I didn't take it as schools using litigation to hold coaches to contract terms. Most coaches know they will owe money if they leave early and they either pay it or have the new school pay it. Chavis is disputing that he owes the money. Likewise, LSU believes they are owed the money so they are going to pursue it..So is this the new trend in coaching? Between this and the Texas/Ok State situation, are we seeing a new trend where schools are using litigation to hold coaches to contract terms?
I don't recall this happening in the past.
LINK
I'm not sure they can point to a guy buying a second home as the event that defines his termination date. Afer all, when did CNS buy his lake house?But there's something else. The suit says that Chavis bought a house and moved. But it doesn't say whether that took place before or after February 1. If before, it seems to me that Chavis didn't honor his notice, but rather abandoned his job....and therefore owes damages. If after 2/5, and assuming notice really did happen on 1/5, advantage shifts back to Chavis.
I'm buying popcorn. The "yeah, buts" are going to be fascinating.
The simplest explanation that I can come up with for LSU demanding liquidated damages on the first business day of the new year -- three days before Chavis claims to have delivered notice -- is that they feel they received notice earlier. I'm assuming some time in December, though I guess it could theoretically have been on New Year's Day.I'm not sure they can point to a guy buying a second home as the event that defines his termination date. Afer all, when did CNS buy his lake house?
I'm pretty sure that he was required to give a letter of resignation when he left. If that letter said "My last day is XXX", that's pretty cut and dried unless they challenged the date at the time the letter was submitted. If it didn't spell his last day out, I would assume that his termination date would be the date of the letter, also pretty cut and dried. If, on the other hand, the actual date depends on what Les remembers about the conversation, Chavis might be in trouble. Any of you lawyers out there want to chime in?
Also, I read somewhere (sorry, no link) that the only reason Chavis listed A&M in the suit is so they would have "interested party" status in court. The buzz in Aggieland seems to be that A&M is going to back Chavis, and if necessary will pony up the cash, but don't want to unless they have to.
Wow....that one is going to leave a mark! :biggrin2:If LSU shows tape of the bowl game, they can make a compelling argument that Chavis had already quit.