• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Rich Rodriguez (official thread of last laughs)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Jerry Seinfeld;1127208; said:
Heh-looooooooo!

RR2-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Wearing his one and only sport coat... :rofl:
 
Upvote 0
WVU administrators says Rodriguez owes the school $4 million because he left before his contract expired.
Rodriguez says administration officials had made verbal promises to him that the buyout clause in his contract would either be eliminated or decreased.
WVU denies that any such promises were made.
Click to expand...

What kind of contract contains buyout clauses that are eliminated or decreased less than one year after it's signed? I mean, the whole point of buyout clauses are to keep somebody from terminating a contract early, right? This sounds like pure bullshit to me. Especially after he already flirted with the fucking 'Bama job. :roll1:

Also, if this were indeed true, who takes the promise of elimination or reduction of a $4M buyout by word? Gimme a friggin' break. You busted out of your old contract before its fucking birthday. Pony up the dough and fucking move on. You made your bed, now lay in it. :smash:

**cue HTM, SNIPER and the other minions**
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon;1126423; said:
Isn't hear say difficult as hell to prove in a court of law? Am I being obtuse in thinking that IF I had been RR, then that I would have requested written declarations of said promises.

It just seems very simple. Written documentation v. hear say.
Click to expand...

Hearsay's technical definition is confusing, and there are many exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Simply put, the rule against hearsay is meant to protect the right to cross-examine the real witness against your client. For example, if Eddie is testifying as to what his neighbor told him about the car wreck in his driveway, Eddie wouldn't be the "real" witness--the neighbor would be. The other side wouldn't be able to cross-examine Eddie in an effective way because he wasn't the true witness to the accident.

For the Rodriguez - WVU dispute, this column excerpt is a good illustration of why a witness' testimony as to the terms of an (alleged) oral contract would not be considered inadmissible as hearsay:

"Now let's take a contract case," said Judge Standwell. "You could have an idle bystander listening to two people on an elevator coming to an oral agreement in a verbal contract. First the buyer says, 'You agree to deliver the truck to my shop by 10 tomorrow morning.'"

"The seller says, 'Agreed. Give me a $20,000 cashier's check made out to me, and the truck is yours.'"


"Then the buyer says, 'Done and done. We got us a deal,' and the two shake on it."


"'Good question," Angus said. "The bystander is a perfectly good witness."


An oral contract is formed by what people say, not what their secret intentions are. It means the words that form a contract, whether written or oral, are not hearsay. But see how easy it would be to get tangled up using the traditional hearsay test and come up with the wrong answer.
Click to expand...
Rodriguez can testify to what he alleges the terms of the oral contract were (because he was a direct party to them and therefore witnessed them). However, WVU will be able to cross-examine him, in addition to putting on witnesses of their own that may contradict Rod's testimony. And, in summation, WVU can argue that this supposed oral contract that Rod is proposing offends the common sense of anyone with a brain, even a West Virginian (the jury)!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
shetuck;1127240; said:
Would they also be allowed to call him an asshat, or would that be slander? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be slander because it's true.

On a different note, people do actually sue for that kind of thing (but lose).

Here is an article about a case affectionately referred to as the "Director of Butt Licking" case. Basically, a Virginia Tech administrator filed a libel action against the student newspaper for calling her the Director of Butt Licking (she argued that it was an especially bad type of slander because licking butts would have broken Virginia's fornication laws and implied that she was a criminal).

The court correctly agreed with "[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]the argument of the Collegiate Times that in the context of an otherwise serious article, the 'use of the title is too absurd to be taken seriously.'"

I think WVU would be protected in a similar manner, and therefore should feel free to call him asshat.
[/FONT]
 
Upvote 0
sandgk;1126428; said:
Well, I'm no lawyer - but, in the opinion of impartial legal observers, linked into this thread earlier, what you state is, basically, correct.
Written contract wins over verbal agreement. (Especially rigid when said written agreement includes provisions for changing written in light of changing circumstances - which RR's reportedly did).

If only methomps wasn't on a caffeine bender he could handle a better answer - or BKB can step into the line.

But, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Click to expand...

From a theoretical point, an oral contract is just as good as a written one. In reality, I think its pretty obvious that people will side with the written contract (or rather, reject oral modifications to the written contract).

NFBuck;1127216; said:
What kind of contract contains buyout clauses that are eliminated or decreased less than one year after it's signed? I mean, the whole point of buyout clauses are to keep somebody from terminating a contract early, right? This sounds like pure bullshit to me. Especially after he already flirted with the fucking 'Bama job. :roll1:

Also, if this were indeed true, who takes the promise of elimination or reduction of a $4M buyout by word? Gimme a friggin' break. You busted out of your old contract before its fucking birthday. Pony up the dough and fucking move on. You made your bed, now lay in it. :smash:

**cue HTM, SNIPER and the other minions**
Click to expand...

I think buyouts take on an added complexity in the case of college coaches. Parties that don't want a hefty buyout clause may yet want the appearance of a hefty buyout clause. They'll want this for recruiting purposes, so they can convince recruits that coach isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
 
Upvote 0
Taking what you have written previously, methomps, aren't you also saying that it is rather shaky ground to base your case on the allegation that the buyout provision was simply to give recruits an impression of stability that the parties to an agreement knew was untruthful. Right, methomps.

By the way, if that is his argument, what does that say to future recruits?

Used_Cars_Moviecover.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Steve19;1127321; said:
Taking what you have written previously, methomps, aren't you also saying that it is rather shaky ground to base your case on the allegation that the buyout provision was simply to give recruits an impression of stability that the parties to an agreement knew was untruthful. Right, methomps.
Click to expand...

That was just my speculation for why parties may agree to a high buyout that they don't really intend to live by. If that is his claim, though, then I think its pretty important to his overall narrative.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top