Pruitt’s lawyer makes a statement denying wrongdoing

[DaddyChad]

I am operating under the assumption that A.) We don't know **** B.) If the NCAA doesn't drop a show cause on him then we have a problem. C.) We put our best foot forward for firing him today. In no way means it's a grand slam case for us. D.) The idea of going to court with him maybe not be desirable so he's paid to shut up.


Again you are glaringly argumentative. My point has been quite clear. You dived into no buyout quick. Then I read, a little bit ago, how you were like buyout maybe. Be consistent and less abrasive when talking with people. It's not a competition

I mean I’m not trying to be condescending or abrasive but he violated his contract which allows us to fire him for cause. I don’t really see what’s up for discussion here?

 

[volfanhill]

I mean I’m not trying to be condescending or abrasive but he violated his contract which allows us to fire him for cause. I don’t really see what’s up for discussion here?

Ok what did he and his assistants do? You don't know the answer to that. He may very will be guilty as hell. But we don't know crap. That's the whole point. Everyone is just taking UT's version as truth. I have no reason to trust this university.

 

[BeardedVol]

Jesus you are obtuse. They can have all the contractual **** they want to fire him. Doesn't mean they want a prolonged legal battle with him. Doesn't mean they don't want him talking out of school. Do you not get how this works? You admitted yourself earlier tonight at May pay him. WTF dude?

Christ, you need to stop basing your understanding of our legal system from what you are seeing on TV and movies. This idea you keep promoting that Pruitt can just file a lawsuit for "reasons" with no actual basis for UT breaching the contract, just for drawing out the legal proceedings and costing UT 'millions of dollars' is patently false.

 

[VolNExile]

Ok what did he and his assistants do? You don't know the answer to that. He may very will be guilty as hell. But we don't know crap. That's the whole point. Everyone is just taking UT's version as truth. I have no reason to trust this university.

The outside legal team specializes in this stuff, to the point of being known as “coach-killers.” Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong, but they’re damn competent. If they recommend removal for cause, I would bet that their opinion would win in court.

 

[DaddyChad]

Ok what did he and his assistants do? You don't know the answer to that. He may very will be guilty as hell. But we don't know crap. That's the whole point. Everyone is just taking UT's version as truth. I have no reason to trust this university.

They hired independent outside counsel to investigate. And again Dooley nor Butch got cut out of their buyouts, that should tell you something. Believe it or don’t, I guarantee you to fire ten people with cause they have some pretty damning evidence.

 

[I4Vols]

My depressed Vol fan prediction:

Pruitt fights the "fired for cause" and wins.
Gets his buyout plus extra for defamation
TN gets significant penalties from the NCAA as a result of turning themselves in for cheating.

You forgot Step 4: Pruitt gets rehired by bama as "defensive recruiting coordinator" on our nickel. Uh, I meant millions of nickels.

 

[I4Vols]

There is NO chance the University of Alabama allows him to go under oath in a deposition. It could be a gold mine of information on NCAA violations across multiple schools

The SEC head office, conveniently located in Birmingham, agrees with you.
It's enough of a quandary that they might even dial up Donde on their "crimson desk phone" and hint that if UT keeps Pruitt and others out of the deposition process, that hiring Hugh Freeze might suddenly look ok to Sankey.

 

[ButchPlz]

The SEC head office, conveniently located in Birmingham, agrees with you.
It's enough of a quandary that they might even dial up Donde on their "crimson desk phone" and hint that if UT keeps Pruitt and others out of the deposition process, that hiring Hugh Freeze might suddenly look ok to Sankey.

Pawl already confirmed with Sankey that it was OK.

They could give Pruitt the ol' Clinton-Foster treatment.

 

[imavolfan]

Since it is heading towards a lawsuit than means any payment we make to Pruitt can be covered under insurance correct? So either way it works out better this way.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The outside legal team specializes in this stuff, to the point of being known as “coach-killers.” Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong, but they’re damn competent. If they recommend removal for cause, I would bet that their opinion would win in court.

Being ABLE to win in court vs being WILLING to win in court are two different things. Do we want to hire Glazier and Co for several more months of litigation or do we want to settle?

Pruitt's legal team only needs to get 13M or award amount - legal percentage of award amount > zero....... for Pruitt to win.

UT needs what we've spent already on Glazier and Co + what we will spend getting Glazier to defend this + the damage that letting this drag on and on and continue to be in the news does to our program < 13M.

I've seen this crap. It's not who CAN win. It's who can afford to bleed goodwill and who can't afford to bleed goodwill. Usually the larger entity cannot or is unwilling to bleed goodwill.

 

[BeardedVol]

Being ABLE to win in court vs being WILLING to win court are two different things. Do we want to hire Glazier and Co for several more months of litigation or do we want to settle?

Pruitt's legal team only needs to get 13M - legal percentage of award amount > zero....... for Pruitt to win.

UT needs what we've spent already on Glazier and Co + what we will spend getting Glazier to defend this + the damage that letting this drag on and on and continue to be in the news does to our program > 13M.

