Tennessee in trouble per Dan Patrick

#176
#176
volsknx said:
These two vids are over a month old so I'm sure they may have been posted.



In this one his lawyer seems to be a smart cookie in that he is not telling what the strategy is but he seems to be laying the ground work that the University has tried to put it out there that Pruitt and coaches were sloppy. In other words, he states that there was no proof in the preliminary investigation that Pruitt was guilty of any wrong doing.

In this short clip with a different interviewer he:

Pruitt’s Attorney: No evidence of involvement in violations

seems to state that it is BOTH, the coach and the University that failed.

I have read somewhere where his contract states that if anyone under him does wrong that he can be held responsible. I have also read where the likely outcome will be that Pruitt will be paid but it wont be the 12 million and most likely half of that.

With all the negativity surrounding the program and the likelihood that we will have another dismal season due to rebuilding, should we have kept him another year? How dumb was that of Fulmer to give him a raise and extension?
Click to expand...


Under the contract that Pruitt signed, he accepted responsibility for anyone who directly or indirectly reports to him, knowing that doing so, gives the university cause for termination if their actions lead to Level I or II NCAA violations.

pruitteffed.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000, Evergrenevol and Volanta
#177
#177
volsknx said:
These two vids are over a month old so I'm sure they may have been posted.



In this one his lawyer seems to be a smart cookie in that he is not telling what the strategy is but he seems to be laying the ground work that the University has tried to put it out there that Pruitt and coaches were sloppy. In other words, he states that there was no proof in the preliminary investigation that Pruitt was guilty of any wrong doing.

In this short clip with a different interviewer he:

Pruitt’s Attorney: No evidence of involvement in violations

seems to state that it is BOTH, the coach and the University that failed.

I have read somewhere where his contract states that if anyone under him does wrong that he can be held responsible. I have also read where the likely outcome will be that Pruitt will be paid but it wont be the 12 million and most likely half of that.

With all the negativity surrounding the program and the likelihood that we will have another dismal season due to rebuilding, should we have kept him another year? How dumb was that of Fulmer to give him a raise and extension?
Click to expand...

Won’t get a dime. Textbook for cause firing. Big shock his lawyer is saber rattling. 😏
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000, Border Vol, sjt18 and 2 others
#178
#178
BeardedVol said:
Under the contract that Pruitt signed, he accepted responsibility for anyone who directly or indirectly reports to him, knowing that doing so, gives the university cause for termination if their actions lead to Level I or II NCAA violations.

pruitteffed.png
Click to expand...

I'm betting this is probably a standard contract now. It puts not only the ball but the net, goal and backboard ALL in the coaches court!
 
  • Like
Reactions: butchna
#179
#179
volsknx said:
I'm betting this is probably a standard contract now. It puts not only the ball but the net, goal and backboard ALL in the coaches court!
Click to expand...

Being standard in a contract, does not make it 'not binding'. I'm not sure why some of you assume that the contract can only be leveraged by the coach when they are fired without cause, and not by the university, to fire for cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roustabout and PNW Huskie
#180
#180
BeardedVol said:
Being standard in a contract, does not make it 'not binding'. I'm not sure why some of you assume that the contract can only be leveraged by the coach when they are fired without cause, and not by the university, to fire for cause.
Click to expand...

If I insinuated that it was 'not binding' that was not my intent. I had seen a Youtube video (and read what you outlined in your post) outlining that contract of his and how what others do under his watch impact/affects him. That same video also stated that not that long ago, contracts did not have that in it or it wasn't standard in them.

My point was that, not long ago, coaching contracts were not worded as what they are now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#181
#181
I think some of it will go to precedent. Do other UT coaches have the same wording in their contracts and, if so, were they treated the same way if violations occurred under their watch? If yes, it’s not about singling out Pruitt and he gets $0. If no, then I would expect UT to pay some money. If there is no precedent either way, 🤷🏽‍♂️.
 
#186
#186
BlinghamptonVol said:
I think some of it will go to precedent. Do other UT coaches have the same wording in their contracts and, if so, were they treated the same way if violations occurred under their watch? If yes, it’s not about singling out Pruitt and he gets $0. If no, then I would expect UT to pay some money. If there is no precedent either way, 🤷🏽‍♂️.
Click to expand...
I doubt a staff member ratting out numerous violations and bypassing the chain of command is the precedent in any other case.

It’s perfectly normal for a sport to self report violations. Pruitt (and his staff) wasn’t reporting anything. So, he was either ignorant or complicit in wanton cheating.

