Leach Points the Finger at Hance
by LondonRaider on Jan 12, 2010 2:30 PM CST
175 comments
In the case of Mike Leach v. Texas Tech, Leach’s attorney filed an amended petition which adds further color to the events leading to Leach’s dismissal. This is worth your read.
For non lawyers, "Section IV. Facts" (the first 12 pages) will likely be the most interesting. For the DTNLR*, the remaining sections will likely be more germane.
(Major hat tip to CRV, this is more of the condensed version).
Some of the more interesting items in this document include (I’m obviously focusing on some of the more illuminating claims):
-
Specific examples of Adam James’ disruptiveness including an incident where he broke a coach’s door after learning of his demotion to the third team. (I would copy and paste the text here, but the .pdf file protects against copying - you will have to read it yourselves).
-
A more detailed account from Leach’s side of how Adam James, having been diagnosed with a mild concussion, was treated by the trainers.
-
Kent Hance forbidding Leach to cut James from the team. (Really?)
Craig James
Specific descriptions of Craig James telephoning the coaching staff, including one call to Lincoln Riley stating to the effect "If you’ve got the balls to call me back, and I don’t think you do, then call me back."
Ladies and the gentlemen, your next Congressman from the Great State of Texas.
Kent Hance
Leach effectively paints Hance as the instigator of his termination, instead of as the well-intentioned arbiter that Hance is often portrayed to be in media accounts.
-
According to Leach, at the initial stage of collecting statements, Guy Bailey, Texas Tech’s President, warned Leach that Hance was out to "railroad him" because Hance and James were in business together (my emphasis).
-
Leach describes the timeline leading to his suspension in far different terms than Hance's account (really, you need to read the whole thing).
-
At the time Hance presented the initial findings (or shall we say, collected two-days’ worth of statements) and shared the Board of Regent’s intent to reprimand Leach, Leach claims that Hance wanted to fine Leach $100,000 and require him to issue a statement of apology to James, despite the fact that the allegations were not yet proven. According to Leach, Hance threatened to fire Leach at that time.
The Letter
-
According to Leach, Myers, Bailey and Texas Tech’s attorney agree that Leach is not obligated to sign the Letter. Leach argues that a) the letter forces him to admit to wrongdoing, which he denies; and b) his contract supersedes all other agreements and as such signing such a document is unnecessary.
-
Myers and Bailey do not define a deadline to sign any document.
-
According to Leach, Myers and Bailey claim that Hance is interfering (my emphasis). They claim that but not for Hance’s interference, they would not have presented the letter.
-
Texas Tech’s attorney affirms to Leach that she advised Hance et al that Leach was not obligated to sign the letter.
Leach's Suspension
-
Upon suspending Leach, Myers cites Leach’s failure to sign the letter as one of the reasons for his suspension which the Administration now characterizes as an act of insubordination (the other reason for suspension is the allegation by James),
-
Myers advises Leach that the decision to suspend him was made by Hance and the Board of Regents (my emphasis).
Leach's Termination
Leach argues that the school terminates him for seeking his legal right to remedy the suspension.
----
I am sure there are other things that you’ll no doubt find interesting. In my haste to get this up, I’m sure I’ve missed some items.
1 recs |
175 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ok, so Hance says.........then Myers says.........
I am beginning to think that the butler did it with the candlestick in the dining room.
If nothing else, this should show an absolute ton of kneejerk on the part of the belltower boys. Of course, we have to believe Hance, cause he said so…..AND……..the LAJ reported it.
Obvioously, this is only one side of the story, hehehe, but its MY side.
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
by blackbeard on Jan 12, 2010 2:39 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Heard it on 104.3 out of Lubbock
Leach appears to be moving forward and will probably come after Tech for lots of money. I don’t blame him one bit. I just wish the 3 stooges that caused this whole mess could be held liable personally and not Tech. The process seemed really dirty and I doubt things happened the way Hance portrayed it. I wish Mike the best and I hope he can find a way to come after them individually.
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
Two side thoughts:
Wow. Not sure this is a smart move but Adam James and his younger brother Andy are en route to Lubbock right now for the spring semseter.
http://twitter.com/ChrisLevel/status/7679782091
and
At press conference with leach attorneys also leach says thanks to fans for support and he wishes tub well
http://twitter.com/pchristy11/status/7680736477
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
I don't think guys should come back
In all seriousness that can’t be a good idea. I would be a very worried parent and would never subject one of my kids to a situation like this. I’m all for facing it like a man and all but lets have some common sense about this. Not good and certainly not very smart.
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
Agree
Yes, I hope there is no ugliness. Question, is James’ security blanket going to follow him to the class room too? I mean do we have big enough classrooms to accomodate everybody? or will James now get a special class schedule, just him, the security and the professors? Or will Hance teach him all the lessons? Just wondering.
It does seem to be a non sequitor that daddy James is no longer so concerned for his little baby’s safety.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
Kind of strange isn't it?
Don’t put my son in a shed! But I’ll send him to class with some very upset students. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
What Coach?
Would want Adam on his team now? And since “Big Daddy” Craig couldn’t be a man and talk to Leach directly instead of the Asst. Coaches, why is he sending his son into the fire. I used to admire him as a person. He (Craig James) is neither man or a quality person.