I've seen this crap. It's not who CAN win. It's who can afford to bleed goodwill and who can't afford to bleed goodwill. Usually the larger entity cannot or is unwilling to bleed goodwill.

What grounds to you believe Pruitt has to file a lawsuit charging UT with breach of contract?

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

What grounds to you believe Pruitt has to file a lawsuit charging UT with breach of contract?

Doesn't matter and I'm not an attorney. You misjudge how angling for a settlement cases work.

These attorneys likely get some fee but the lion's share of their money comes from a percentage of settlement. They don't have to WIN....... they simply have to file, show up, argue, keep arguing, insist on trial, leak whatever about UT, privately hint that more could leak, go to trial, trash the university because these things happened, argue the university was incompetent, insist the university release all kinds of info, and generally create a stink......... which the university knows will happen and will settle.

The first thing they teach in law school:
If you have the law, pound the law.
If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have neither, pound the table.

 

[ButchPlz]

Doesn't matter and I'm not an attorney. You misjudge how angling for a settlement cases work.

These attorneys likely get some fee but the lion's share of their money comes from a percentage of settlement. They don't have to WIN....... they simply have to file, show up, argue, keep arguing, insist on trial, leak whatever about UT, privately hint that more could leak, go to trial, trash the university because these things happened, argue the university was incompetent, insist the university release all kinds of info, and generally create a stink......... which the university knows will happen and will settle.

The first thing they teach in law school:
If you have the law, pound the law.
If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have neither, pound the table.

The only problem I see with this is if Pruitt pushes this course of action he'll never coach college ball again.

 

[BeardedVol]

Doesn't matter and I'm not an attorney. You misjudge how angling for a settlement cases work.

These attorneys likely get some fee but the lion's share of their money comes from a percentage of settlement. They don't have to WIN....... they simply have to file, show up, argue, keep arguing, insist on trial, leak whatever about UT, privately hint that more could leak, go to trial, trash the university because these things happened, argue the university was incompetent, insist the university release all kinds of info, and generally create a stink......... which the university knows will happen and will settle.

The first thing they teach in law school:
If you have the law, pound the law.
If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have neither, pound the table.

Whether or not Pruitt has a plausable basis for a 'breach or contract' lawsuit doesn't matter?

You seem to have a fanciful vision of what you believe contract law litigation to look like.

 

[The_411]

What grounds to you believe Pruitt has to file a lawsuit charging UT with breach of contract?

This is literally how these negotiations work. The lawsuit would be based on wrongful termination, character defamation, libel, and breach of contract.

The University is essentially indicating that they aren’t willing to pay the full termination clause and they want a heavily discounted settlement. His attorney is countering by saying what the university is alleging is false and we want the full contract release.

The university wants no part of this going to trial because of the potential ramifications for not only this case but any other case. No school wants to allow any attorneys to have subpoena and deposition power.

The University can allege that it was all Pruitt’s fault, but what if in the deposition testimony it comes out in the record that the University embellished the accusations or that University was aware of the violations or the university failed to report any legal issues.

There are a million and one things that could come out that could be damaging to the University that could create all sorts of issues.

The only time you go to trial in this type of case is when you have heavy odds to win or you have nothing to lose.

Way too much on the line for a University to go trial.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

The only problem I see with this is if Pruitt pushes this course of action he'll never coach college ball again.

To which I reply, should he?

More seriously, depending on the settlement..... play golf and eat good cornbread.

With a smaller settlement, look for a DC position, maybe in the NFL or CFL or anywhere and lay low.

By the Freeze buzz on this board, football memory rivals goldfish memory.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Whether or not Pruitt has a plausable basis for a 'breach or contract' lawsuit doesn't matter?

You seem to have a fanciful vision of what you believe contract law litigation to look like.

See 411...... who types like an attorney.

 

[TNnative]

It's difficult to know what to believe at this point. It's concerning, because if Pruitt really is mostly in the clear, it sends a pretty terrible message to other coaches, who may be less willing to take on the job after watching this play out. On the other hand, if big recruiting violations did take place, that will also make other coaches have 2nd thoughts about taking the job. And it's not even clear that they'll save the $12 million after the impending legal action.

The whole thing is an embarrassment to the university regardless of the truth.

Well said DG. As to this football program, we have had more, "What the Hell" moments over the past 12 to 15 years than any other two programs combined. But this is next level strange. Bizarre beyond belief. No matter who gets the AD job, I hope he is prepared to hear no more than I give telemarketers. That is a lot.

 

[BeardedVol]

This is literally how these negotiations work. The lawsuit would be based on wrongful termination, character defamation, libel, and breach of contract.

The University is essentially indicating that they aren’t willing to pay the full termination clause and they want a heavily discounted settlement. His attorney is countering by saying what the university is alleging is false and we want the full contract release.

The university wants no part of this going to trial because of the potential ramifications for not only this case but any other case. No school wants to allow any attorneys to have subpoena and deposition power.

