Mike Leach to speak tonight on ESPN [Archive]

Gobbla2001

12-31-2009, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by N4SIR
The truth for me right now is what the Chancellor is saying. That might change as more facts come out but for now -- Leach is the scumbag in my book.

I don't know what the truth is... all I know are what facts have been given and which facts have been blown up...

One thing I DO know, is that I'm not trusting a Chancellor's word over a HC's word and vise versa when nothing really adds up right now...

Claims have been made and acknowledged and refuted... that's all we know...

Oh, chancellor just said to go jump of the bridge you better go...

N4SIR

12-31-2009, 09:10 PM

I don't know what the truth is either. I am making a judgement call on what 2 men are saying. I find one of those men to be much more credible than the other, so at this point in time I believe the Chancellor is being more truthful than Leach. Oh, Chancellor is on the phone -- gotta go. Todaloo.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 02:51 AM

Ok..i think I have seen and read enough to form an opinion on this whole deal, being an outsider-looking-in...

Leach seems to be credible (credible=he believes what he is saying is the truth)

The Chancellor/School seem to be credible (credible=they believe what they are saying is the truth)

the Jame's seem to be credible (credible=they believe what they are saying is the truth)

RESULT.....

Lawyers are going to make a killing on this pissing contest. Everyone else loses.

Bailiff...next case!!!!

Rustler

01-01-2010, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Ok..i think I have seen and read enough to form an opinion on this whole deal, being an outsider-looking-in...

Leach seems to be credible (credible=he believes what he is saying is the truth)

The Chancellor/School seem to be credible (credible=they believe what they are saying is the truth)

the Jame's seem to be credible (credible=they believe what they are saying is the truth)

RESULT.....

Lawyers are going to make a killing on this pissing contest. Everyone else loses.

Bailiff...next case!!!! Do you think your judgement could be a little premature? Are you sure you have all the facts? Have you seen the latest statement from the trainer Pincock (SP ?)? ARE YOU SURE the video supposedly shot by Adam is realy where the TRAINER put him? ARE YOU SURE? Have you read the emails posted from a year ago between Hance and Sowell? Are you sure the verbage is "good faith" conatained in those emails? Do they appear to be appreciative of Leaches success? Put yourself in the position of Employee that is the MOST SUCCESSFUL in the programs history. ARE YOU SURE ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE???????:thinking:

Eagle 1

01-01-2010, 11:11 AM

On the ESPN inteview:

Davis: "Why did you make the decision as to where adam james should go as opposed to the trainer?"

Leach: "I didnt, I didnt, I said you know find some place dark, and one place was as good as the next, and that was close to the field, and plus it had the ice machine."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So all along Mike Leach has been accused of putting adam in a tool shed by the media, when actually he wasn't the one who put him there.
I also think the doctor's statement is very relevant.
Leach has a good case against the university and should continue to pursue.
I know I would.

3afan

01-01-2010, 11:54 AM

its not the coaches place (any coach) to put an injured player ANYWHERE - its the doctor/trainer's job ... when the player is released to play, then the coach "has him"

Eagle 1

01-01-2010, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by 3afan
its not the coaches place (any coach) to put an injured player ANYWHERE - its the doctor/trainer's job ... when the player is released to play, then the coach "has him"

Actually it is the coaches resposibility to look out for the health and welfare of his players. Adam had already been examined and told he could not practice.
Pincock said Leach then asked that James be moved to a location "where sunlight could not bother him as he was wearing sunglasses." There is nothing wrong with that.

JJWalker

01-01-2010, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by 3afan
its not the coaches place (any coach) to put an injured player ANYWHERE - its the doctor/trainer's job ... when the player is released to play, then the coach "has him"
I find the whole Tech Drama interestng, from an outsider's/non-fan point of view. And clearly you are a non-fan too.

But even I understand that although a player is injured, they still practice. They practice and participate in whatever fashion they are capable.

In this case Adam was to practice too. So he was under the coach's direction.

ziggy29

01-01-2010, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by JJWalker
In this case Adam was to practice too. So he was under the coach's direction.
Presumably, though, with limits placed on the level of participation by doctors and/or trainers. "No contact" would be a no-brainer, for example, as might some limits to the level of exertion or length of workout.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
ARE YOU SURE ABOUT WHAT YOU WROTE???????:thinking:

Yes, I am absolutely sure that I have formed an opinion based on whats out there. Am I absolutely sure my opinion is correct? Absolutely not.

Rustler

01-01-2010, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Yes, I am absolutely sure that I have formed an opinion based on whats out there. Am I absolutely sure my opinion is correct? Absolutely not. OK I believe you....Then explain what information leads you to conclude:

Adam was "locked" in a closet?

What danger Adam was in?

Why the treating Dr statement that no aditional harm was done to Adam by the actions taken?

How do explain Trainer Pincock statement that Leach didn't tell him where to put Adam? Only a dark place?

Why "If the Adams Parents think their son was in a dangerous position did they allow it to happen twice (put in shed and closet several days apart) If adam didnt tell them after the first time then why if it was a matter of dangerous treatment?

Oh while at it you didnt answer my first post....only took the last part...what about the other "Are You Sure"??????

Explain the video supposedly taken from Adams phone of the electrical closet where the Trainer says he was never put?

Please explain how you objectively arrived at your opinion you are so sure of?