My question too
Ha ha my question too! Does Tubbs leave the tool in the tool shade or not? One thing is for sure though is that since Hance is interfering, he will make sure that James still plays in the team, or else that rumored wind farm project could be in jeopardy.
His parents are obviously not interested in what is best for them.....
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 3:00 PM CST reply actions
Tech response (posted elsewhere as well)
Tech’s response: "The termination of Coach Leach was the result of his treatment of a player with a brain concussion and insubordination. We have reviewed the third amendment petition filed by Coach Leach’s legal counsel and it contains numerous falsehoods and gross inaccuracies. Our position will be set forth through the litigation process."
Dicky Grigg
Legal Counsel for Texas Tech University
Heh
Both sides have already taken this thing to the media so much that I’m beyond pointing exclusive fingers at either side, but I think it’s pretty silly to issue a statement publicly about your intent to only issues statements through the litigation process about statements made by the opposing party through the litigation process.
It’s like me declaring a press conference so I can decline to comment on the opposing party’s vicious lies. I’M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT BUT THE OTHER GUY IS A LIAR
Especially
when they tried to issue a statement of their own through the LAJ this weekend, i.e., Kent Hance . . . in his own words.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
I'LL DO MY TALKING IN COURT
Statement Issued: We feel that the opposing party’s outright lies and frivolous lawsuit are better settled in a courtroom, and our legal positions should make that clear as they are stated in attachment A. We prefer to take this to a judge, unless any of you have questions, in which case we’d be happy to answer them, so long as they don’t involve having to discuss the merits of our opponent’s clearly meritless claims.
It's just disingenuous.
Very common for lawyers to say things like “I’ll do my talking in court” “we’d prefer to handle this in the litigation process” “I’m not taking this to the court of public opinion” all while doing the precise opposite, as here.
To say that your position will be set forth in the litigation process while you are simultaneously declaring, publicly, that the amended petition contains “gross inaccuracies” is just funny. Both sides are playing to the public, for obvious reasons, and we need to see it like that. Leach’s attorneys knew that his petition would get circulation, so they wrote it for an audience well beyond the court, and Tech knows that its statements will get read to people like you and me, and so they throw in subtle legal analysis even while somewhat disclaiming any interest in doing so.
When Kent Hance and Mike Leach and other parties to this lawsuit talk, they are putting themselves in really bad positions. Because every single statement they’ve made will come up in their depositions, and they’ll get an opportunity to look like liars or equivocators. Hance does himself no favors by saying things like “once Mike sued his employer, it was over.” A lawyer with any brains is giong to have some fun with him. Did you fire him because he sued you or did you fire him because he mistreated a concussed player? Which is it? Why’d you say that “when you sue your boss, you don’t last long?” These are now statements he has to disavow or make consistent with other statements that aren’t necessarily so, and he could look pretty foolish for putting himself out like that. As a lawyer, he should’ve known better.
There is a huge amount of value in what lawyers are doing
or else they wouldn’t do it. Some easy ones:
1) Posturing for the client. Clients typically want a lawyer who will advocate aggressively. If Texas Tech thinks Leach is a big fat liar, you bet they want their lawyer to say that.
2) Poisoning the jury pool. This is posturing for the court of public opinion, and it must work, or else so many lawyers wouldn’t do it.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t say what they think, I just always laugh when lawyers say things like “our position will be set forth through the litigation process”… in a media statement in which they make legal claims outside the litigation process.
In any event, I’m pretty sure most judges frown on this sort of thing.
I am following you Skin Patrol
and I am enjoying reading your perspectives…as I have admitted, I am way out of my comfort zone with the legal process and how some of it works….although at the end of the day, from what I am reading it is not rocket science but at the same time brilliantly clever.
Look for Tubbs to set Adam straight.In a way that is positive.Who knows Adam might have a different attitude and work like he is supposed to.I don’t see Tubbs putting up with light weights on this team.He will just handle him different than what Leach did.IMO If Leach would have just old him to go to his dorm or go chill somewhere we would not have gone through all this Anyway like I say it is time to MOVE ON!
Did you ever get a chance to read the quote from Adam’s old HS coach? I’m paraphrasing since I don’t have it handy…
“I was never so glad to see a kid leave our program. We had two coaches: Craig coached Adam and I coached the rest of the team.”
I have a feeling AJ will never take to coaching and learn. He’s too far gone : )
I have read that in a couple of forms now.
My question continues to be, if that was the case, how could Mike Leach not have known about it? Wouldn’t a Div 1 caoch talk with a prospect’s hs HC ?
"Big Daddy"
Craig probably promised Leach plenty of good PR if Adam were offered a scholarship. How else could Leach have stood my him even though Riley had to continually have him disciplined.
I have had that thought
ML has displayed a very interesting penchant for finding ways to attract attention to himself and his football program.
I do doubt that there was an overt deal between the two.
Did you ever think that perhaps, Hance TOLD Leach to sign him?
I’m just sayin’
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
Mike had to have thought...
it would bring positive attention to the program by giving this kid a shot.
"You've got to find your inner pirate" - Mike Leach
Tech92
Do you have a link to the Celina coach’s comments? I am just curious to read.
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 3:46 PM CST up reply actions
I ask because when this broke out.....
the local DFW media went and sought two people that went to school with him and said he was a a great kid….blah,blah blah.
