Random Musings: Rev Bubba / Gruden UT Breach

Not only that, but there is no way the university is drafting such a document while dooley is under contract.

I am 100% confident nothing close to being that formal has been done.

 

Hope its not the latter. Don't want to turn into auburn

 

What if Dooley had been told he wasn't returning?

 

That's the thing. If 5 games into the regular season, you know he's not the guy, then let him go.

It is why the whole "if Dooley wins a game he might be safe" discussion doesn't make any sense. Nobody thinks he is the guy. His defenders don't think firing him is fair, but they don't really think he is the guy. His mother thinks he's precious, but she doesn't think he's the guy. Beating Missouri, Kentucky, and Vandy won't make him the guy.

 

Still would not matter. Too much potential for a legal mess to ensue.

Plus, the p.r. hit cannot be underestimated

 

You don't know what you're talking about - there's no legal mess in that scenario.

 

meh. As has been stated the MOU is nonbinding, and it's Jon Gruden. Hard to see anyone getting too up in arms.

 

There is no potential legal trouble with the university entering into agreements with potential head coaches while dooley is under contract?

Of course there are huge potential issues with that.

Now don't get me wrong, there can be informal discussions, particularly between people outside the university. But that is not what was claimed.

 

Do you not remember the scandal when it was found out that some board of trustee members of auburn flew to louisville to get petrino?

Killed the deal, for sure

 

Agreements aren't official. Mou non binding as well. They are agreements and for all you know they fired Dooley already, yet are holding off on the official announcement.

 

Not the same - petrino was currently a head coach else where.

 

Not much point going back and forth i'll just leave it at this: an agreement is an agreement, and negotiations are negotiations. In Tennessee we have a cause of action for tortious interference with contract. That applies whether an agreement is "binding" or not and can apply merely by negotiations.

If there is a MOU between the university and gruden then i doubt any lawyer for our school is aware of it, cause they would not allow it

 

How can it interfere with a contract that has already been terminated? Yet the public just isn't aware of it until the season is over?

And an agreement is just words - thus harmless and non binding.

 

If a state employee's contract is terminated the state cannot hide that fact. Its part of the sunshine laws.
And an agreement of any sort is a contract in the legal sense. An MOU is a contract. They can be non-binding in the srnse that there are contingencies, but it is still a contract.

But even just negotiating brings up the possibility of liability.

Having said that, i am sure there are unofficial channels for certain things, but a MOU is outlandish

 

uh, you explicitly mentioned contingencies and then ignored that they likely exist

 

Logic.

 

The point being it does not matter if there are contingencies ir not.

I want to be clear, i am not saying that there is no communication with gruden, that all this is fanciful, etc.

I am strictly talking about agents of the university directly negotiating with gruden and/or signing agreements with him.

When you hear that, be skeptical of what the person is saying

 

Reading comprehension not a strong suit?

 

.

 

I am being skeptical of you. You're arguing that we couldn't put together contingent paperwork to make ourselves comfortable with formalizing to our coach that he isn't coming back.