lifelong agenda against UT as a Knoxville sports columnist (fallacious urban legend among UT fans that view any stated negativity towards UT as a sure sign of hatred against the vols), or because he is using his characteristic sarcasm to express dissatisfaction with the university taking the easy road and settling?

Adams did us all a great favor when he wrote his cutting article on Jamie Naughright back in February. It helped turn the tide of seemingly endless negativity towards the university in the early stages of the lawsuit generated media frenzy (which was the main battle tactic by the plaintiffs' lawyer team.

If you read through his sarcasm, you will see why he writes a scathing opinion piece quickly after the announced settlement: he recognizes (correctly) that the lawsuit was paper thin and there was a strong case to fight it to the bitter end.

I, for one, am in agreement with Adams 100% here. The University of Tennessee is a state institution and the state has a sales tax. Therefore, it is an institution partly funded by TN taxpayers. It also happens to be one of the most important representations of the state as a whole. Seeing as how I'm both a graduate of UT and a Tennessean, born and raised, I don't give a d@mn what the cost would be to fight this unsubstantiated lawsuit, if it truly does consist of nothing but "false accusations, as Jimmy Cheek stated, I would never want it settled.

But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.

Now the state of Tennessee has enriched 8 contemptible, degenerate, reprehensible cleat chasing women and your run-of-the-mill pernicious team of personal injury lawyers to the tune of $2.5mil. That's likely to be around $250k for each plaintiff and half a million or more for the blood sucking lawyers. Personal injury settlements are also non-taxed, so if you think of it in terms in terms of income it's more like $325k to each plaintiff.

Based on my earned income out of college it would have taken me roughly 6 years of work to have earned that amount, maybe longer.

If this lawsuit was as frivolous as we all believed, the university just made a short-sighted and unacceptable decision to settle. Keep in mind that the buyout for both Fulmer and Dooley was likely more than the worse case estimate on legal costs had they not settled. Also, had the court ruled in the university's favor, they could have countersued for a frivolous suit (and would have had a strong case IMO) in an attempt to regain some of the legal costs.


*Edit: I did not change what I originally wrote here (which is embarrassing to me now) but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, the legitimacy of the 8 individual cases that allowed for a civil case to be filed is secondary to the intent of the suit. It's a shame that some of those 8 cases may be false, but its also unreasonable to assume all eight are false accusations. Either way, the intention of the lawsuit (which, again, was to force UT to address an environment of clemency towards sexual assault accusations, particularly as they relate to student athletes) was successful.

For the sake of full disclosure, at the time I made this edit there were 7 VN "likes", which would not reflect agreement with the opinion I have just now added to my original post (not that it matters).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#18
#18
golfballs said:
Oohh John Adams the boogeyman!

Of course Tennessee always pays its way out of bad situations. And of course it was the financially responsible to settle. That's the bull**** litigious society we live in. I would like to live in a society where justice is served and the frauds are exposed.
Click to expand...

Well at least I didn't have to go to the second page before I finally read someone who recognizes the situation for what it is. I also wish I lived in a society that actually strived for justice. This one is getting further and further away from the principle.

*Edit: I did not change what I originally wrote here but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, the legitimacy of the 8 individual cases that allowed for a civil case to be filed is secondary to the intent of the suit. It's a shame that some of those 8 cases may be false, but its also unreasonable to assume all eight are false accusations. Either way, the intention of the lawsuit (which, again, was to force UT to address an environment of clemency towards sexual assault accusations, particularly as they relate to student athletes) was successful.
 
Last edited:
#19
#19
junder13 said:
The reaction of people on this site never ceases to amaze me. So Adams article is rubbish because of what exactly? Because it's poorly written (it's not), he has a lifelong agenda against UT as a Knoxville sports columnist (fallacious urban legend among UT fans that view any stated negativity towards UT as a sure sign of hatred against the vols), or because he is using his characteristic sarcasm to express dissatisfaction with the university taking the easy road and settling?