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 3:48 PM CST up reply actions
Sorry, I'm about 10 minutes from Celina
And I’m gonna go get the quote myself…..I think there is a DQ there on top of it.
I will effort to find this from the comfort of home office.
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
I remember reading it too.....
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
Its obvious that Adam would have
a different attitude if you follow what daddy wants and give Adam more playing time and dont’ demote him when he deserves to be…..I wouldn’t want a coach that gives in to that crap.
I wish Hance, Bailey and Myers would move on (and out) and I would move on.
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
Amen, Brother
BTW…Doesnt Adam “Tool” James already have his transfer papers to SMOO?
The Lyle Leong Bandwagon will Continue to Roll!!!
Respect Everyone....Fear No One!
Wreck 'em, Tech!
by Tortilla Pirate on Jan 12, 2010 3:42 PM CST up reply actions
Page 18: Prayer?
Am I reading this correctly? Is this a swipe at Craig “I had to pray about this” James? Kinda funny if it is.
If There's A Smoking Gun...
…Where The Heck Is It?
TTU continues to play its own game of smoke and mirrors (releasing their version of events with a fireside chat with Kent Hance). The problem is soon the truth (see court documents, affidavits, etc.) will catch-up to them, and just as we all know now, Tech will either go to court and have to testify under oath, or they will settle out-of-court (a faint admission of guilt). In any event, it appears Tech will owe Mike Leach millions of dollars in a wrongful termination suit.
So, I guess we’ll see how backward the Tech Administration and B.O.R. really are if they do not take immediate action to suspend/terminate Kent Hance and distance themselves from this ever-more damaging and self-incriminating legal mess.
And to think ESPN believes Leach was fired becasue he mistreated a player with a concussion, and Kent Hance and the Administration fired Leach because he “was-a-cussin’-n-all-dat”!
Hance pronounces Mike (Leach) as “Maaaaaaaaaaack” and Myers can’t pronounce Tuberville in three attempts.
This is some leadership group we have.
by MerkMusic on Jan 12, 2010 3:28 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
The Best case scenario
The best case scenario at this point, is the liability is on the stooges and not on Tech. I don’t even know if that is possible at this point.
Respondeat Superior
“let the master answer.” basically if you work for bob and screw up in the course of employment, I’m coming after bob, cus bob has deep pockets. However, this appers to strictly be a contracts case IMO. Common sense says, legal standards aside, if you can’t sue to enforce contract language (Tech trying to claim ML can’t sue them) What good is the contract worth. Our entire private enterprise system is based on the sanctity of contract and the uniform decisions handed down by our civil court system. When you can’t sue the state, you sue the individual, and the state covers them, this isn’t one of those instances. The Tech athletic dept is a separate entity, put it this way, for the same reason a “State entity” can pay a dude $3 mm a year, he can sue the “State.”
Give 'Em Hell Tech!!!!!
One valid arguement not really up for debate.
I do think Leach has them on this one specific point. That being that he was fired once he decided to move forward on the retraining order.
I’ve personally heard Hance state multiple times “When you sue your boss, he’s no longer going to be your boss.”
Not sure if any recourse, but a pretty stupid thing to say publically b/c he has no grounds to disagree. Those are his words. Bascially, you sue us and we will fire you on the spot.
Full disclosure, I’m not a lawyer. I’m technical sales person so it would be fair to state that I don’t know shit when it comes to the law.
IMWTx
No, you've got a great point.
When Hance gets deposed, he’ll have to explain precisely what he meant when he said that Leach was fired for filing suit. Classic case of:
Were you lieing then, or are you lieing now?
I agree with that
I’m not a lawyer either but I’ve always thought that Hance stepped in it when he said that. Then he said it again. And again.
by San Antonio Red Raider on Jan 12, 2010 7:05 PM CST up reply actions
I hope it's the middle finger he pointed at Hance
That’s the same one I’ve been pointing at Hance for two weeks now.
Specific examples of Adam James’ disruptiveness including an incident where he broke a coach’s door after learning of his demotion to the third team. (I would copy and paste the text here, but the .pdf file protects against copying – you will have to read it yourselves).
If that is the case, I would expect the school to go after Adam for repair cost.
Kent Hance forbidding Leach from cutting James from the team.
That caught my eye as well, then it came to me that Hance said he was trying to settle this quietly…I take that w/o it getting a lot of publicity, it would really look great to read on ESPN’s scroll, “Injured TTU Star Receiver Kicked Off Team For Not Practricing.”
Repair cost was $1,100
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
And the damages to the coach and the team’s morale and the mental stress caused by such violent and disruptive behavior by a player? Can they get something on the Jameses with this one?
I'm not going to call Hance names here - I'll do it on another blog.
Just wanted to release this statement. I will not call Kent Hance a Jackass on this blog as I know that is against the rules. And even though I think that he handled this situation like a Moron – I will continue to not say it out loud unless litigating in the court of public opinion.
Is that how it’s done Kent?
Reminds me
of something I heard on the flightline one time during my USAF days. There was pilot who was an absolute prick to everyone he came in contact with. He was giving the boom operator a hard time during pre-flight. After about the third dressing down in about 20 minutes, the boom got on an open mike and something to the effect of, “Sir, I cannot by Air Force regulations, call a Major an asshole. However, I can call an asshole a major. You, sir, are a major.”