Phantom Stang

01-01-2010, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Rustler

Adam was "locked" in a closet

What danger Adam was in?

I don't doubt that parents that have a kid named Adam, who are in prison for child abuse, have asked the same thing.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Rustler

Please explain how you objectively arrived at your opinion you are so sure of?

Rustler...I think you might have misunderstood my original point. My take right now is this:

All three parties in this pissing contest seem to really, truly believe what they are saying. All three can't be right, and all three probably arent totally wrong. The lawyers are going to make a fortune on this one.

In other words...this is going to court and lawyers are licking their chops. The last thing they want right now is a settlement.

Diocletian

01-01-2010, 01:36 PM

ML came out aggressive and powerful in that interview...just like his coaching style.

I think all he was doing is trying to tough up a panzy-a@@ rich boy that had a silver spoon glued in his mouth.

It's obvious that he was trying to teach the kid that sometimes you have to suffer through pain and do even more painful things to overcome it now and in the future.

Whatever this kid had to do exactly ...he obviously agreed to, otherwise he would have just quit immediately before he did it.

I hope he get's a job coaching in the Big 12 so he can take it to Tech for the lack of justice they've showed him in the last week.

ziggy29

01-01-2010, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
All three parties in this pissing contest seem to really, truly believe what they are saying. All three can't be right, and all three probably arent totally wrong. The lawyers are going to make a fortune on this one.
Yep. The thing is, I think Tech saw the imminent $800,000 payout due Leach on 12/31, which I suspect short-circuited a full and fair investigation. Had that bonus not been due, I think Tech not have fired him immediately but instead would have launched a more thorough and time-consuming investigation to put the pieces together.

But they decided to act rashly to avoid owing the $800K, and now they and their lawyers have to live with that decision and hope more details don't come in that makes their move a wrongful dismissal and defamation of character.

And now that Tech has acted, they have to live with the possibility that Adam and Craig James were embellishing the truth, with the possibility that others close to the program will contradict Adam's story (or at least modify it), some will come forward to corroborate what Leach said about the James family, Adam's laziness and sense of entitlement as well as Craig's meddling.

And yes, some will probably corroborate Adam's version of the story.

Maybe when things play out and the lawyers get their payday, it will turn out that Tech did the right thing. But if it looks like they screwed up when all the facts are out, their rush to avoid paying out the $800,000 bonus to Leach will turn out to be "penny wise and pound foolish." In that case, they could wind up paying more than $800,000 just to Leach's lawyer, let alone Leach himself.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by ziggy29
Yep. The thing is, I think Tech saw the imminent $800,000 payout due Leach on 12/31, which I suspect short-circuited a full and fair investigation.

I hear you. This part of it...firing him days before paying out, is suspicious. I got a feeling they will end up paying this, but the law suit might continue anyways.

Rustler

01-01-2010, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Yes, I am absolutely sure that I have formed an opinion based on whats out there. Am I absolutely sure my opinion is correct? Absolutely not. You did state above you have formed an opinion.....Just dont see how you formed an opinion that passes the smell test that shows Leach did anything to harm, put in danger, cause damage to the health of Adam.....Rememeber The President of Tech Fired Leach "With Cause" based on putting player (s) in harms way. So you are saying you have formed opinion that Tech has proven harm to the health of Adam as a result of Leach's actions? I believe people are caught up in the whinning and not the cause given for the firing!!!!!:mad: Give me a break:mad: How many of you have been stood up by your employeer when some big shot customer or client took issue with you on something you were not at fault of and the employeer didn't even try to support you??? Yes the customer pays the bills but sometime standing up for right pays the bills in the long run also. Take the emotion out of it and tell me you have come to the conclusion that Tech had ample facts to require Leach to sign an apology, the week of a bowl game, on the word of one player, before getting all the facts. Suspend before an $800,000 bonus was due and then fire him? Please tell me you dont have the opinion this passes the ole common sense "Smell Test"?

Phantom Stang

01-01-2010, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ziggy29
Yep. The thing is, I think Tech saw the imminent $800,000 payout due Leach on 12/31, which I suspect short-circuited a full and fair investigation.

Are there any credible sources, that have said Tech intends to deny Leach his bonus?

Rustler

01-01-2010, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
Are there any credible sources, that have said Tech intends to deny Leach his bonus? It has been reported that Kent Hance stated " I do not believe we owe Mike Leach a dime" or something close to that. Also believe he contends they wont owe him a dime.

ziggy29

01-01-2010, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
Are there any credible sources, that have said Tech intends to deny Leach his bonus?
Well, by firing Leach "for cause," they are essentially asserting a contract clause that makes this bonus (and the $400K per year clause) no longer payable to Leach.

Thus, the default assumption is that the bonus will not be paid since the firing "for cause" means there is no contractual obligation to do so. That puts the onus on Tech to state that they would pay it out in good faith despite not being contractually obligated to do so. They haven't (and hinted to the contrary), so the reasonable assumption is that they won't pay it. (Which makes sense -- why else would they have fired someone so quickly despite less than overwhelming evidence?)

And frankly, if they do pay it out at this point, I think it would be for damage control purposes as more details and testimony add "reasonable doubt" concerning the accuracy of the claims made by the James family, knowing that the rushed timing of the firing fails the smell test -- not that they planned to do it all along.