The University can allege that it was all Pruitt’s fault, but what if in the deposition testimony it comes out in the record that the University embellished the accusations or that University was aware of the violations or the university failed to report any legal issues.

There are a million and one things that could come out that could be damaging to the University that could create all sorts of issues.

The only time you go to trial in this type of case is when you have heavy odds to win or you have nothing to lose.

Way too much on the line for a University to go trial.

He's not filing libel and defamation lawsuits if he's trying to get his buyout, he'd have to file a lawsuit claiming that his firing was due to UT breaching the employment contract, and that he is in fact owed damages as his firing was without cause.

So again, with them firing 9 other people 'with cause' whom the inveatigation have found to have been involved in numerous NCAA level I and II violations, all who reported to Pruitt, and whom he was contractually reaponsible for in terms of NCAA compliance, how were they in breach of contract for firing him 'with cause'?

 

[508mikey]

He's not filing libel and defamation lawsuits if he's trying to get his buyout, he'd have to file a lawsuit claiming that his firing was due to UT breaching the employment contract, and that he is in fact owed damages as his firing was without cause.

So again, with them firing 9 other people 'with cause' whom the inveatigation have found to have been involved in numerous NCAA level I and II violations, all who reported to Pruitt, and whom he was contractually reaponsible for in terms of NCAA compliance, how were they in breach of contract for firing him 'with cause'?

If Pruitt gets a show cause that would be the icing on the cake - no buyout

 

[m1al]

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

He's not filing libel and defamation lawsuits if he's trying to get his buyout, he'd have to file a lawsuit claiming that his firing was due to UT breaching the employment contract, and that he is in fact owed damages as his firing was without cause.

So again, with them firing 9 other people 'with cause' whom the inveatigation have found to have been involved in numerous NCAA level I and II violations, all who reported to Pruitt, and whom he was contractually reaponsible for in terms of NCAA compliance, how were they in breach of contract for firing him 'with cause'?

You REALLY have never gone to trial, I'm guessing. It sucks.

Do you REALLY think UT wants the phone records of coaches to come out in court? Do they want Maurer and Gray deposed under oath? Do you think they want Fulmer testifying? Do you think they want records of money going...... where? who knows where? of the awful...... I don't claim to understand....... thing called "discovery" which appears to mean "Hey, this is embarrassing, let's look at it!!!"

UT wants none of the ugliness of depositions. UT wants no money discussed in court. UT faces huge risk that WAAAAAAAAAAY more than football issues could turn up.

Again, you've clearly never been sued by these weasels. They have NOTHING to lose by examining and showing every skid mark on your undies.

 

[BeardedVol]

If Pruitt gets a show cause that would be the icing on the cake - no buyout

If one of the 9 gets a show-cause, or is just found responsible for Level I or II violations, that's grounds to fire him 'with cause' under the contract he signed.

 

[The_411]

He's not filing libel and defamation lawsuits if he's trying to get his buyout, he'd have to file a lawsuit claiming that his firing was due to UT breaching the employment contract, and that he is in fact owed damages as his firing was without cause.

So again, with them firing 9 other people 'with cause' whom the inveatigation have found to have been involved in numerous NCAA level I and II violations, all who reported to Pruitt, and whom he was contractually reaponsible for in terms of NCAA compliance, how were they in breach of contract for firing him 'with cause'?

He's not filing libel and defamation lawsuits if he's trying to get his buyout, he'd have to file a lawsuit claiming that his firing was due to UT breaching the employment contract, and that he is in fact owed damages as his firing was without cause.

So again, with them firing 9 other people 'with cause' whom the inveatigation have found to have been involved in numerous NCAA level I and II violations, all who reported to Pruitt, and whom he was contractually reaponsible for in terms of NCAA compliance, how were they in breach of contract for firing him 'with cause'?

Just because UT is saying it with cause doesn’t mean that it is. These things are never as simple as person x did y. You realize that those 9 people have almost assuredly retained legal counsel as well.

You really think that Pruitt was running some rogue benefits program and nobody at the university had knowledge?

The University cannot risk any exposure hence the reason this will be negotiated and there will be a settlement.

 

[BeardedVol]

You REALLY have never gone to trial, I'm guessing. It sucks.

Do you REALLY think UT wants the phone records of coaches to come out in court? Do they want Maurer and Gray deposed under oath? Do you think they want Fulmer testifying? Do you think they want records of money going...... where? who knows where? of the awful...... I don't claim to understand....... thing called "discovery" which appears to mean "Hey, this is embarrassing, let's look at it!!!"

UT wants none of the ugliness of depositions. UT wants no money discussed in court. UT faces huge risk that WAAAAAAAAAAY more than football issues could turn up.

Again, you've clearly never been sued by these weasels. They have NOTHING to lose by examining and showing every skid mark on your undies.

Lol I spent 5 years in the 6th circuit Federal Court. I've sat though more proceedings than I care to tally up.

You've got plenty of fanciful ideas about what you think litigation looks like.