New Filing
A couple of interesting notes:
1. Hance’s role vis a vis Bailey and Myers. Bad for Hance. Bailey and Myers are portrayed more as ministerial employees, as opposed to masterminds.
2. The use of footnotes. For someone who reads pleadings with some regularity, the footnotes appear to have been used primarily for dramatic and comedic effect. My guess is that Leach is looking over the petition and suggesting that certain facts need to be included, such as the facts recited about Craig James. Not really relevant, but nice zingers.
3. Destruction of property. Isn’t this a misdemeanor? Were charges filed? Who paid for the door? Taxpayers?
4. The letter for Leach to sign appears to be similar to a letter of improvement. I’ve seen a number of these letters placed in front of disgruntled employees who refuse to sign them. That refusal does not generally lead to termination of employment. The key purpose for the letter is to admonish the employee and to document that they are on notice of the requested improvement.
5. The legal causes of action appear to be appropriate. Defamation is a loser for Leach, from a practical standpoint, but makes a lot of stuff relevant and discoverable. The whistleblower angle is interesting.
by Oklahoma Red Raider on Jan 12, 2010 3:53 PM CST reply actions
But doesn’t whistleblower only come into effect when an illegal act has been committed? Furthermore, I can’t see their grounds for identifying Leach as a whistleblower. Legal thoughts?
Leach as Whistleblower
Not “illegal act”… but “conduct violating the law”. The conduct in question is Tech’s failure to follow the contract or give due process to Leach. If true, this conduct violates contract law and constitutional law.
by Oklahoma Red Raider on Jan 12, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions
Strongly disagree
A breach of contract is not a violation of law and cannot be converted into another “wrongful” act or tort for purposes of the Whistleblower Act. This claim was added for the sole purpose of attempting to avoid the sovereign immunity defense in terms of immunity from suit. It has no legs.
by jeffinhouston on Jan 12, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions
I still don't see....
Leach’s hard evidence. Almost everything he’s stated from Bailey and Meyers happened in close door meetings and they’re sure as heck not going to back Leach. It’s all heresay right now or am I missing something?
Hearsay
It isn’t hearsay if Leach heard it. But it would still be his word against theirs.
Right, but he’s outnumbered so it doesn’t appear that several of his points are able to be proved in court.
He doesn’t really have to prove it. He just has to get a jury to believe him more than the others. Not easy, but not impossible either.
This is extremely interesting and very entertaining
From a non lawyer point of view not being sarcastic just love that I can get on this blog and get some real legal insight as this drama unfolds. Where else could any of us non lawyers get this kind of expert opinion? Awesome stuff legal dudes and thx for sharing it here!
by Raiderit on Jan 12, 2010 6:55 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Not sure why that " not being sarcastic" got lined/crossed out...
by Raiderit on Jan 12, 2010 6:56 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
I think if you put
the dash between a phase, it’s SBN short-hand for the cross-out.
Go Raiders . . .
Double-T Nation
Currently presiding over a large university in the midst of an aggressive growth campaign and on the cusp of Tier 1 status . . . I think his memory will be fuzzier than an overstocked peach warehouse.
Growth Campaign?
They abandoned that the minute they suspended Leach. It’s back to nothing but Midland, Amarillo & Lubbock kids. Plus the Dallas/Ft Worth suburban kids carrying a gentleman’s C average.
Plenty of athlete's have come out of the Midland / Odessa area.
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
As long as they don't catch passes for the Cowboys!
Bahahaaaa . . . sorry; it was low-hanging fruit.
Williams is the only one.
So so so so so glad we wasted 1st Round Picks on him. Sarcasm Font.
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
Just read the "facts"
Leach is getting all of the money. There really isn’t much question about it. This does not look good for the university!!!
Under what circumstances ...
Can Hance be forced to leave? Does the governor have to do it? Texas House?
How can we force this man out?
WOW here is the nail in the coffin
Read the paragraph listed under Texas Whistleblower Act paragraph 36:
“a state entity may not terminate the employment of a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity”
That alone and he has got them for wrongful termination. Once that suit is won, then the defamation suits are going to be cake!
Did Leach
Report the violation of law before termination? If not, it may not apply. I am not a lawyer so I don’t know.
Nope
Whistleblower Act claim won’t be a successful one. Just there for bluster right now.
by jeffinhouston on Jan 12, 2010 5:20 PM CST up reply actions
Sign this letter because I want to fine you $100 grand?
is there a blackmail element here I’m missing, or am I reading too much into that by combining them (the fine and his signature on the letter)?
In industry, signing a letter like that
often called ‘note to file’ was merely an indication that the addressee acknowledged that he had seen the piece of paper…sometimes when signing was refused, it was noted that it was presented and not signed….somehow that was supposed have value.
Ok so reading through Leach's contract I believe this is the minimum damage to TTU
Firing without cause $400,000 × 4 years = $1,600,000
Graduation Rate Bonus $25,000
Participates in any other bowl game $25,000*
Final Ranking 11-25 $25,000*
5 Conference Wins $25,000
Employment on December 31 $800,000*
Grand Total: $2,500,000
And I believe that is a bargain for TTU
*Assuming he was fired without cause, and was not afforded the 10 days to right his wrongs as was described in the contract, he will receive the bonus for 12/31 and participating in Bowl game.