OldBison75

01-01-2010, 02:20 PM

WHY CAN'T EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT WHAT HARM OR INCONVIENCE THAT WAS CAUSED TO ADAM JAMES HAS TO DO WITH THIS. JAMES WAS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTANT IN A PROBABLY STUPID POWER PLAY BETWEEN THE JAMES FAMILY, TEXAS TECH ADMINISTRATION, AND COACH LEACH.

THE REALITY IS THE DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT A COMPLAINT WAS MADE, THE ADMINISTRATION SENT HIM A SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLAINTS WHILE THE "INVESTIGATION" PROGRESSED. LEACH REFUSED TO SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD THE GUIDELINES. THIS WAS BLATANT REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE DIRECT ORDER OF A SUPERIOR. HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR THAT INSUBORDINATION.

IN A FIT OF ANGER BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, LEACH CHOSE TO TAKE HIS EMPLOYER TO COURT TO OVERRULE THIER DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM. IN DOING SO, HE THEN VIOLATED THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH--ESSENTIALLY VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT WHICH SAID HE WOULD ACT IN A MANNER THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY. FURTHERMORE, THAT IN ITSELF WAS ANOTHER ACT OF INSUBORDINATION.

THE UNIVERSITY THE HAD SUSPENDED HIM FOR A BLANTANT ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT RESULTED IN A MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND PUBLIC ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT FORCED THEM TO TAKE ACTION.

YES THE TIMING WAS HORRIBLE, AND YES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FINDING A WAY TO GET RID OF HIM. BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT LEACH CHOSE TO BLATANTLY IGNORE A DIRECT WRITTEN SET OF GUIDELINES THAT THE UNIVERSITY ORDERED HIM TO FOLLOW AND THEN PUBLICY FILED AN INJUNCTION TO SHOW THEM HE WAS THE BOSS AND TRY TO OVERSTEP HIS SUPERIORS.

NO COURT IS GONNA SIDE WITH HIM AS BEING WRONGED SINCE HE TWICE CHOSE TO IGNORE A DIRECT ORDER OF HIS SUPERIOR.

LH Panther Mom

01-01-2010, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
Rememeber The President of Tech Fired Leach "With Cause" based on putting player (s) in harms way.
The "decision" to fire him was made when he decided to sue them - from Kent Hance's mouth.

Rustler

01-01-2010, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
The "decision" to fire him was made when he decided to sue them - from Kent Hance's mouth. Well....I would argue the decession was made a year ago between Hance, Sowell etc......Read the emails from a year ago. Not one employee would stand by and let a company try to take $800,000 from them on allegations from one person. I doubt you would stand for it or any other person I know would stand for it. Asked yourself why the rush to judgement and suspension? Hances statement conflicts with Trainer that was there while Adam was in shed and closet.

rancher

01-01-2010, 02:52 PM

The following is a quote from the father of defensive end Daniel Howard. This was taken from Double T Nation.

"This all could have waited til after the season, but he chose to crap all over my son’s final game At Texas Tech, I feel for you and your son Craig but don’t expect an apology from me either, and if I see you I will tell you so. That’s the way my DAD raised me and he never once talked to any of my coaches about how I was treated. He told me to fade my own heat and you’ll be a better man. Mike Leach is a good man, it shows in the graduation rate and in his coaching record, and when I talk to Coach Leach he talks to me like a man because he is a man. When he makes a mistake he will hone up to it, not go off whimpering to the media, NCAA, or the Ad[m]inistration. He isn’t perfect, but he can [c}oach my son anytime, anywhere. Sometimes you need to turn the other cheek, it says so in the greatest book ever written."

Again, the big question must be ask, why not wait till after the game. Mike Leach acted properly in taking legal action rather than bending over and becoming a bitch boy for the pleasure of Meyers and Hance. The James family has not hurt two great schools. All college coaches should remember this and make it their number one rule, never ever recuit a white player with the last name James.

Keith7

01-01-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by OldBison75
WHY CAN'T EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT WHAT HARM OR INCONVIENCE THAT WAS CAUSED TO ADAM JAMES HAS TO DO WITH THIS. JAMES WAS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTANT IN A PROBABLY STUPID POWER PLAY BETWEEN THE JAMES FAMILY, TEXAS TECH ADMINISTRATION, AND COACH LEACH.

THE REALITY IS THE DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT A COMPLAINT WAS MADE, THE ADMINISTRATION SENT HIM A SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLAINTS WHILE THE "INVESTIGATION" PROGRESSED. LEACH REFUSED TO SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD THE GUIDELINES. THIS WAS BLATANT REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE DIRECT ORDER OF A SUPERIOR. HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR THAT INSUBORDINATION.

IN A FIT OF ANGER BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, LEACH CHOSE TO TAKE HIS EMPLOYER TO COURT TO OVERRULE THIER DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM. IN DOING SO, HE THEN VIOLATED THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH--ESSENTIALLY VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT WHICH SAID HE WOULD ACT IN A MANNER THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY. FURTHERMORE, THAT IN ITSELF WAS ANOTHER ACT OF INSUBORDINATION.

THE UNIVERSITY THE HAD SUSPENDED HIM FOR A BLANTANT ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT RESULTED IN A MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND PUBLIC ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT FORCED THEM TO TAKE ACTION.