Adams did us all a great favor when he wrote his cutting article on Jamie Naughright back in February. It helped turn the tide of seemingly endless negativity towards the university in the early stages of the lawsuit generated media frenzy (which was the main battle tactic by the plaintiffs' lawyer team.

If you read through his sarcasm, you will see why he writes a scathing opinion piece quickly after the announced settlement: he recognizes (correctly) that the lawsuit was paper thin and there was a strong case to fight it to the bitter end.

I, for one, am in agreement with Adams 100% here. The University of Tennessee is a state institution and the state has a sales tax. Therefore, it is an institution partly funded by TN taxpayers. It also happens to be one of the most important representations of the state as a whole. Seeing as how I'm both a graduate of UT and a Tennessean, born and raised, I don't give a d@mn what the cost would be to fight this unsubstantiated lawsuit, if it truly does consist of nothing but "false accusations, as Jimmy Cheek stated, I would never want it settled.

But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.

Now the state of Tennessee has enriched 8 contemptible, degenerate, reprehensible cleat chasing women and your run-of-the-mill pernicious team of personal injury lawyers to the tune of $2.5mil. That's likely to be around $250k for each plaintiff and half a million or more for the blood sucking lawyers. Personal injury settlements are also non-taxed, so if you think of it in terms in terms of income it's more like $325k to each plaintiff.

Based on my earned income out of college it would have taken me roughly 6 years of work to have earned that amount, maybe longer.

If this lawsuit was as frivolous as we all believed, the university just made a short-sighted and unacceptable decision to settle. Keep in mind that the buyout for both Fulmer and Dooley was likely more than the worse case estimate on legal costs had they not settled. Also, had the court ruled in the university's favor, they could have countersued for a frivolous suit (and would have had a strong case IMO) in an attempt to regain some of the legal costs.
Click to expand...

So you would have rather the University spend an significantly larger amount on lawyers fees and addressing public opinion issues over the course of several years? Granted if they won they could possibly regain some $$ spent but they would never be able to repair the damage done in the public opinion arena.

I do hope that at some point a university battles one of these lawsuits to the end because the regulations imposed on universities under the name of Title IX need to be evaluated. UT decided they did not want to be that university. In reality, it is probably going to take a coalition of universities to stand up to the "easy money" machine that has resulted from the abuse of of the policies enforced by the Federal government under Title IX.

Title IX when introduced was not about what it is being used for in these lawsuits. Lawyers have found loopholes and are using it. They always do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#20
#20
volfan102455 said:
So you would have rather the University spend an significantly larger amount on lawyers fees and addressing public opinion issues over the course of several years? Granted if they won they could possibly regain some $$ spent but they would never be able to repair the damage done in the public opinion arena.

I do hope that at some point a university battles one of these lawsuits to the end because the regulations imposed on universities under the name of Title IX need to be evaluated. UT decided they did not want to be that university. In reality, it is probably going to take a coalition of universities to stand up to the "easy money" machine that has resulted from the abuse of of the policies enforced by the Federal government under Title IX.

Title IX when introduced was not about what it is being used for in these lawsuits. Lawyers have found loopholes and are using it. They always do.
Click to expand...

I can agree with what you type here. I also stated in the other Title IX thread that I am more understanding of UT choosing to settle upon reading from LWS that the lawsuit was more about procedural failures on UT's part than it was about the merit of the individual cases, UT's "rape culture", or any other element of the lawsuit (assuming I interpreted what he said correctly). I suppose the plaintiffs' law team was truly successful in creating a false façade on what the case was really about bc I had no idea that procedures and the timing of student conduct hearings would be the determining factors. Like I said in the other Title IX thread, I'm ready to put this case to rest in my own mind. Good riddance.