Sure about the 800,000?
I’m reading through the for cause firing and the liquidated damages, and they do not include the 800,000 by my reading. Unless the liquidated damages provision is a penalty — it looks enforceable to me — why would he get to recover the 800,000? I don’t see that the school owes him notice if they fire him without cause.
It is safe to say taht at this point I think the contract claims are the only ones that will stick, in which case I think you’re on the right starting point for the damages. He waived consequential damages in the contract, which means a lot of that reputation and future business etc. stuff is outside of play, unless he can get judgment on one of his tort claims.
Not smart
That is not smart, especially since Leach was going to leave for USC after this season anyway.
USC?
As much as I love Leach, I don’t think USC would have wanted him anyway.
There was not an opening at USC until today.
I think Leach is referring to his opportunity to interview for USC now due to the firing and slanderous comments.
Do you get to move in with Pete's graduate student girlfriend in Malibu.....
I mean when you accept the head coaching position….maybe part of the package?
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 5:01 PM CST up reply actions
If so
Maybe we want to know where the line starts.
Paragraph A:
“provided however that if such violation is capable of being cured, University shall allow coach 10 business days to cure such violation”
I believe that since he was wrongfully terminated the day before the bonus and he should not have been terminated for 10 days, he will get the 800,000… not a lawyer, just a grad student, but that is how I see things
provided however that if such violation is capable of being cured
Something tells me that this is an argument point for both sides. Who decides if the violation can be cured? I don’t think the contract spells that out. I wonder why some of these clauses are so ambiguous. I’m no lawyer, either. Maybe I’m missing something…
That's all under the "for cause" firing
Under the without cause firing clause, why is he required to cure anything? Firing someone without cause is, by its nature, firing them without requiring they cure anything. Since he liquidated his damages (or agreed to) in the event that they fired him without cause, I would assume his best remedy — his liability will be limited, that is — by what he would receive if the school had fired him without cause. This is of course in the absence of some tort, or fraud, or whatever.
But if he can’t recover 800,000 under any circumstances under his contract unless he’s the coach on Thursday whatever, I don’t think he’ll recover it for being fired. I thought the suspicious timing of the firing spoke more to what the other party was doing (ie. negotiating in bad faith) rather than some amount he was owed, now that I’ve looked at the contract.
Maybe I’m reading the contract wrong, but nothing in the without cause section requires him to cure anything nor does it entitle him to the 800,000.
i still think
That the butler did it in the dining room with the candlestick
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
by blackbeard on Jan 12, 2010 5:12 PM CST via mobile reply actions
I agree
It makes my head hurt less. Nothing good seems to be coming from this.
i am confused
candler in the dining room with the butstick?
you know, i think you might be correct.
come to think of it, it was a buttstick wasn’t it
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
Very Good Story
But some of you have seen the issues.
Facts are good and paint Hance in a bad light, but they will be hard to prove.
All claims other than the breach of contract (aka wrongful termination) are for reasons other than a judgment (e.g., making irrelevant facts relevant, getting claims in front of us (the public), etc.). Whistleblower (ha) not the letter and definitely not the color of that law. Due process / taking is weak if valid at all b/c every breach of contract case against a gov’t entity would be due process claim. Fraudulent inducement is weak unless he has comments by Tech officials and not just some Tech booster (Sowell) that they had intentions to fire him before the contract was signed.
The results of this suit will be about $1,500,000 – $2,000,000 settlement after both sides spend about $200,000 in legal fees.
As an aside, did anybody else notice how poor the grammar was in this pleading? I would be embarrassed to file that knowing how many people will read it. Nothing wrong with it, it just makes the filing atty look sloppy and inadequate (although not necessarily the case).
by TTRedRaiderAlum on Jan 12, 2010 5:57 PM CST reply actions
One clarification
If I’m not mistaken, Sowell was head of the B0R at the time of the contract negetioation emails, but has left that position since then. Not that that amounts to a hill of beans…..
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
Dickey Griggs
The thing that caught my eye about the amended petition was that it looks like Dickey Griggs has entered an appearance for Tech. Dickey is known more for being a big time plaintiffs lawyer. TTU would be entitled to have the Attorney General’s office defend it and heretofore, the AG has been TTU’s lead counsel. If they have hired Dickey, they are probably paying him a hefty hourly fee. I wonder which budget that is coming out of. Its no doubt your athletic donations at work!
Jall
My experience over the years has been that many of the attorneys on the AG’s staff are not worth shooting. That’s not to smear them all, but I’m just saying what my personal experience has been.
P.S.: My experience has been primarily with the criminal side of the AG staff. The one civil guy I worked with recently was very competent.
"I’ve established a reputation for integrity. I have maintained those high standards" - Craig James
A helping hand:
I have Acrobat Pro, so I went ahead and converted the pdf over to a texted version rather than an image version. For those with Acrobat, this is done under Document —> OCR Text Recognition —> Recognize Text Using OCR.
Now you can copy/paste the relevant text out of it, which should make for much easier conversation.
On a tangential note, any students who have any interest whatsoever in Adobe products need to give very serious consideration to buying before you graduate. That includes Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc. As a student, you can get the bundles at up to 80% off. (That’s not a typo.) After you get it, you get a huge discount on the first upgrade after you graduate as well. And most major universities offer tutorial courses on how to use some of the software. They’re usually only a few hours’ worth, but well worth the time. And no, I have no interest in whether anybody purchases (e.g. no kickback).