YES THE TIMING WAS HORRIBLE, AND YES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FINDING A WAY TO GET RID OF HIM. BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT LEACH CHOSE TO BLATANTLY IGNORE A DIRECT WRITTEN SET OF GUIDELINES THAT THE UNIVERSITY ORDERED HIM TO FOLLOW AND THEN PUBLICY FILED AN INJUNCTION TO SHOW THEM HE WAS THE BOSS AND TRY TO OVERSTEP HIS SUPERIORS.

NO COURT IS GONNA SIDE WITH HIM AS BEING WRONGED SINCE HE TWICE CHOSE TO IGNORE A DIRECT ORDER OF HIS SUPERIOR.

I tried to read your post but couldn't make it through the first sentence because it's in all caps. Nice try though.

LE Dad

01-01-2010, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by OldBison75
WHY CAN'T EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT WHAT HARM OR INCONVIENCE THAT WAS CAUSED TO ADAM JAMES HAS TO DO WITH THIS. JAMES WAS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTANT IN A PROBABLY STUPID POWER PLAY BETWEEN THE JAMES FAMILY, TEXAS TECH ADMINISTRATION, AND COACH LEACH.

THE REALITY IS THE DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT A COMPLAINT WAS MADE, THE ADMINISTRATION SENT HIM A SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLAINTS WHILE THE "INVESTIGATION" PROGRESSED. LEACH REFUSED TO SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD THE GUIDELINES. THIS WAS BLATANT REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE DIRECT ORDER OF A SUPERIOR. HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR THAT INSUBORDINATION.

IN A FIT OF ANGER BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, LEACH CHOSE TO TAKE HIS EMPLOYER TO COURT TO OVERRULE THIER DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM. IN DOING SO, HE THEN VIOLATED THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH--ESSENTIALLY VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT WHICH SAID HE WOULD ACT IN A MANNER THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY. FURTHERMORE, THAT IN ITSELF WAS ANOTHER ACT OF INSUBORDINATION.

THE UNIVERSITY THE HAD SUSPENDED HIM FOR A BLANTANT ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT RESULTED IN A MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND PUBLIC ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT FORCED THEM TO TAKE ACTION.

YES THE TIMING WAS HORRIBLE, AND YES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FINDING A WAY TO GET RID OF HIM. BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT LEACH CHOSE TO BLATANTLY IGNORE A DIRECT WRITTEN SET OF GUIDELINES THAT THE UNIVERSITY ORDERED HIM TO FOLLOW AND THEN PUBLICY FILED AN INJUNCTION TO SHOW THEM HE WAS THE BOSS AND TRY TO OVERSTEP HIS SUPERIORS.

NO COURT IS GONNA SIDE WITH HIM AS BEING WRONGED SINCE HE TWICE CHOSE TO IGNORE A DIRECT ORDER OF HIS SUPERIOR.
Point 1: His refusal to sign the document. It depends on what that document states. If phrases such as "continued" or "further" are usedor if they sought Leachs apology as I have heard; Leach had good cause not to sign that document as it could be viewed as an admission of wrong doing.

Point 2: Unless there are explicit remedies made available to him in his employment contract or other employment documents that Leach signed (arbitration, hearing before Board of Regents); then Leach was taking appropriate action to coach in the bowl game. I am sure that there were incentives tied to his coaching and winning the bowl game.

Point 3: All of this is tied to documents that we will probably never see sooooo...

who knows the truth:doh:

and they said HS offseason was boring:D

rancher

01-01-2010, 03:10 PM

Having now time to read the emails that the Dallas Morning News had posted. I can tell you that Mike Leach is going to be a rich man. Having been in the legal arena a few times, these are not the last of the damning emails. These damning emails between Kent Hance and Dallas resident and booster Jim Sowell give a glimpse into the thinking of last year's negotiation, with a crypitc reference to "when we fire him after next season."

It's also interesting in a sick way to see just how influential boosters can be. REMEMBER THE CURSE OF THE JAMES FAMILY.

LE Dad

01-01-2010, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by rancher
Having now time to read the emails that the Dallas Morning News had posted. I can tell you that Mike Leach is going to be a rich man. Having been in the legal arena a few times, these are not the last of the damning emails. These damning emails between Kent Hance and Dallas resident and booster Jim Sowell give a glimpse into the thinking of last year's negotiation, with a crypitc reference to "when we fire him after next season."

It's also interesting in a sick way to see just how influential boosters can be. REMEMBER THE CURSE OF THE JAMES FAMILY. E Mail and texts can bring you down everytime. A phone conversation or face to face conversation can be denied or twisted, but when you type it you better mean it. People get the sense that no one else will see what they are typing and will state some really stupid stuff...opps :doh:

OldBison75

01-01-2010, 04:41 PM

We all have to take what we see here as being what they are represented as. However, there is not any supporting proof that these are indeed real except for the word of the paper. We will see how they prove these are authentic and explain how they obtained them.

And, LE DAD, go to myfoxlubbock,com and read the text of the injunction request filed by Leach's attorney and all of the other documents and stories. The injunction contains a complete copy of Leach's contract.

Cotton

01-01-2010, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Show me a big time college coach who isn't.

