JSU Seeks Legal Action Against Grambling, SWAC...


Status
Not open for further replies.
JAG89 said:
If this case goes to court and I was Grambling's attorney, I'll recommend that the next 4 games be played in Jackson from 2014 to 2017, which should recoup and satisfy any monetary losses to JSU due to the game that was boycotted by GSU's players in 2013.
Click to expand...

To be honest, that's probably something that could be done INTERNALLY with the SWAC presidents via a simple vote. There would be no need to take this court.
 



jag4life said:
The 2014 game. You get ONE extra home game in this scenario, instead of 2.
Click to expand...

It's only a makeup game that didn't take place in 2013. There's nothing "extra" about that plus it won't be a "home coming" game that would've generated for more revenue than a regular home game.
 
SAME OLD G said:
To be honest, that's probably something that could be done INTERNALLY with the SWAC presidents via a simple vote. There would be no need to take this court.
Click to expand...

Any remedy offered to JSU should have been contingent on us NOT filing a suit.
 
JayRob said:
It's only a makeup game that didn't take place in 2013. There's nothing "extra" about that plus it won't be a "home coming" game that would've generated for more revenue than a regular home game.
Click to expand...

That's the replacement.... call it what you want, but you get a home game to replace the game you lost. Your choice not to make it homecoming.
 
Plus with Sharp being a former Grambling AD, there seems to be a conflict of interest matter that seems to be rearing it's ugly head.
Why suddenly remove a home game from Jackson and give it to Grambling?
 
Grambling might sue the SWAC, if we have to play 4 years in Jackson, a lot of people are already pissed off about the 3 years, so 4 years might cause a all out rebellion. It would be like kicking a dog while it's down!!
 
SAME OLD G said:
Apparently, for J-State, it's not that easy.
Click to expand...

It never is. But we can't do anything official without the AGs office giving us the go ahead. Even if his office doesn't personally handle the suit, we still need his permission before we can hire outside counsel and proceed. He doesn't appear to be in favor of this but that was based at least in part on faulty information.
 



JSU/99 said:
It never is. But we can't do anything official without the AGs office giving us the go ahead. Even if his office doesn't personally handle the suit, we still need his permission before we can hire outside counsel and proceed. He doesn't appear to be in favor of this but that was based at least in part on faulty information.
Click to expand...

I was with you until that part. What faulty information are we talking about?
 
JSU/99 said:
He was under the impression that there was no contract between the schools. There is.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I thought you were going to mention. And yes, there is a contract, but if you read the wording of the contract, Grambling has a clear defense for it.

Signed by both university presidents, the contract covers all athletic events between the two schools during the 2013-14 school year. It says neither party will be held accountable for loss or damages due to causes beyond its reasonable control including, but not limited to, “acts of God, strikes, epidemics, war, riots, flood, fire, sabotage, terrorist activity or threat, closure or congestion of airports, order or restriction by any government authority or any other circumstances of like character.”
Click to expand...

Grambling made every effort to play that game, but they could not make those players get on the bus.
 
GramblingMan2009 said:
Grambling might sue the SWAC, if we have to play 4 years in Jackson, a lot of people are already pissed off about the 3 years, so 4 years might cause a all out rebellion. It would be like kicking a dog while it's down!!
Click to expand...

IMO, making Grambling play JSU in Jackson 4 years in a row would be fair, basically giving JSU 2 extra home games (2014 & 2016) with one being a makeup game for the 2013 game and the other one being a punishment game for boycotting JSU's homecoming. The 2015 & 2017 games would have already been JSU's home games as they would have been on the normal schedule.
 
JAG89 said:
IMO, making Grambling play JSU in Jackson 4 years in a row would be fair, basically giving JSU 2 extra home games (2014 & 2016) with one being a makeup game for the 2013 game and the other one being a punishment game for boycotting JSU's homecoming. The 2015 & 2017 games would have already been JSU's home games as they would have been on the normal schedule.
Click to expand...

:tup:
 
SAME OLD G said:
Yep, that's what I thought you were going to mention. And yes, there is a contract, but if you read the wording of the contract, Grambling has a clear defense for it.



Grambling made every effort to play that game, but they could not make those players get on the bus.
Click to expand...

That defense won't hold water in a pool.
 
SAME OLD G said:
Yep, that's what I thought you were going to mention. And yes, there is a contract, but if you read the wording of the contract, Grambling has a clear defense for it.
Click to expand...

No need to get cute here. Hood, if you read the article, wasn't aware of the existence of a contract. That's what i was referring to when I said his reluctance was based in part on faulty information. Now if you want to debate whether Grambling's refusal to show is excused under that clause, that's a separate issue. I don't generally go into too much legal detail with non-attorneys, but know that Grambling would have some problems with the "beyond its reasonable control" portion of that clause. In addition, the player's actions probably wouldn't be considered in a legal sense.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top