Dooley's Going to Get Destroyed by the Media for This Arnett Fiasco...

Discussion in 'Vols Football' started by LawVol13, Dec 29, 2011.

  1. Lexvol

    Lexvol Guest

    Given the situation, I still think the Cinci receiver situation was much worse than this. How [uck fay]ing insecure do you have to be to keep a kid who hasn't played a game from transferring?
     
  2. gorockytop101

    gorockytop101 New Member

    Well, Dooley just made Brian Kelly look like a class act, so that's impressive.
     
  3. Lexvol

    Lexvol Guest

    Ehhhh...when he starts killing the camera crew come talk to me. Muschamp...may have worked.
     
  4. gorockytop101

    gorockytop101 New Member

    "Due to the declining health and eventual passing of (his father) Louis Bullard, the last 12 months have been very challenging for Alex and his family," Kelly said in the release. "Throughout this very trying time, (they) have continued to exude the utmost class and dignity and I wish Alex and his family all the best in the future and will keep them in my thoughts. Alex is a great young man that I enjoyed working with this year and fully understand and support his desires to attend a school closer to his mother and sister."
     
  5. Low Country Vol

    Low Country Vol Contributor

    This ass clown pursues his own personal ambitions and bolts his former recruits with zero repercussions.
     
  6. Jewbaccah

    Jewbaccah New Member

    This is really not that big a deal. The kid wants to go play ball with his friend. His dad from all the reports I have heard is in the same health he was when Arnett came to UT. Arnett has never lived with his father. Arnett wants to go because he has a personal problem with DR and his buddy plays at Michigan. Dooley could of given him his release but it really is a small thing. Now if the info on his dad is false and he is on his death bed let him go of course...it does not sound that way though.

    I am curious to what Arnett does now.
     
  7. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    It would also be a great way for an attorney to get hit with a rule 11 violation. That's one of the shakiest legal claims I've ever heard and one that has approximately zero percent chance of surviving summary judgment. To prevail, you would have to either prove (a) that Baggett wasn't actually employed as a coach or (b) that Arnett's signing of the LOI was conditioned on Baggett's continued employment AND that [ddiapos] *knew* that at the time of signing that Baggett would not be employed for that time period. You'd need more than activist judge. You'd need a judge that accepts bribes. And this one wouldn't come cheap.
     
  8. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    That might very well be true;however, that won't be what gets reported in the media. It will look like Dooley won't let a kid see his dying dad.
     
  9. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Exactly. What could Dooley possibly gain by [uck fay]ing around with Arnett like this? Nothing that I can see.
     
  10. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    I actually think it's already been ruled that a claim like that is automatically dismissed. It would be akin to a kid claiming fraud in the contract formation process by promising playing time that said player never received. The case name escapes me at this time, but it's not an actionable claim.
     
  11. kidbourbon

    kidbourbon Well-Known Member

    Funny....I deleted a sentence that said that it probably also wasn't even possible to state a claim. I deleted that sentence because I think it can be dressed up in a way such that it does state a legally cognizable claim. But to dress it up that way requires alleging completely/utterly/unequivocally, unprovable facts. So, yeah, I think a clever lawyer could get it past the rule 12(b)(6) motion....but no further.
     
  12. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Possibly. But, I'm almost positive it's settled law that, for the letter of intent to be attacked, it must be shown that some explicit provision in the LOI was violated. Playing time, position coaches, etc. are not explicitly in the LOI. Therefore, I think it's entirely possible that precedent is cited and it fails the 12(b)(6). The only reason I have the faintest clue about this is because I just got out of Sports Law this semester and we discussed this exact topic. KB, did not know you were an attorney. Very cool.
     
  13. Tar Volon

    Tar Volon Me Blog @RockyTopTalk.com

    And deservedly so. I saw his reasoning on Bryce Brown and Aaron Douglas. There's no good excuse for not releasing Arnett to Michigan or Sparty
     
  14. LawVol13

    LawVol13 Chieftain

    Just read what Hubbs wrote about Arnett's father:

    He went on to state that he felt Baggett's "retirement" was another big issue as well.
     
  15. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    The reasoning is specious by Dooley as his qualifiers keep changing. Brown had to come see him and he would go, scot-free, it seemed. Douglas had some kind of odd "8 hour radius" put into effect (Eight hours by interstate? Air? Jalopy?). Now, Arnett can't go to a place that we recruit against, another amorphous concept considering that our national recruiting pretty much puts us in competition with the entire country's major D1 schools. It's ridiculous and creates issues where there shouldn't be. "You wanna leave? Fine, adios. You sit out a year and we wash our hands of you." Clean and simple. I have no idea what Dooley is trying to promote here.
     
  16. justingroves

    justingroves supermod

    The Douglas deal was to get him the hell away from bad influences. Dooley went about the wrong way, but I see what he was trying to do.

    The Brown deal was ridiculous. The Kenbrell Thompkins deal was ridiculous.

    How bad did Pat Martin have to suck to get sent home this fall?
     
  17. tennesseevolman

    tennesseevolman New Member

    Yeah, that letter showed why we have better recruits than Vandy. Dude was not an Enlish major, thats for sure.
     
  18. justingroves

    justingroves supermod


    It's hard for me to say whether or not this will hurt recruiting for Dooley. All that really needs to be said is, "Look at his record, he's living on borrowed time in Knoxville as it is". I'm sure some will mention Arnett, but it's not like it's one black mark on an otherwise sterling record.

    I don't see how it's a good thing to bring a guy back that doesn't really want to be here either. I'm sure it doesn't hurt a fragile locker room at all

    It's just one more nail in the coffin
     
  19. CardinalVol

    CardinalVol Uncultured, non-diverse mod

    It just an unneeded black mark is my point. It may not affect 95-98% of recruits, but when you are going toe to toe in a marlon brown situation (prob not the best example but you get the point), then it could become a big deal. When you have enough negatives against you, there is no need to weigh another.

    I don't think it will be a sole reason we tank, but quite frankly I don't want another con against us.

    The lone pro from a pr standpoint is that it is during the holidays, the espn talking head shows are done for the bowls, and I doubt this is discussion worthy next week.
     
  20. cotton

    cotton Stand-up Philosopher

    If I were recruiting against Dooley, I think I would carry a copy of the open letter in my pocket with the last line highlighted:

    "Therefore as a student athlete i feel coach dooley is trying to hinder my success by not allowing me to compete at a bcs level! And he's neglecting the fact that my father is severely ill."

    This situation may not be disastrous, but it sure doesn't look very good.
     

Share This Page