Mack Brown
Bobby Bowden
Mark Richt
Tom Osborne
Joe Paterno
Gary Patterson

The list could go on for much longer, but the point is there are plenty of big time college coaches that aren't arrogant turds. Which, I don't believe Mike Leach was an arrogant turd. Talked to him at san angelo clinic and he is what he is. Smart coach.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
You did state above you have formed an opinion.....Just dont see how you formed an opinion that passes the smell test that shows Leach did anything to harm, put in danger, cause damage to the health of Adam.....Rememeber The President of Tech Fired Leach "With Cause" based on putting player (s) in harms way. So you are saying you have formed opinion that Tech has proven harm to the health of Adam as a result of Leach's actions? I believe people are caught up in the whinning and not the cause given for the firing!!!!!:mad: Give me a break:mad: How many of you have been stood up by your employeer when some big shot customer or client took issue with you on something you were not at fault of and the employeer didn't even try to support you??? Yes the customer pays the bills but sometime standing up for right pays the bills in the long run also. Take the emotion out of it and tell me you have come to the conclusion that Tech had ample facts to require Leach to sign an apology, the week of a bowl game, on the word of one player, before getting all the facts. Suspend before an $800,000 bonus was due and then fire him? Please tell me you dont have the opinion this passes the ole common sense "Smell Test"?

Rustler...you seem to be too emotionally attached to only one side of this controversy to realize that there are some who can actually disagree with you.

For the THIRD TIME... I am saying that both parties (actually, three parties) all seem convinced they are correct. He wasnt fired for allegations of mistreatment...he was fired for insubordination. It's kind of like Bill Clinton wasnt impeached for sex, he was impeached for lying about sex. Get it?

And this might come as a surprise to you...but people can actually read the same information as you and form a different opinion. It happens. It appears to me that your problem with my "opinion" isnt that I can see both sides (which I have stated THREE times), but its that I don't agree whole-heartedly with your opinion.

If you have other information that none of us have, then put it forth. Otherwise, we are on level ground regarding information used to form opinions.

rancher

01-01-2010, 05:57 PM

If you look at todays Lubbock Avalance Journal, they sought legal opinions from several distingished lawyers who are experts in this matter. ALL AGREEDED THAT MIKE LEACH HAS A VERY STRONG CASE AND THERE WILL BE AN OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT TO AVOID ANY MORE EMBARASSMENT ON THE PART OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by rancher
If you look at todays Lubbock Avalance Journal, they sought legal opinions from several distingished lawyers who are experts in this matter. ALL AGREEDED THAT MIKE LEACH HAS A VERY STRONG CASE AND THERE WILL BE AN OUT OF COURT SETTLEMENT TO AVOID ANY MORE EMBARASSMENT ON THE PART OF TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY.

I wouldnt doubt this at all. But you know how lawyers are...short, quick settlements dont help their bank accounts as much.

Rustler

01-01-2010, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Rustler...you seem to be too emotionally attached to only one side of this controversy to realize that there are some who can actually disagree with you.

For the THIRD TIME... I am saying that both parties (actually, three parties) all seem convinced they are correct. He wasnt fired for allegations of mistreatment...he was fired for insubordination. It's kind of like Bill Clinton wasnt impeached for sex, he was impeached for lying about sex. Get it?

And this might come as a surprise to you...but people can actually read the same information as you and form a different opinion. It happens. It appears to me that your problem with my "opinion" isnt that I can see both sides (which I have stated THREE times), but its that I don't agree whole-heartedly with your opinion.

If you have other information that none of us have, then put it forth. Otherwise, we are on level ground regarding information used to form opinions. :wave: wimbo_pro I want somebody to dissagree with? However I would like FACTS I fully understand what Bill Clinton was impeached for....However it doesn't remove the facts he had inapropriate relations with an intern. I am not sure what info you have or dont have? Have you watched ALL 37 mins of the Rece ESPN interview with Leach? Have you read all the emails from Hance, Sowell and others? Have you watched or listened to all of Hance's interviews....I could go on and on. I suspect the answer is No or you wouls have better answers to my previous post other than the lame answers you have posted? I dont have a problem simply would like to you defend your "Opinion" with facts or all the information as reported? Not your "can see all sides" fluff! NO I cant see all sides....Wish I could say Tech acted with respect for Leach and Adam! But they didn't. Wish Adams family and Tech would have acted less selfishly and waited until after the bowl game. They didn't. Wish Leach would have not given Adam a scholarship like the assistants tried to keep him from doing. He didn't. No didnt realy have a problem with your opinion until you failed to defend it and answer the question possed to you. Yes people can read the same thing and dissagree however, still waiting on you to defend all sides with facts.

:wave:

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
....I could go on and on.

Understatement of the Year (but its early!!!)

I see you have totally and completely put yourself in the Leach camp with blaming everyone else BUT him. We all have our opinions, informed or not.

Snydertigersrul

01-01-2010, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by LE Dad
Point 1: His refusal to sign the document. It depends on what that document states. If phrases such as "continued" or "further" are usedor if they sought Leachs apology as I have heard; Leach had good cause not to sign that document as it could be viewed as an admission of wrong doing.

Point 2: Unless there are explicit remedies made available to him in his employment contract or other employment documents that Leach signed (arbitration, hearing before Board of Regents); then Leach was taking appropriate action to coach in the bowl game. I am sure that there were incentives tied to his coaching and winning the bowl game.

Point 3: All of this is tied to documents that we will probably never see sooooo...

who knows the truth:doh:

I guess he needs to sign a document to get every play he calls in a game approved too

and they said HS offseason was boring:D

Rustler

01-01-2010, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Understatement of the Year (but its early!!!)