The bigger question I have is if this was rampant, then how many players on the team are ineligible for taking improper benefits?? It’s a mystery that there could have been cheating at that level yet not one player is having their eligibility challenged.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VAVol85
#187
#187
BeardedVol said:
Being standard in a contract, does not make it 'not binding'. I'm not sure why some of you assume that the contract can only be leveraged by the coach when they are fired without cause, and not by the university, to fire for cause.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but my experience is that the employer is on easier ground to fire without cause (at least in Tennessee...and at least if buyout money is ignored) in that they can say "You're fired just because I wanted to". Whereas to fire 'with cause' requires 'cause' to be proven.
 
#188
#188
onevol74 said:
Have to wonder if Pruitt and Kirby are stabbing each other in the back?
Click to expand...

I would somehow feel that there was justice in the world if Georgia, Auburn and Ole Miss would get in as big of trouble as us. I would actually hate it for Lane Kiffin, but I would still be OK with it. We are never going to be a winning program if everyone is cheating but us.
 
#189
#189
OrangeSoddyDaisy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but my experience is that the employer is on easier ground to fire without cause (at least in Tennessee...and at least if buyout money is ignored) in that they can say "You're fired just because I wanted to". Whereas to fire 'with cause' requires 'cause' to be proven.
Click to expand...

Tennessee is an "at will" employment state, without an employment contract the university can fire any non-tenured staff member as long as they do so in a legal manner and with "good cause".

Pruitt's contract specifically lists conduct that does or would likely lead to NCAA Level I or II violations by himself, or any of his direct or indirect reports, as cause for termination, but does not limit the university to those reasons as to what is "cause", but requires them to act in good faith. The fact that they had NCAA representation during the independent investigation, saying "yes those are violations" is not going to make it easy for him to challenge in court, and if/when we get hit with sanctions, that will be as damning as it gets.

He can certainly can file suit, but he probably wants to coach at a higher level than the NFL defensive analyst-type position that Joe Judge gave to him, and while a lawsuit would be expensive for the university, it would also most likely torpedo any chance of Pruitt getting back to higher echelons of coaching. As far as I'm aware of, his legal representation is actually based out of Texas, and he hasn't retained any legal counsel in Tennessee.
 
#190
#190
BeardedVol said:
...he probably wants to coach at a higher level than the NFL defensive analyst-type position that Joe Judge gave to him...
Click to expand...

Unless I missed it the last time I looked he was not listed anywhere as a staff member. Outside of the initial barrage of reports linked to a single source there has been no further media or club news about him. I don't believe he's employed by the Giants.

New York Football Giants | Giants.com
 
#191
#191
BlinghamptonVol said:
I think some of it will go to precedent. Do other UT coaches have the same wording in their contracts and, if so, were they treated the same way if violations occurred under their watch? If yes, it’s not about singling out Pruitt and he gets $0. If no, then I would expect UT to pay some money. If there is no precedent either way, 🤷🏽‍♂️.
Click to expand...
Maybe check out Donnie Tyndall’s. His violations weren’t even committed at UT...except for his clumsy attempt to delete previous emails.
 
#193
#193
Fulmer had similar language in his contract that pertained to people reporting to him regarding level I and level II violations, but Randy ponied up the money to pay Fulmer off, how you treat employees differently for the same train wreck violations of the NCAA, SEC rules and universities policies on ethics is what will cause the university to settle, Pruitt's days as a coach at an NCAA governed school are over, the NFL games has a different set of rules, paying players is not against the rules, matter of fact it is required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000
#195
#195
I don't think Beldar deserves a pinch of rat crap but give him a couple mil and be done with this guy. No need to drag this through media and associate his name with us any longer. Kick that sorry gumper to the curb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeAl 1979
#197
#197
BeardedVol said:
Under the contract that Pruitt signed, he accepted responsibility for anyone who directly or indirectly reports to him, knowing that doing so, gives the university cause for termination if their actions lead to Level I or II NCAA violations.

pruitteffed.png
Click to expand...
I read this as saying there has to be conduct or omissions by a person who reports directly or indirectly to Beldar AND "material neglect" by Beldar OR "lack of reasonable preventative compliance measures" by Beldar. Further the University owes Beldar a duty to exercise "reasonable and good faith judgment" in making the foregoing determination regarding "material neglect", etc. by Beldar. 95% of civil lawsuits settle and most likely this one will as well.
 
#199
#199
unfrozencvmanvol said:
I read this as saying there has to be conduct or omissions by a person who reports directly or indirectly to Beldar AND "material neglect" by Beldar OR "lack of reasonable preventative compliance measures" by Beldar. Further the University owes Beldar a duty to exercise "reasonable and good faith judgment" in making the foregoing determination regarding "material neglect", etc. by Beldar. 95% of civil lawsuits settle and most likely this one will as well.
Click to expand...

Pruitt can't just say "I was unaware of any activity that my subordinates were engaging in", and find absolution from his contractual obligation to be responsible for their conduct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Remy
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top