We Need Better Lawyers and a Set

#52

onthehill71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
148
#52
his college future is in doubt due to the violations. He is after 12 million dollars. his lawyers are pushing this.. they understand it will be settled.

the issue for Tennessee is not the level one violations as relates to a lawsuit. It is names of influential people becoming public.
Jimmy and Bill Haslam paid a $92 m dollar fine for Pilot fuel issues. Really doubt they give a crap about any potential public disgrace. Old Thunder has been in and out of court for 30 years, suing and being sued. If this secret cabal ,who allegedly control all things Tennessee, allowed Pruitt's for cause dismissal.... a magical appearance of funds to pay him off seems problematic.
 
Likes: kcvols1
#53

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#53
He could also say that he was just operating in the established environment with full approval of his superiors.
He'd have to admit that he knew what was going on, and prove that Fulmer was in the know himself. If anything he'd be strengthening the case for himself to be fired with cause, and give UT a reason to retroactively terminate Fulmer with cause since he had similar language in his AD contract.

UT doesn't have to prove that Pruitt cheated, or even that he knew about the cheating. All the school has to prove is that the assistants who did cheat, were subordinate to Pruitt, and he was responsible for them under the terms of his contract.
 
#54

hog88

Slice don't pay
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
77,982
Likes
77,962
#54
He'd have to admit that he knew what was going on, and prove that Fulmer was in the know himself. If anything he'd be strengthening the case for himself to be fired with cause, and give UT a reason to retroactively terminate Fulmer with cause since he had similar language in his AD contract.

The school doesn't have to prove that Pruitt cheated, or even that he knew about the cheating, all the school has to prove is that the assistants who did cheat, were subordinate to Pruitt, and he was responsible for them under the terms of his contract.
I'm sure there is plenty of documented mud to sling in both directions. Fulmers skirts were never clean so why risk further damage to the program?
 
#55

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#55
And furthermore that 900k Steele got should have come out of Fulmers end
If Fulmer loved UT as much as some people on here believe that he does, he'd have already offered to honor Steele's contract out of his own buyout, and forego anything that was left considering this entire mess with Pruitt is at his feet from both hiring him in the first place, and giving him the extension.
 
Likes: 508mikey
#56

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#56
I'm sure there is plenty of documented mud to sling in both directions. Fulmers skirts were never clean so why risk further damage to the program?
What damage to the program do you foresee that's greater than cheating, sucking while cheating, being bad at cheating, and the school having to self-investigate because of it? Pruitt was fired, there are several assistants are probably going to get 'show-causes', Fulmer had to step down and has tarnished his own legacy.

What more could actually be done at this point outside of the NCAA sanctions that we are going to face anyway? Do you really believe that UT is trying to hide anything form the NCAA at this point given that they are the ones that brought the NCAA in to sit in on the coaching interviews?
 
#57

onthehill71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
148
#57
What damage to the program do you foresee that's greater than cheating, sucking while cheating, being bad at cheating, and the school having to self-investigate because of it? Pruitt was fired, there are several assistants are probably going to get 'show-causes', Fulmer had to step down and has tarnished his own legacy.

What more could actually be done at this point outside of the NCAA sanctions that we are going to face anyway? Do you really believe that UT is trying to hide anything form the NCAA at this point given that they are the ones that brought the NCAA in to sit in on the coaching interviews?
Good summary.
 
#58

hog88

Slice don't pay
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
77,982
Likes
77,962
#58
What damage to the program do you foresee that's greater than cheating, sucking while cheating, being bad at cheating, and the school having to self-investigate because of it? Pruitt was fired, there are several assistants are probably going to get 'show-causes', Fulmer had to step down and has tarnished his own legacy.

What more could actually be done at this point outside of the NCAA sanctions that we are going to face anyway? Do you really believe that UT is trying to hide anything form the NCAA at this point given that they are the ones that brought the NCAA in to sit in on the coaching interviews?
Right now I don't see where the NCAA could hang "lack of institutional control" on us and that's the charge that brings the bowl bans and scholarship reductions. Open court with discovery could bring some long buried secrets to the surface.
 