I see you have totally and completely put yourself in the Leach camp with blaming everyone else BUT him. We all have our opinions, informed or not. Once again NO facts in your reply....Understatement to you because you fail to deal in facts as reported..just uninfotmed "Opinions" and you know what they say about opinions there like well........belly buttons everybody has one....yours is obviously an uninformed one! I will be waiting for you to post facts as reported that defend all sides so that I can consider changing my position which is different than an opinion.

Eagle 1

01-01-2010, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by OldBison75

NO COURT IS GONNA SIDE WITH HIM AS BEING WRONGED SINCE HE TWICE CHOSE TO IGNORE A DIRECT ORDER OF HIS SUPERIOR.

Care to make a little wager on that statement?

Rustler

01-01-2010, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
Care to make a little wager on that statement? Eagle 1 if you get more $ than you can handle I will take what you can't. The shame of this situation is...alot of money will be paid to Leach as it should be (if no new facts are produced) and we will not have him as a coach. Some Admin, Board of Regents heads should roll.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
Once again NO facts in your reply....Understatement to you because you fail to deal in facts as reported..just uninfotmed "Opinions" and you know what they say about opinions there like well........belly buttons everybody has one....yours is obviously an uninformed one! I will be waiting for you to post facts as reported that defend all sides so that I can consider changing my position which is different than an opinion.

Rustler...you have yourself convinced of your "position". Good for you. It's actually an opinion, whether you like it or not. But if you feel it is important for you to call it a "position", thats fine by me.

The "facts" that you keep asking me for are these...you really don't "know" anything about this incident. You only "know" what has been printed and in the media...the same stuff I (we) have seen. You have no idea if these things are actually "facts" about either side. So for you to think that you have a superior "position" based on something you are trying to sell as "facts" is a bit humorous, if not sophomoric.

This is a common mistake of someone who has a "position" first and then searches for only those things that confirm that position. You obviously have a dog in this fight.

Rustler

01-01-2010, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Rustler...you have yourself convinced of your "position". Good for you. It's actually an opinion, whether you like it or not. But if you feel it is important for you to call it a "position", thats fine by me.

The "facts" that you keep asking me for are these...you really don't "know" anything about this incident. You only "know" what has been printed and in the media...the same stuff I (we) have seen. You have no idea if these things are actually "facts" about either side. So for you to think that you have a superior "position" based on something you are trying to sell as "facts" is a bit humorous, if not sophomoric.

This is a common mistake of someone who has a "position" first and then searches for only those things that confirm that position. You obviously have a dog in this fight. As I have stated "AS REPORTED" several times! Atleast my opinion (as you put it) has a side and I am willing to post those to support my opinion or side. So by default I do have a superior position over yours because you refuse to defend or argue any side. Everybody is right is your position. That is no position or weak limp one at best.

Eagle 1

01-01-2010, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro

The "facts" that you keep asking me for are these...you really don't "know" anything about this incident. You only "know" what has been printed and in the media...the same stuff I (we) have seen. You have no idea if these things are actually "facts" about either side. So for you to think that you have a superior "position" based on something you are trying to sell as "facts" is a bit humorous, if not sophomoric.

Ironically, Mike Leach is the only one to come forward and make statements about what happened.
Craig James statements were more of defending himself in this as "what a father should do." (or something like that) Nothing factual.
Again.....

Davis: "Why did you make the decision as to where adam james should go as opposed to the trainer?"

Leach: "I didnt, I didnt, I said you know find some place dark, and one place was as good as the next, and that was close to the field, and plus it had the ice machine."

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
As I have stated "AS REPORTED" several times! Atleast my opinion (as you put it) has a side and I am willing to post those to support my opinion or side. So by default I do have a superior position over yours because you refuse to defend or argue any side. Everybody is right is your position. That is no position or weak limp one at best.

Fair enough. Your "position" is superior.

Anyways, do you think any other team will pick Leach up for next year?

Rustler

01-01-2010, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Fair enough. Your "position" is superior.

Anyways, do you think any other team will pick Leach up for next year? I think some will be interested but not sure he will be ready by next year? All his numbers shows he knows how to buld a good program. Whether you like him or not. Can't argue with his numbers.

wimbo_pro

01-01-2010, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
I think some will be interested but not sure he will be ready by next year? All his numbers shows he knows how to buld a good program. Whether you like him or not. Can't argue with his numbers.

I have no opinion of him either way. I dont follow Tech. I have never paid any attention to him until the last week or so...other than, of course, knowing that Tech has been much better lately.

I saw one commentator last night predict he will end up as an NFL offensive coordinator or something until this settles and then he will return to college football.

LE Dad

01-01-2010, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by OldBison75
We all have to take what we see here as being what they are represented as. However, there is not any supporting proof that these are indeed real except for the word of the paper. We will see how they prove these are authentic and explain how they obtained them.

And, LE DAD, go to myfoxlubbock,com and read the text of the injunction request filed by Leach's attorney and all of the other documents and stories. The injunction contains a complete copy of Leach's contract.
E Mails were probably obtained with FOI
request. That was what lead to Houston Nutt leaving Arkansas was a booster obtaining some not too nice E Mails using a State computer. Anything on it was deemed eligible to FOIA.

