PonyFans.com

how much will ESPN pay Leach to do color?

well I'll agree that there is no defamation claim so Tech should argue that reputation is not at issue but it took me about 2 minutes on google to find caselaw saying defamation can be irreparable harm-not going to spend a long time arguing it but I'm pretty sure that's the law. Leach could amend his petition too. Another interesting point is that Tech can buy him out FOR ANY REASON for a measly $400,000.

Stallion wrote:well I'll agree that there is no defamation claim so Tech should argue that reputation is not at issue but it took me about 2 minutes to find caselaw saying defamation can be irreparable harm-not going to spend a long time arguing it but I'm pretty sure that's the law. Leach could amend his petition too. Another interesting point is that Tech can buy him out FOR ANY REASON for a measly $400,000.

so Tech's people could walk into the hearing tomorrow, produce a check for 400k, and be on their merry way. In and out in about 10 minutes. That would be pretty damn funny.

I don't know who's right or wrong, but judging from Raiderpower.com, Gerald Myers is going to be the Herman Frazier of Lubbock pretty soon, if he isn't already

Stallion wrote:well I'll agree that there is no defamation claim so Tech should argue that reputation is not at issue but it took me about 2 minutes on google to find caselaw saying defamation can be irreparable harm-not going to spend a long time arguing it but I'm pretty sure that's the law. Leach could amend his petition too. Another interesting point is that Tech can buy him out FOR ANY REASON for a measly $400,000.

Yeah, I did a quick "non-Westlaw" search and saw that damage to reputation can be a basis for injunctive relief in Texas. However, I also pulled up several references to awards of monetary damages in Texas for damage to reputation. So, bottom line is, IF Leach could argue this is a damage to reputation situation, he might be able to urge irreparable harm per caselaw. BUT, this is not a damage to reputation scenario (at least in my eyes), so it doesn't matter.

more facts from FWST-inferring that Leach was uncooperative with the preliminary investigation
http://www.star-telegram.com/college_sp ... 58052.html

Stallion wrote:more facts from FWST-inferring that Leach was uncooperative with the preliminary investigation
http://www.star-telegram.com/college_sp ... 58052.html

That is how it is being reported here. Had he just said he was sorry, it would have all been dropped. Too late for that now.

yeah I doubt if there is anyone claiming that this is a firing offense-but again Leach's stubborness may well cause him to be fired

Stallion wrote:yeah I doubt if there is anyone claiming that this is a firing offense-but again Leach's stubborness may well cause him to be fired

Well, if Adam James was confined against his will, I think it would qualify as a firing offense. I'm not saying that it was "against his will"...I don't know, no facts out to substantiate that yet. But that would certainly be both a civil tort and criminal act.

buyout without cause is actually $400,000 for each remaining year of the Contract

which makes it $2,000,000

BRStang, going to agree with Stallion (will wonders never cease) and disagree with you on irreparable harm. It's not the missing the bowl game that is the irreparable harm, but the (allegedly) hasty, unfounded suspension itself that causes irreparable harm to reputation. The mere act of immediately suspending Leach pending a full investigation especially given that a bowl game is only a few days away, as opposed to issuing a statement saying that allegations had been made it was investigating and would make a determination upon completion of the investigation, lends credence to the James' allegations and harms his reputation in a manner in which damages would not fully compensate him (should his claims about the failure to follow due process prove true).

Honestly though, I think this is more a shrewd PR decision to salvage his reputation for future job opportunities than anything else. He is basically making the statement that he is so certain of his version of the facts that he is willing to air everything on the record in court. Even if he still gets canned, his willingness to air everything in a public forum makes it look more like this was all just another unorthodox Leach coaching method combined with an over-worried stage parent with a big microphone and a trigger-happy adminstration still miffed about the very public negotiation fiasco last year.

DiamondM wrote:BRStang, going to agree with Stallion (will wonders never cease) and disagree with you on irreparable harm. It's not the missing the bowl game that is the irreparable harm, but the (allegedly) hasty, unfounded suspension itself that causes irreparable harm to reputation. The mere act of immediately suspending Leach pending a full investigation especially given that a bowl game is only a few days away, as opposed to issuing a statement saying that allegations had been made it was investigating and would make a determination upon completion of the investigation, lends credence to the James' allegations and harms his reputation in a manner in which damages would not fully compensate him (should his claims about the failure to follow due process prove true).

Honestly though, I think this is more a shrewd PR decision to salvage his reputation for future job opportunities than anything else. He is basically making the statement that he is so certain of his version of the facts that he is willing to air everything on the record in court. Even if he still gets canned, his willingness to air everything in a public forum makes it look more like this was all just another unorthodox Leach coaching method combined with an over-worried stage parent with a big microphone and a trigger-happy adminstration still miffed about the very public negotiation fiasco last year.

Well, in actuality, I think you are disagreeing with both me and Stallion, because we both agree that there is no damage to reputation component here. In fact, Leach's lawyers are not even making that allegation, but rather focusing on what I said they should focus on previously (although laughable)--that "once he misses the bowl game, it's gone forever."

There's no evidence of damage to his reputation either, at least in the petition that was posted by the Lubbock paper. The evidence of "irreparable harm" in Leach's affidavit was directed solely to the ability of the team to prepare for the game. Anything else would have to come from the witness stand in the hearing.

in summary, he could amend but he did not plead any type of defamation which would allow recovery for reputation damages which surprised me because he did in fact mention reputation in his irreparable damage pleading but as jtstang says not his affidavit

Not many facts but a whole lot of speculation. In some ways, this is like a bad S&M/bondage situation where one person went beyond the 'safe' word. It is kinda creepy but funny at the same time.

Just glad it is TTU and not us.

Now I will just get my popcorn and watch the show.