TTRedRaiderAlum is Right!
The entire filing, as well as the other filings, we poorly done, with numerous grammatical and punctuation mistakes. I guess when your attorney has a snarling gorilla as their company logo, what would you expect?
Perhaps Ted Liggett should take an grammar class at Tech, and both Hance and Myers should take a speech class to learn how to pronounce names (Hance refers to Leach as “Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack”, and Myers took three attempts to finally announce “Tuberville” correctly).
Liggett didn't have anything to do with writing this Petition
The Houston attorneys are in charge of everything now.
by jeffinhouston on Jan 12, 2010 6:39 PM CST up reply actions
Leach's Petition.
If half of the factual allegations contained in the petition are true, I hope Leach Bar-B-Q’s their Asses!
The best coach in Tech’s history by a long way was railroaded!
More Good Ol’ Boy B.S.!
I’d much prefer Tech win. We need the money it would save. I get the angst about the GOBs and I think there is room for something to be done on that front. But in the end, I want Tech to win. Really, so we don’t end up looking like a bunch of idiots in my hometown. If Leach prevails (and I honestly don’t think he will based on the law as it has been explained here by jeff), good for him. If Tech wins, good for us. Not a popular view, I realize, but in the long-view it’s the one I think is the most advantageous for the university as a whole.
Besides the whole mess with Leach (contract last year and now this), what else have Hance, Bailey, et al done to screw things up? Nothing that I know of. We have an expanded stadium (I do give Leach credit with fielding the team that generated buzz, but I give him no credit for helping raise the money), we have a phenomenal baseball facility, we are upgrading our track facility, a brand new softball facility, and we have an amazing basketball facility. Those guys who folks love to hate helped with that stuff. Especially Myers (and that’s weird to say).
We didn’t have issues anywhere close to this with Spike, we didn’t have issues with Sharp, we didn’t have issues with Dickey, we didn’t have issues with Ashby, we didn’t have issues with Hays. If we did, they were minor and probably no different than that of any other university’s relationship with long-term coaches. The common thread in all this is Leach.
Oh, and Lane Kiffin is going to USC. Horrible decision.
I applaud your rooting for the home team here, BUT
could it be that the common thread in all of this is HANCE/MYERS/et.al.? Meyers,while able to kiss anyone’s ass in a single bound, was not the mastermind of all of fund raising. Hance, forever more to be refered to as the Evil One, was not a part to all that has been built, I give credit to much of that to Montford and his fundraising efforts prior.
I don’t know, but if my University wins in this deal, it will feel like ill gotten gains. There was a time when kids knew their place and respected their elders, and a man’s word was gold.
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
Yeah...
Myers is working wonders with our programs…..where will we put all our championship trophies?
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 8:17 PM CST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
oldschool, you give me no choice
Hell just put ’em in the shed out back.
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
I would much prefer the side with truth and justice on its side to win, but that’s just me. On the idiot front, sadly it’s too late, we’re already there.
It’s not fair to say that Leach is the common thread, Hance and company weren’t around during the other coaches tenures. Although I do agree that Leach is the most non-conformist and “spirited” of the coaches we’ve had. Also most successful. Although Marsha Sharp is right up there. She might make a great AD.
by MissingLeach on Jan 12, 2010 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Mike had no issues
When Montford was around, and I don’t recall him being involved in saladgate at Market Street.
" I crammed 4 years of Tech into 5"- me
by oldschoolraider on Jan 12, 2010 8:20 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
you are correct.
and salad ( it is proven ) will ruin a good buzz.
"There's going to be ups and downs but you have to enjoy the battle." Mike Leach
In case anyone hasn't figured out that Tech92 has a personal vendetta against Leach
be sure to login to the Tennessee board and see his total trashing of Leach to the Vol community. I don’t even know where to start with this, other than to be embarrassed that this is how DTN is being represented. Wow.
by raider realist on Jan 12, 2010 9:08 PM CST up reply actions
See for yourself, not very far down the screen
by raider realist on Jan 12, 2010 9:28 PM CST up reply actions
not sure how that’s trashing him…is any of that untrue? He is just a coach, he doesn’t do the other things most schools require of their head coach. It wasn’t a trashing at all…even gave credit for the great offense. But at a place like Tenn, you and I know full well he’d be required to make the alumni and booster circuit on a regular basis. It fairly common knowledge he looked for other jobs and he doesn’t recruit. How, exactly, is that trashing him?
Trying to poison the water, looks like
it’s personal, and I understand now your position. Just be honest.
by raider realist on Jan 12, 2010 10:00 PM CST up reply actions
RR
I’ve never not been honest here, so don’t imply I’m lying about this. It’s not some state secret on DTN I wasn’t a fan of Leach the man. I’ve taken a pounding here for stating that, but that’s okay. I think you’re really new to posting on the board, so I’ll give you a pass. You probably haven’t had a chance to review the entire site for how everyone feels on most topics.
I think he’s much more of a cagey and scheming fox than is portrayed here on this board. Just something about the guy doesn’t smell right to me and never has – as a person. Don’t know him, never met him except for 30 seconds at his first recruiting roundup in Dallas. So it’s based on what he’s portrayed. Is that fair? Probably not, but that’s all I have to base my opinion of him…that and things I’ve heard out of Lubbock from folks who are around him more than me.