#59
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#59
What damage to the program do you foresee that's greater than cheating, sucking while cheating, being bad at cheating, and the school having to self-investigate because of it? Pruitt was fired, there are several assistants are probably going to get 'show-causes', Fulmer had to step down and has tarnished his own legacy.

What more could actually be done at this point outside of the NCAA sanctions that we are going to face anyway? Do you really believe that UT is trying to hide anything form the NCAA at this point given that they are the ones that brought the NCAA in to sit in on the coaching interviews?
So Pruitt's attorney wants to prove this was business as usual for UT and asks everyone he can in court, under oath, "Did you have personal knowledge of this occurring in other sports?"

If Pruitt did, he'll spill everything. Others who know where the skeletons are might not like staring at perjury charges. Lying to the NCAA is one thing, lying to a court is another.

Nobody at UT wants this in court.
 
Likes: hog88
#60

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#60
Right now I don't see where the NCAA could hang "lack of institutional control" on us and that's the charge that brings the bowl bans and scholarship reductions. Open court with discovery could bring some long buried secrets to the surface.
Open court discovery for what? Pruitt can't just file a lawsuit and get discovery for information that doesn't pertain to the legality of his termination under his employment contract; that's not how discovery works.

His lawsuit, if there ever is one, is going to be on whether or not UT could fire him with cause under his contract, whether the language was legal and enforceable, not whether or not he cheated, or whether or not Fulmer knew of the cheating. Unless it comes back that none of the assistants actually were cheating, then he doesn't have much of a case given that the language in his contract is common to those at other schools, and those of previous head football coaches at UT.
 
Likes: kcvols1
#61

kcvols1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
4,110
Likes
1,624
#61
What damage to the program do you foresee that's greater than cheating, sucking while cheating, being bad at cheating, and the school having to self-investigate because of it? Pruitt was fired, there are several assistants are probably going to get 'show-causes', Fulmer had to step down and has tarnished his own legacy.

What more could actually be done at this point outside of the NCAA sanctions that we are going to face anyway? Do you really believe that UT is trying to hide anything form the NCAA at this point given that they are the ones that brought the NCAA in to sit in on the coaching interviews?
Hear, hear.

If you’re going through Hell, just keep going.
 
#62

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#62
So Pruitt's attorney wants to prove this was business as usual for UT and asks everyone he can in court, under oath, "Did you have personal knowledge of this occurring in other sports?"

If Pruitt did, he'll spill everything. Others who know where the skeletons are might not like staring at perjury charges. Lying to the NCAA is one thing, lying to a court is another.

Nobody at UT wants this in court.
How many times does it need to be said...Pruitt...was...not...fired...for...cheating. Pruitt was fired, because he signed a contract where he assumed responsibility for the actions of those who 'directly or indirectly reported to him'.

UT literally didn't even need confirmed Level I/II violations to actually occur to have grounds to fire him as per the language of the contract, 'actions that would most likely lead to Level I/II violations' is enough to terminate with cause under the contract.

He's not going to be able to get discovery on information that does not pertain to whether or not, that contract language was legal and enforceable as long as there are direct or indirect reports that are found to have engaged in conduct that leads to or would lead to Level I/II violations. Him arguing that committing Level I/II violations is the norm at UT, and Fulmer knew it, does not help his case unless he can prove that the entirety of the administration was in on a 'grand conspiracy' which we all know is road apples considering that our administration doesn't actually care about winning as long as SEC network money is coming in.

Since the NCAA sat in on the coaching interviews and said "yes that is a violation", and those coaches reported to him, he doesn't have much of a case in arguing that his termination was improper under the contract, given that the language for subordinate responsibility is common to HC football coaches across the NCAA.
 
