By rights, he means you cannot make people do anything. Grambling could not physically force those students onto a bus headed for Jackson. They would not have been able to forced them OFF the bus either.
JSU Seeks Legal Action Against Grambling, SWAC...
- Thread starter Mace
- Start date
- Status
By rights, he means you cannot make people do anything. Grambling could not physically force those students onto a bus headed for Jackson. They would not have been able to forced them OFF the bus either.
Hey man. Just asking the question. But I am sure that an attorney who is responsible for defending Gram's position (provided that it ever gets to that which I doubt) would have some kind of defense along those lines.
No one is saying JSU is the bad guy. JSU lost money and it was caused by GSU/GSU players. The question is whether JSU can get anything more than what is already planned to be given to them, and many non-JSU folks think not.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
SOG, I disagree right there. You just don't have strong leaders in place at Grambling. If you did, they would have MADE those players get on the bus. They had NOTHING to protest about. Even Karl Morgan said the same thing. I really don't think this would happen in Jackson. Look at our bball team. The SWAC freshman of the year didn't wanna practice/work with Brent, and Brent was like :wavey: . Our leading rebounder didn't want to practice and Brent left his azz off the bus. When the J-Settes told the band director they were not gonna dance to certain songs, he said :wavey:, took the band to SU with no J-Settes and held tryouts for new ones when he got back.
We have balls in Jackson. Ya'll need some in Grambling. I can practically guarantee you that mess would NOT have worked in Jackson. It seems like ya'll were trying not to look bad to the media. Even now, some people are saying JSU will look bad in the media for suing GSU... The QUEEN and her court don't care about appearances. They want the $$$.
LS Syndicate
#TheeILove
Fixed that for you. Not saying it applies to you, but that is the general stance of the "non-JSU" folks.
Robber
Consigliere
Striking is a labor issue. Labor issues occur between employers and its employees, not schools and its students. Those players protested. If players have the right to strike, then they would be able to demand better pay, more benefits, etc...
Last edited:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
Not really. Judges are not dumb. Strikes are in reference to some outside strikes. For instance, if all the refs in the nation were on strike. .. or if all the bus drivers and airline pilots were on strike. Not some dumb players. Read ALL of the words around strike. They are talking about things outside of JSU and GSU control. Those players CHOSE to strike. The contract does not cover that.
Think about it like this.. if GSU football coaches had gone on strike, wouldn't people be trying to sue them? GSU would be trying to sue them. Its the same thing. The coaches were there and the admins were in support of the team going to Jackson. The players went against their coaches and admins and chose not to go.
Last edited:
Robber
Consigliere
Sometimes we go to court with some real crappy legal arguments. And we have to do it with a straight face.
99, It's just debate. I am not here to question you or Robber's expertise on this issue. I'm just asking questions that I'm guessing (and believe me...I know its just a guess) that opposing counsel would bring up. That's all.
With that said, and with respect to the fact that those players have a LOI to play football school, are you trying to tell me they have no rights? It's like you asked previously, what good does it do to mention those exceptions in the contract if it isn't possible for any of them to happen?
The sentence that includes the word "strike" contains the words "including but not limited to"... that's open ended.
That's the very point I was trying to make as well. :tup:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
They have rights but so does the school. They could boycott if they want BUT if the school chose to punish them, the school had that right too. In this case, the school AND conference acted as if they had no rights. I think the conference should have stepped in IMMEDIATELY when the team threatened not to come and let them know that for every game they forfeit, they would be suspended for two. In fact, they still need to put that rule in place somewhere. It's quite irritating to for everyone to act like these kids did NOTHING. They got off scott free with these antics and the world is cool with it. Nothing is right about that.
JSU/99
Well-Known Member
TP(surprisingly for a scientists) and Robber did a good job of explaining why that strike language won't/shouldn't hold up. Also, I'm sure you've worked with contracts before and understand the language and exclusions.
As for the players having no rights and my other comments, debate is all well and good but lets not just throw out whatever comes to mind. Of course players have rights, but the right to not live up to the terms of their LOI is not one of them.
That helps JSU or any of the other schools on their schedule in what way?
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
That is general legal jargon but the word strike does not apply to those kids and any judge reading that contract would agree with that. Of course you have to say, "including but not limited to". .. BOTH sides need protections. What if there was a bomb threat in Memorial that day and there was no where else to play. You can name EVERY instance. BUT whatever instance you choose to use as a REASON better be valid and beyond the control of either party. This was not beyond the control of either party so there is nothing open-ended about it.
Cool! :tup:
Robber
Consigliere
Man I hope you don't work for an insurance company in claims. Lol
This situation was not beyond Gram control, reasonable or otherwise. Hell Gram created the situation and couldn't get itself out of it. Can't create a problem then claim the problem that you created is your justification.
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
If you have to ask that question....
Why don't UAPB just not show up for SU this year.. then they will be able to use this as a precedent. I hope they don't show up.. :lol:
THEN you ask yourself that question. (Sometimes I think ya'll just play dumb)
Bleedbluefan
Ripbayless
Not too fond of legal talk...but ummm, how did the players bounce back and play their next scheduled game? I understand not wanting to play in those horrid conditions but it starts to not look genuine when you play the week before jsu, skip us, and play your next opponent. You showed up to YOUR games despite those conditions, showed up to YOUR homecoming despite those conditions. Idk if we will get half or even a quarter of a mil but $50k and a few home games is like giving me a dollar after you caused me to lose $100.
JayRob
TigaPaw
I like that last statement.:tup:
I say this respectfully, those kids didn't give a damn about it being J-State's homecoming. It could have been any SWAC school. It just so happens that your school was the team we were scheduled to play that week.
No you do not.
JayRob
TigaPaw
Seems like they chose the "wrong" school to pull this stunt on, now it's coming back to haunt the entire Grambling family.:smh:
Tigerpride
THE Logical ONE
LOL.. dude when have you NOT seen that in a contract? Even when I review patents, they use that language.
Again.... I think you are playing dumb.
The people who created the problem aren't the folks who signed the contract.
- Status