I loved what he did for Tech, though, on the field. Totally different things.
I'm with Tech92.
Leach trashed himself. And I won’t miss going for it on 4th and 8 from our own 20 in the second quarter. I loved Leach when he was here, but he’s gone now. And frankly, it’s his own fault. Who doesn’t hob-nob with boosters?! That’s the $$$!! I heard that there were more whispers about Leach’s excessive drinking as well.
¡Viva los Matadores!
Pretty sure he's not sitting behind a computer anonymously posting
shitty whispers about another man’s personal business. What the fuck man.
by raider realist on Jan 13, 2010 12:10 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
You've obviously misunderstood.
I wasn’t saying Tech92 was talking about Leach’s drinking, I heard that the admin was…. and there’s no need to talk with that language .
¡Viva los Matadores!
That is honest, and provides those of us that just recently became active
a better framework for your comments. They are much less confusing now.
As an aside, I was working on my doctorate at OU while the Leach family was in Oklahoma. (I’m native West Texan, most of my family and I are either Tech grads or employees so don’t go there) Your opinion of him as a man I think would be different if you had the opportunity to know him from my perspective, which was not as a coach but a dad. That’s my state secret.
I don’t expect this to change how you feel, and I’m not really worried about Mike, he’ll come out of this ok. I still think its small of you to take your personal baggage to the Tenn site and speak ill of the guy, as if you really know what happened.
by raider realist on Jan 12, 2010 11:19 PM CST up reply actions
Strongly disagree...
He doesn’t recruit…
I think it would be more appropriate for you to say “he doesn’t recruit like I think he should…”
Seems to me that the results are pretty good – recruiting has been pretty solid, improving, and looked like we were going to bring in the best recruiting class yet this coming Feb. He’s known for finding players that other teams don’t notice, but then they flourish in our program. One thing I had noticed recently, and greatly appreciated, he was starting to attract some pretty smart kids with good character, along with great athletic skills. I suppose you don’t credit Leach for any of this – he’s just lucky he’s got a few guys on his staff that did all of this… Maybe it’s silly of me, but I look at the results. And they look pretty good to me.
I could go on about other parts of your statement, but I’m pretty sure it won’t change anything in your mind in any way…. It seems to me that the bottom line with you, like many others, is you don’t appreciate Leach because he doesn’t do all of the conventional things you think a coach should do in the way you think he should do them. And you don’t appreciate all of the unconventional things he does, and therefore, won’t give them credit for any positive results.
by Houston Raider on Jan 13, 2010 7:08 AM CST up reply actions
Mike Leach was involved in recruiting
We have heard stories all during his tenure…with the most talked about one recently being the decision to schollie Adam James.
The assistants that he put in place to do the foot work were working under his leadership and guidance, their work reflects the leadership of the HC.
I fail to see how that is trashing Leach.
He was simply stating the obvious ( to some of us ). Some stuff might be debatable, but for the most part he was stating the obvious.
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
What's obvious is that it's personal, and it colors everything Tech92 says,
and I read anything he writes with a lot more understanding now that that was disclosed.
by raider realist on Jan 13, 2010 8:06 AM CST up reply actions
not seeing it RR
Sounds like he pretty much stuck to the facts. For those of us that loved Leach, that brat-like attitude was one of the things we admired about him. He didn’t cow-tow to the man if you will. We however didn’t have to work with him so a lot of his actions were fun and quirky to us. And NOBODY on here can tell me that they weren’t sick and dog-ass tired of waiting to see where he was interviewing each and every offseason. Although I did seem to think that this was going to be a quiet offseason in those terms, focused on recruiting, and a highly possible run at the Big XII championship next year……….THEN another threat to leave. Ah well. It’s time to move on amigos.
You want to throw the "move on" card in here, then
fling it at tech92. He’s the one having trouble letting go of his personal agenda.
by raider realist on Jan 13, 2010 8:00 AM CST up reply actions
alirght tech92.........................
I’m flingin’ the move on card at you…………whatever that means.
He’s not at Tech anymore. I don’t see how that’s talkin’ out of school, whatever that means. Man, some of you boys are exceedingly sensitive. You act like we’re supposed to carry some Leach banner for the world to follow. I don’t and won’t.
I hear ya, but......
envision for a moment that Spike didn’t retire after the ’99 season. Would we still have all the major upgrades you described above? Doubt it bro………not to this extent anyway.
I’d much prefer Tech win. We need the money it would save. I get the angst about the GOBs and I think there is room for something to be done on that front. But in the end, I want Tech to win. Really, so we don’t end up looking like a bunch of idiots in my hometown. If Leach prevails (and I honestly don’t think he will based on the law as it has been explained here by jeff), good for him. If Tech wins, good for us. Not a popular view, I realize, but in the long-view it’s the one I think is the most advantageous for the university as a whole.
Umm, I hope the party that breached the contract loses. In other words, I hope the wronged entity, if any, is compensated consistent with the laws of the state of Texas. I love Texas Tech as much as anyone, but are we really to the point where we are willing to abandon justice for the good of the school? If Mike Leach was wronged, he should be compensated. If not, Tech should win. But it should be based on the merits of the case, not the fairly trivial fact that I went to university X.