Likes: kcvols1
#63
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#63
How many times does it need to be said...Pruitt...was...not...fired...for...cheating. Pruitt was fired, because he signed a contract where he assumed responsibility for the actions of those who 'directly or indirectly reported to him'.

UT literally didn't even need confirmed Level I/II violations to actually occur to have grounds to fire him as per the language of the contract, 'actions that would most likely lead to Level I/II violations' is enough to terminate with cause under the contract.

He's not going to be able to get discovery on information that does not pertain to whether or not, that contract language was legal and enforceable as long as there are direct or indirect reports that are found to have engaged in conduct that leads to or would lead to Level I/II violations. Him arguing that committing Level I/II violations is the norm at UT, and Fulmer knew it, does not help his case unless he can prove that the entirety of the administration was in on a 'grand conspiracy' which we all know is road apples considering that our administration doesn't actually care about winning as long as SEC network money is coming in.

Since the NCAA sat in on the coaching interviews and said "yes that is a violation", and those coaches reported to him, he doesn't have much of a case in arguing that his termination was improper under the contract, given that the language for subordinate responsibility is common to HC football coaches across the NCAA.
It's not about cheating, it's about trying to dispute the legality of the contract. It's about his attorney trying to prove UT knew and expected Pruitt to commit Level I/II infractions despite the contract language.

I believe he'll take the path of saying: this language in the contract was a sham because UT has been and is paying players in lots of sports and my superior knew it when he offered it. Then, he'll start asking people uncomfortable questions.

Sure, Pruitt might lose the lawsuit but the NCAA also might put down the framing hammer and pick up the 15lb sledge.

That's why we don't want this in court.
 
Likes: hog88
#64

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#64
It's not about cheating, it's about trying to dispute the legality of the contract. It's about his attorney trying to prove UT knew and expected Pruitt to commit Level I/II infractions despite the contract language.

I believe he'll take the path of saying: this language in the contract was a sham because UT has been and is paying players in lots of sports and my superior knew it when he offered it. Then, he'll start asking people uncomfortable questions.

Sure, Pruitt might lose the lawsuit but the NCAA also might put down the framing hammer and pick up the 15lb sledge.

That's why we don't want this in court.
UT doesn't have to prove he knew anything. He signed a contract accepting responsibility for the actions of his direct and indirect reports, with the full knowledge, that their actions could be 'cause' for his own firing.

It was his job, per his contract, to know what they were doing, he can't claim ignorance as a defense.

The NCAA was literally sitting in on those interviews, do you really believe that if any of those coaches were going to claim that Fulmer and the administration were in the know, that they wouldn't have done so already to try and save their own skin?
 
#65

onthehill71

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
154
Likes
148
#65
Right now I don't see where the NCAA could hang "lack of institutional control" on us and that's the charge that brings the bowl bans and scholarship reductions. Open court with discovery could bring some long buried secrets to the surface.
Buried secrets? So we are afraid that documents will come out that reveal a discussion about Pruitt's piss poor ability as a coach and dismal future prospects. This written record is coupled with a review of out financial liabilities if fired without cause. Then, the written records reflect a discussion re the sudden recall of miscreant coaching behavior by individuals Pruitt is responsible for. This behavior would constitute just cause. The major parties involved here then chart a path that includes self reporting to the NCAA , firing of Pruitt, et al., removing Fulmer(paying him), getting buyin from UT officials and major donors. All this is accomplished by a group that gave us Lyle and Pruitt as coaching..
 
#66
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#66
UT doesn't have to prove he knew anything. He signed a contract accepting responsibility for the actions of his direct and indirect reports, with the full knowledge, that their actions could be 'cause' for his own firing.

It was his job, per his contract, to know what they were doing, he can't claim ignorance as a defense.

The NCAA was literally sitting in on those interviews, do you really believe that if any of those coaches were going to claim that Fulmer and the administration were in the know, that they wouldn't have done so already to try and save their own skin?
I do believe they'd lie to the NCAA and wink,wink at the University during the interview but again, perjury is more serious than a show cause.