*Edit: I did not change what I originally wrote here (which is embarrassing to me now) but upon looking more into the civil suit against UT it appears to me that the university did enable an environment of clemency (at a minimum) and the intention behind the lawsuit (to force change in how UT addresses/approaches a sexual assault case/victim) was both successful and necessary. In that regard, UT definitely made the right decision to settle. For the sake of justice, I wish the deposition had been made public so that it would shine light on which administrators (paid public employees) allowed for such (or pushed for such) an environment to exist. I view the settlement terms as a public funding effort (I care not which "pool" of assets it comes from) to protect the identity of those public servants who may have played a role in enabling such an environment. This change in opinion in no way affects my view that tort reform is needed today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#23
#23
JA is a pos, can't believe that rag still pays him, I quit reading his bs biased opinion years ago. So heres a big FO for little jon
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
wmcovol said:
UT would have spent that amount and probably more just going thru the discovery and deposition phase. It was a wise decision and good one in Knoxville for a change.
Click to expand...

It was close to a year payout of the Doofus buyout so meh
 
#25
#25
junder13 said:
The reaction of people on this site never ceases to amaze me. So Adams article is rubbish because of what exactly? Because it's poorly written (it's not), he has a lifelong agenda against UT as a Knoxville sports columnist (fallacious urban legend among UT fans that view any stated negativity towards UT as a sure sign of hatred against the vols), or because he is using his characteristic sarcasm to express dissatisfaction with the university taking the easy road and settling?

Adams did us all a great favor when he wrote his cutting article on Jamie Naughright back in February. It helped turn the tide of seemingly endless negativity towards the university in the early stages of the lawsuit generated media frenzy (which was the main battle tactic by the plaintiffs' lawyer team.

If you read through his sarcasm, you will see why he writes a scathing opinion piece quickly after the announced settlement: he recognizes (correctly) that the lawsuit was paper thin and there was a strong case to fight it to the bitter end.

I, for one, am in agreement with Adams 100% here. The University of Tennessee is a state institution and the state has a sales tax. Therefore, it is an institution partly funded by TN taxpayers. It also happens to be one of the most important representations of the state as a whole. Seeing as how I'm both a graduate of UT and a Tennessean, born and raised, I don't give a d@mn what the cost would be to fight this unsubstantiated lawsuit, if it truly does consist of nothing but "false accusations, as Jimmy Cheek stated, I would never want it settled.

But that's the problem with society. It's no longer about right or wrong, fact or fiction, justice or injustice. All that seems to matter in this litigious society today is perception and the size of the threat.

Now the state of Tennessee has enriched 8 contemptible, degenerate, reprehensible cleat chasing women and your run-of-the-mill pernicious team of personal injury lawyers to the tune of $2.5mil. That's likely to be around $250k for each plaintiff and half a million or more for the blood sucking lawyers. Personal injury settlements are also non-taxed, so if you think of it in terms in terms of income it's more like $325k to each plaintiff.

Based on my earned income out of college it would have taken me roughly 6 years of work to have earned that amount, maybe longer.

If this lawsuit was as frivolous as we all believed, the university just made a short-sighted and unacceptable decision to settle. Keep in mind that the buyout for both Fulmer and Dooley was likely more than the worse case estimate on legal costs had they not settled. Also, had the court ruled in the university's favor, they could have countersued for a frivolous suit (and would have had a strong case IMO) in an attempt to regain some of the legal costs.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself, honestly.

I am all for not giving a dime to money grabbing lowlifes. I think the gamble the school was making is that out of 8 cases they were bound to find one tiny procedural mishap by one single individual. Once they found that tiny mistake the lawyers for the alleged victims would have run with it and the Tennessean would have assisted in further blasting the university. I don't like it either but it was probably the least impactful move and the quickest way out of a long, drawn out lawsuit.

2.48 million is chump change to the university. They probably spent that in maintenance and turf replacement alone last year just trying to care for that Kentucky Derby mud hole they call Shields-Watkins field.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top