More evidence that Alleva should be fired!

this could very well get very ugly. somebody has to pay. seems logical it would be alleva. he had to have known. no 2 ways about it. that is the only way to save a "little" face. but it certainly damages the lsu brand and enhances the states image to being just what a lot of people think of louisiana and its politics.

 

Can we get some context? Everyone is getting bent out of shape over a headline obviously designed to incite scandal and sell papers. They know their audience.

 

Context? They altered a contract after it was signed without the knowledge or consent of the other party, does that really require context?

 

Yes, it does. It also requires some specific facts. Headlines don't cut it.

 

I think it does. If the alteration did not have any negative consequences for Chavis than what's the big deal, though I doubt that under the circumstances that is the case. Yes,I understand that altering a contract without the consent of both parties is a serious breach, but for the sake of this discussion it would be nice to know exactly what we're arguing over. I rest my case.

 

LSU attorney Bob Barton issued a statement that called the changes "innocent, unintentioinal and immaterial" to the case.

"The 'alteration' issue is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the real issues," Barton's statement said. "LSU and Mr. Chavis had a valid employment agreement from 2009 until he left the University at the end of 2014. There were multiple amendments to the employment agreement during that time, including the 2012 amendment that Mr. Chavis claims was altered. Importantly, the 2012 contract was ratified in 2013 by a Memorandum of Understanding that extended Mr. Chavis' contract with LSU by another year, through the end of 2015.

"The change that occurred to the 2012 amendment was an innocent, unintentional and immaterial change. Mr. Chavis' buyout obligation would exist under either reading of the liquidated damages clause, and the alleged "alteration" provided absolutely no benefit to LSU. Just as Mr. Chavis was entitled to his generous salary and other benefits under that agreement, LSU is entitled to enforce the liquidated damages provision of the agreement.

"The Court vindicated LSU's position on its motion to compel and ordered Mr. Chavis to produce records that he has previously withheld. LSU looks forward to obtaining those records and moving this matter toward resolution."

Craft said the two sides were expected to meet after Jan. 1 to continue hearing the case.

 

That sensationalized headline is nothing but click bait and the article is woefully short on facts. What was altered? How was it altered? Is LSU attempting to enforce the altered language? Are we absolutely certain it was done without Chavis' knowledge. He hasn't exactly been innocent in this whole affair. I'm not a lawyer, I'm certainly no expert on contractual agreements, I'm simply asking questions before grabbing my pitchfork. I found this on the site that shall not be named (I wasn't getting any facts here):

Three lines of the contract were changed, according to a side-by-side comparison of the contracts that The Advocate obtained through the court.

Chavis received a copy of a new three-year contract on Jan. 1, 2012, signed it and returned it to LSU. The contract was not approved by the LSU Board of Supervisors until June of that year.

During the gap of time between those two events, LSU President John Lombardi was removed from his position. President William L. Jenkins was replaced him in an interim role.

Lombardi’s name was included in Chavis’ signed contract. Mark Ewing, LSU’s senior association athletic director for business, or someone at Ewing’s “discretion” removed Lombardi’s name from the contract and added Jenkins’ name, the documents say.

Two lines of the buyout clause in the original contract were also changed in early April. On April 3, the document says, someone from the school’s Finance and Administrative Services or the LSU Systems Office called Ewing about rewording the dates of the buyout section of the contract.

Ewing changed the language regarding the buyout dates from “between 24 months to 36 months” to “between the first day of the 36th month remaining to the last day of the 24th month remaining.”

He also changed language in the buyout dates from “between 11 months and 23 months” to “between the first day of the 23rd month remaining to the last day of the 12th month.”

I don't know if this is accurate or not. Does this invalidate the entire original contract or just the altered language? Is LSU using the altered language in its favor against Chavis and does the altered language really change the terms of the contract?

 

The alteration is in wording only, it doesn't change the meaning in any way. I believe there is some wiggle room here.

 

It seems this contract tampering is nothing and was agreed to at a later date. If the contract was changed between the time Chavis agreed and the time he agreed to a revised agreement, it wouldn't have been binding if material. That's how I read this smokescreen by Chavis, whose lawyer has been sensationalizing everything since the beginning (which is apparently the way Texas lawyers).

 

if a contract is changed there should at the very least be an agreed to amendment to the contract. if the contract was changed and it wasn't noted as part of the contract or resigned by chavis then whoever made the changes has no leg to stand on. its wrong.