Texas Tech is a school, it is the entity I “support” — not Leach — but it’s still just a school. It is not incapable of wrongdoing. It is not a sacred cow. If the University announced tomorrow that black people were not allowed to attend, I’d be done with the school. Breaching a contract with a head football coach is not really a moral issue for me, but love for the school isn’t going to drive me to the conclusion that I want Tech to win because of the money it would save. If they caused economic harm to Mike Leach, why would I want the school to save money?
A lawsuit should be about the facts of the case and the merits of the claims presented. My fear is that your opinion is shared by a lot of people in Lubbock, and the opposite is likewise held by people who are in full support of Mike Leach. How are we supposed to determine whether a breach of contract occurred when the legal analysis of people is: “To whom am I beholden emotionally or economically?”
If you’re just saying that, after conclusion of trial, you hope that it is the case that Texas Tech did not breach their contract, then I’m totally fine with that. But it sounds like you’re saying you want Tech to win because it will save the school money/so we don’t look like a bunch of idiots/because winning is advantageous for the university as a whole. If Tech breached a contract, to hell with the school, they should compensate the wronged party just like everyone else (presuming that the law affords that remedy, which it might not against the sovereign, but that’s a separate issue).
Let’s hope for a fair result instead of an expedient one?
by Skin Patrol on Jan 13, 2010 9:04 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
"Are we really to the point where we are willing to abandon justice for the good of the school"?
Pretty sure some here are willing to abandon it because they never liked the guy to begin with.
by raider realist on Jan 13, 2010 9:14 AM CST up reply actions
A couple of points--
1. It is obvious that Legal Team Leach is stuffing its pleadings with facts to generate sympathy. Specifics facts such as these usually have no place in a legal Petition; for instance, the story about AJ breaking the door.
2. As Tubs replaces Leach’s coaching staff, expect additional statements from (now) former employees who will be willing to defend Leach now that their job is no longer on the line.
why is the pleading written this way?
One explanation is that Leach knows that this suit will not get resolved quickly and he wants prospective employers to know that he got hosed in this deal. Another post reports that TTU has already filed its motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. If the court denies the motion, the State is entitled to an interlocutory appeal, meaning they can challenge that ruling immediately. An appeal through the intermediate courts of appeal and then the Texas Supreme Court can easily take a year or two. Leach is not going to get a quick trial in this case. He has to let everyone know that he acted appropriately. So yes, the petition includes a whole lot more facts than one needs, and some facts you would try and hold back until deposition, but this pleading may be written for a different audience.
Jall
BTW, Leach's Petition Offends Me!
He describes the Alamo Bowl as the “most important game of the year.” Hogwash! The UT game is the most important game of the year. Followed by 0U, followed by OSU, followed by A&M. The Alamo Bowl is just an afterthought.
Myers Might Become the Hero in this Suit ...
Stay with me for a moment … when it comes to tough love for players, Myers is at the front of the line. I attended Tech from ‘85 to ’90 and he was unmistakably clear with his team that it was his way or the highway. I lived in Weymouth with the athletes and heard a lot of talk – both football and basketball – on the way coaches treated their players. He and Bobby Knight are cut from the same cloth and these types of coaches don’t change their spots. If he backed away from suspending Knight for treating one of his players (can’t remember which one), I sense he would have done the same thing for Leach if given the opportunity.
Through this whole ordeal, I have sensed that very little of this was coming from Gerald. Now we have allegations confirming this.
What if Gerald turned against Hance and the BOR and sided with Leach during the discovery or trial? He knows that Mike got railroaded and he knew that he could do nothing to prevent it from happening.
Gerald has nothing to lose if he did. He is on the tail end of service to the university he loves with his pension and legacy secure. With his testimony he would force the resignation of Hance and several BOR of regents, restore justice, and be a hero to the alumni and fans who side on truth and justice.
He might even be protected under the Whistleblower Act.
Just a wild thought from some guy with a wild imagination ….
by Arizona Raider on Jan 12, 2010 10:04 PM CST reply actions
That’s not actually that far fetched. I had been a huge Hance supporter, and part of me still thinks he knew what he was doing. But the shine on his head is getting smudged.
That's what happens when you have Cranial Rectosis....
Look that up in the Medical Dictionary…….
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
I would not be disappointed if this scenario came to be. I have undoubtedly been critical of Myers and genuinely do not believe he is the person we need running the athletic department. A good ambassador and good administrator are not synonymours. That said, he has spent the better part of his life representing Tech and cannot be pleased if his final chapter is to be titled “Hance’s Pawn”. Not to mention, there would be a vast amount of crow to be consumed on this site.
If it plays out this way...
Then Meyers will be deserving of everyones respect and a statue for him right along Leachs to boot
by Raiderit on Jan 12, 2010 11:09 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
The admin
I was going to rant, but all I will say is that I disagree with Tech92. Leach must win this and the parties involved in the planned robbery of him must suffer. I want to say a whole lot more, but there are things that should not be said online.
TTpilk
Shouldn't Leach sue ESPN too?
And possibly a personal defamation suit against Craig James? And let’s not forget Sowell. He’s got the evidence for all of these. I personally would like to see a lot more suits filed…
by HoustonRaiderChick on Jan 16, 2010 12:12 AM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