Those guys may want to coach again in the NCAA and tossing your employer under the bus to the NCAA is bad for your career. Lying to the court is bad for your life. Pruitt is done in the NCAA for the foreseeable future and he's apparently willing to play multi-million dollar chicken with the university.

All Pruitt is trying to do is threaten to stir enough mud that the university, admin, and boosters agree to pay him. Settlements aren't always about being able to win the lawsuit but often about the cost (money and mud) of winning the lawsuit.
 
Likes: hog88
#67

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#67
I do believe they'd lie to the NCAA and wink,wink at the University during the interview but again, perjury is more serious than a show cause.

Those guys may want to coach again in the NCAA and tossing your employer under the bus to the NCAA is bad for your career. Lying to the court is bad for your life. Pruitt is done in the NCAA for the foreseeable future and he's apparently willing to play multi-million dollar chicken with the university.

All Pruitt is trying to do is threaten to stir enough mud that the university, admin, and boosters agree to pay him. Settlements aren't always about being able to win the lawsuit but often about the cost (money and mud) of winning the lawsuit.
Lol..."wink at the university"? The university that initiated the investigation, brought in the NCAA, and subsequently terminated those assistants 'with cause'? You believe they'd lie to the NCAA to protect the university instead of trying to save themselves by implicating the administration as being aware of the cheating? What benefit would any of them see from doing so?

"Stir enough mud"? What does that even mean? What do you possibly think that Pruitt could "stir up" that would help him get $12 million dollars, that wouldn't strengthen UT's case for firing him? Or are you insinuating that Pruitt would try to extort UT for the money?
 
#68
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#68
Lol..."wink at the university"? The university that initiated the investigation, brought in the NCAA, and subsequently terminated those assistants 'with cause'? You believe they'd lie to the NCAA to protect the university instead of trying to save themselves by implicating the administration as being aware of the cheating? What benefit would any of them see from doing so?

"Stir enough mud"? What does that even mean? What do you possibly think that Pruitt could "stir up" that would help him get $12 million dollars, that wouldn't strengthen UT's case for firing him? Or are you insinuating that Pruitt would try to extort UT for the money?
Yes, wink at the University and not toss them under the bus in front of the NCAA. That's not a good career move and Nieds might want to work again after his show cause. Pruitt appears not to care and/or he's dumb.

And I'm insinuating LOTS of settlements occur or in the case of Hugh Freeze don't occur because one party or the other isn't interested in the mud and the bad publicity.

Extortion is a bad word. I prefer leverage. Pruitt didn't file suit to win, he filed suit to leverage UT into a settlement to avoid a protracted and uncomfortable trial. See how nice that sounds?
 
#69
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#69
Buried secrets? So we are afraid that documents will come out that reveal a discussion about Pruitt's piss poor ability as a coach and dismal future prospects. This written record is coupled with a review of out financial liabilities if fired without cause. Then, the written records reflect a discussion re the sudden recall of miscreant coaching behavior by individuals Pruitt is responsible for. This behavior would constitute just cause. The major parties involved here then chart a path that includes self reporting to the NCAA , firing of Pruitt, et al., removing Fulmer(paying him), getting buyin from UT officials and major donors. All this is accomplished by a group that gave us Lyle and Pruitt as coaching..
I believe the Kansas coach sued and got his settlement trying to prove EXACTLY that Kansas essentially just tried to look for anything they could to avoid paying him his buyout.

They found Level II infractions and withheld his buyout. He sued, they settled. I believe it involved email and other documented discussions of trying to avoid paying his buyout by digging up something.

So yeah, if there's email discussion that "we need to get rid of Pruitt but the money....." and then discussion of looking for reasons to get "with cause" on Pruitt, you can look up the Kansas case.
 