OldBison75

01-01-2010, 08:26 PM

Yeah, I worked for the state for more years than I care to admit and am well aware of FOI. However, I also know that for those to be used in court, there has to be a chain of custody and documentation of where and how they were obtained. I am sure that is covered, but until they are found admittable, they are just papers with words.

sotxrat

01-01-2010, 09:04 PM

Leach will be come out ok in this deal. He will be affected the least.

The James family will have to deal with this for quite some time. The parents made a decision concerning their child. All parents do, sometimes these decisions are not the right ones. I hope the family pulls their other son out of Tech for obvious reasons.

The biggest loser in this unfortunate event is the university and all of their sport programs. Booster donations will be less, recruiting will be very difficult, I would imagine that all recruits that had already verbally commited to tech are reviewing their options. Also, it will very difficult to get a well known coach to replace Leach because of how the Texas Tech administration handled this.

It is a bad deal and should never have got this way. All three parties are at fault.

The Swami

01-01-2010, 11:52 PM

Its all just a set up. The youtube video that adam put on the internet isnt even where he was. The Texas Tech athletic trainer told adam to go into the media room to sit in a dark place without light to help with the concussion. I agree Leach is a turd but he knows his football.

GreenMonster

01-02-2010, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by OldBison75
WHY CAN'T EVERYONE FORGET ABOUT WHAT HARM OR INCONVIENCE THAT WAS CAUSED TO ADAM JAMES HAS TO DO WITH THIS. JAMES WAS THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTANT IN A PROBABLY STUPID POWER PLAY BETWEEN THE JAMES FAMILY, TEXAS TECH ADMINISTRATION, AND COACH LEACH.

THE REALITY IS THE DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS THAT A COMPLAINT WAS MADE, THE ADMINISTRATION SENT HIM A SET OF GUIDELINES TO FOLLOW TO AVOID FURTHER COMPLAINTS WHILE THE "INVESTIGATION" PROGRESSED. LEACH REFUSED TO SIGN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD THE GUIDELINES. THIS WAS BLATANT REFUSAL TO FOLLOW THE DIRECT ORDER OF A SUPERIOR. HE WAS SUSPENDED FOR THAT INSUBORDINATION.

IN A FIT OF ANGER BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, LEACH CHOSE TO TAKE HIS EMPLOYER TO COURT TO OVERRULE THIER DECISION TO SUSPEND HIM. IN DOING SO, HE THEN VIOLATED THE EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP AND DID NOT ACT IN GOOD FAITH--ESSENTIALLY VIOLATED HIS CONTRACT WHICH SAID HE WOULD ACT IN A MANNER THAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY. FURTHERMORE, THAT IN ITSELF WAS ANOTHER ACT OF INSUBORDINATION.

THE UNIVERSITY THE HAD SUSPENDED HIM FOR A BLANTANT ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT RESULTED IN A MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND PUBLIC ACT OF INSUBORDINATION THAT FORCED THEM TO TAKE ACTION.

YES THE TIMING WAS HORRIBLE, AND YES THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FINDING A WAY TO GET RID OF HIM. BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT LEACH CHOSE TO BLATANTLY IGNORE A DIRECT WRITTEN SET OF GUIDELINES THAT THE UNIVERSITY ORDERED HIM TO FOLLOW AND THEN PUBLICY FILED AN INJUNCTION TO SHOW THEM HE WAS THE BOSS AND TRY TO OVERSTEP HIS SUPERIORS.

NO COURT IS GONNA SIDE WITH HIM AS BEING WRONGED SINCE HE TWICE CHOSE TO IGNORE A DIRECT ORDER OF HIS SUPERIOR.

Nice, and agreed. Leach has no case. Insubordination is cause for termination. This situation is less about Adam James and more about Leach not doing what he had been told to do. I think the media is trying to spin it into being about Adam James because it's more sensational than reality. Leach will catch on with someone quick.

carter08

01-02-2010, 03:20 AM

Seriously Wimpy?

Your position is that Tech, the James family, and Leach all think they're right?

That's such a dumb idea. We all know that Adam James is firmly on Leach's side and vice versa. ;)

Gobbla2001

01-02-2010, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by GreenMonster
This situation is less about Adam James and more about Leach not doing what he had been told to do.

Sadly this situation is NOT just about Leach not doing what he had been told to do, this situation is about the image of Leach...

We can argue he had a negative image prior to this due to his quirky behavior etc..., but that image did not include locking kids up in small rooms seconds after suffering concussions...

this has been a disgusting display of how media can sway public opinion due to a public that would rather not do research themselves... I'm not saying ESPN/sports talk spread the rumors, but they have failed to defuse those rumors that had no factual basis...

first thing that should have happened with Leach is he shouldn't have been offered a contract to return... then when a suspension came he should have followed the rules... he didn't so that's that... but his image should not have been as damaged as it was during this...

GreenMonster

01-02-2010, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Sadly this situation is NOT just about Leach not doing what he had been told to do, this situation is about the image of Leach...

We can argue he had a negative image prior to this due to his quirky behavior etc..., but that image did not include locking kids up in small rooms seconds after suffering concussions...

this has been a disgusting display of how media can sway public opinion due to a public that would rather not do research themselves... I'm not saying ESPN/sports talk spread the rumors, but they have failed to defuse those rumors that had no factual basis...

first thing that should have happened with Leach is he shouldn't have been offered a contract to return... then when a suspension came he should have followed the rules... he didn't so that's that... but his image should not have been as damaged as it was during this... I can certainly agree with you here as well. When all the medical people involved are all saying Leach's actions were ok, and furthermore agreeing that Leach himself never picked the cool dark place Adam James was sent, but that the training staff selected it, and that trainers were posted at all times, one has to think Texas Tech seriously jumped the gun in suspending Mike Leach. ESPN's coverage has been very despicable as well. "Locked in a storage shed......locked in an elctrical closet" etc etc. Mike Leach as well as the Tech training staff has repeatedly defended themselves against these severe exagerations as to the places that Adam James was sent. This whole thing is a train wreck and I think Leach has a much better chance to win a slander lawsuit against Adam James and ESPN than he stands at winning a suit against Texas Tech.

Eagle 1

01-02-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by GreenMonster
Nice, and agreed. Leach has no case. Insubordination is cause for termination. This situation is less about Adam James and more about Leach not doing what he had been told to do. I think the media is trying to spin it into being about Adam James because it's more sensational than reality. Leach will catch on with someone quick.

How was he insubordinate?
Please explain.

skins4life

01-02-2010, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Eagle 1
How was he insubordinate?
Please explain.

Adm (Leach's boss): Apologize to the James family.

Leach (Adm's employee): No!! I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do!!

Adm. : Sign this paper saying you won't do it again!

Leach: No! I'm not signing anything that makes it sound like I did something wrong!!

If my supervisor tells me to do something(as long as it's safe to do) and I don't do it. There will be consequences and I quote "Up to Termination". Not saying it would've been safe for Leach to sign the paper.

I know it's not always right, but they had him over a barrel. It didn't matter if he signed the paper or not they were going to fire him.
If he signs the paper saying he wouldn't do it again, they fire him for doing it.
He doesn't sign it and well, the rest is history.

Rustler

01-02-2010, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by skins4life
Adm (Leach's boss): Apologize to the James family.

Leach (Adm's employee): No!! I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do!!

Adm. : Sign this paper saying you won't do it again!

Leach: No! I'm not signing anything that makes it sound like I did something wrong!!

If my supervisor tells me to do something(as long as it's safe to do) and I don't do it. There will be consequences and I quote "Up to Termination". Not saying it would've been safe for Leach to sign the paper.

I know it's not always right, but they had him over a barrel. It didn't matter if he signed the paper or not they were going to fire him.
If he signs the paper saying he wouldn't do it again, they fire him for doing it.
He doesn't sign it and well, the rest is history. Where I Come from we call this kind of dealings by Adm........................CHICKEN S_I_! to say the least. They may have had Leach over a barrel but now he has them over the University Bank Accnt. Hope they have to Pay him out the nose. Maybe Sowell will pay him off?

LE Dad

01-02-2010, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by skins4life
Adm (Leach's boss): Apologize to the James family.

Leach (Adm's employee): No!! I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do!!

Adm. : Sign this paper saying you won't do it again!

Leach: No! I'm not signing anything that makes it sound like I did something wrong!!

If my supervisor tells me to do something(as long as it's safe to do) and I don't do it. There will be consequences and I quote "Up to Termination". Not saying it would've been safe for Leach to sign the paper.

I know it's not always right, but they had him over a barrel. It didn't matter if he signed the paper or not they were going to fire him.
If he signs the paper saying he wouldn't do it again, they fire him for doing it.
He doesn't sign it and well, the rest is history. You nailed it!! Leach was in a no win situation. Apoligize when you did nothing wrong, you weaken your position. Sign something that states you won't do it again, you weaken your position. They were going to terminate him regardless. He did what he and his lawyer thought was best and I totally agree. This is going to get interesting for sure.

skins4life

01-02-2010, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Rustler
Where I Come from we call this kind of dealings by Adm........................CHICKEN S_I_! to say the least. They may have had Leach over a barrel but now he has them over the University Bank Accnt. Hope they have to Pay him out the nose. Maybe Sowell will pay him off?

I hope you're right about the paying out the nose!!
And yes, it is Chicken S#@%, but they do it all of the time.

bigwood33

01-02-2010, 04:54 PM

I think that Adam James is most likely a spoiled kid with an oversized sense of entitlement BUT, I know that Mike Leach is a boorish, profane, arrogant man who is far too full of himself. I hope he gets squat!

Eagle 1

01-02-2010, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by skins4life
Adm (Leach's boss): Apologize to the James family.

Leach (Adm's employee): No!! I'm not apologizing for something I didn't do!!

Adm. : Sign this paper saying you won't do it again!

Leach: No! I'm not signing anything that makes it sound like I did something wrong!!

If my supervisor tells me to do something(as long as it's safe to do) and I don't do it. There will be consequences and I quote "Up to Termination". Not saying it would've been safe for Leach to sign the paper.

I know it's not always right, but they had him over a barrel. It didn't matter if he signed the paper or not they were going to fire him.
If he signs the paper saying he wouldn't do it again, they fire him for doing it.
He doesn't sign it and well, the rest is history.

So, if somebody from your job told your boss that you were sleeping in the restroom during work hours, and your boss calls you in his office and writes you up and tells you to sign it, and that you would have to apologize to your co-workers for slacking off while they were still working, you would do it? Even if its not true?