#70

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#70
Yes, wink at the University and not toss them under the bus in front of the NCAA. That's not a good career move and Nieds might want to work again after his show cause. Pruitt appears not to care and/or he's dumb.

And I'm insinuating LOTS of settlements occur or in the case of Hugh Freeze don't occur because one party or the other isn't interested in the mud and the bad publicity.

Extortion is a bad word. I prefer leverage. Pruitt didn't file suit to win, he filed suit to leverage UT into a settlement to avoid a protracted and uncomfortable trial. See how nice that sounds?
Pruitt would be admitting complicity to the cheating, strengthening UT's position in firing him if he suddenly manifested proof of boosters giving him money to pay players.

I don't believe for one instant that Brian Niedermeyer or Shelton Felton would "take one for the team" to protect Pruitt or UT if they could shift the blame upwards and save themselves from being terminated without a buyout and risking a show-cause from the NCAA.
 
#71

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#71
I believe the Kansas coach sued and got his settlement trying to prove EXACTLY that Kansas essentially just tried to look for anything they could to avoid paying him his buyout.

They found Level II infractions and withheld his buyout. He sued, they settled. I believe it involved email and other documented discussions of trying to avoid paying his buyout by digging up something.

So yeah, if there's email discussion that "we need to get rid of Pruitt but the money....." and then discussion of looking for reasons to get "with cause" on Pruitt, you can look up the Kansas case.
Kansas fired Beaty without cause for 'sucking as a coach', which would have entitled him to his buyout, then tried to and open an investigation into NCAA violations after his termination, and retroactively fire him 'with cause', in order to not pay him his buyout.

The situations are 100% not even remotely similar.
 
Likes: GreveHaller
#72
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#72
Pruitt would be admitting complicity to the cheating, strengthening UT's position in firing him if he suddenly manifested proof of boosters giving him money to pay players.

I don't believe for one instant that Brian Niedermeyer or Shelton Felton would "take one for the team" to protect Pruitt or UT if they could shift the blame upwards and save themselves from being terminated without a buyout and risking a show-cause from the NCAA.
Sure, Pruitt showing getting money from boosters doesn't help his case but do you think UT wants to get boosters subpoenaed? Nope. That's why boosters will take up a collection and pay him off.

As for Nieds and Felton, they aren't going to get spared by the NCAA if they were paying players even if it was "just following orders." If guilty, they're done for a few years but bringing down the house, like Pruitt is likely threatening, would make them a pariah to other schools.
 
#73
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
1,074
Likes
1,245
#73
Kansas fired Beaty without cause for 'sucking as a coach', which would have entitled him to his buyout, then tried to and open an investigation into NCAA violations after his termination, and retroactively fire him 'with cause', in order to not pay him his buyout.

The situations are 100% not even remotely similar.
If there are emails and documents that UT wanted to fire Pruitt for sucking, but worried about the money, then discussed getting a "with cause" I'd say there's similarity.

There may be nothing like that. I don't think we know what was discussed about getting rid of Pruitt before "with cause" reasons were found.
 
#74

BeardedVol

Not-Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
10,284
Likes
20,195
#74
If there are emails and documents that UT wanted to fire Pruitt for sucking, but worried about the money, then discussed getting a "with cause" I'd say there's similarity.

There may be nothing like that. I don't think we know what was discussed about getting rid of Pruitt before "with cause" reasons were found.
A simple FOI request from KnoxNews would have produced those if they existed, just like they did with Currie's text records.

Even if there were an email that from Plowman to Fulmer that said "Pruitt sucks, wish we could fire him", it still wouldn't matter in terms of whether or not his firing 'with cause' was legal, as long as there is conduct from direct or indirect reports that does or 'would likely lead to' NCAA Level I/II violations, which according to the NCAA rep setting in on the interviews during the investigation, there were.

Pruitt is not going to be able to prove that UT manufactured a reason to fire him, if the NCAA says "Yes, Felton and Niedermeyer committed infractions".
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top