This Is What I'm Hearing
- Thread starter Darrell McPhaul
- Start date
P
POCKEY
Guest
So very well put. As someone that has known Mack I have been in total befuddlement over his actions, not just the past month, but for over a year.
I think you stated it very well and it helps explain where Coach Brown is coming from. It's not an excuse just an observation.
It is sad to see people attain a level of prestige and power that they aren't able to keep in perspective. Heck, we've seen it from just about every President in my lifetime.
texasfight4468
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 205
If I could go forward in time. I think I would make a bet on the Vegas coaching odds
Okay, hear me out on all of this...
Mack and JJ meet with Powers and Patterson at which time it is expected Mack resigns. He doesn't. We don't really know what was discussed, just who was present.
Mack retires the next day under order he does so or is fired (we don't fully know this to absolutely 100% accurate, but we are 95% sure it is so).
The Pat Forde article comes out which was definitely leaked by the Mack camp, maybe even by Mack himself.
Next day a rumor comes out about Mack contemplating suing UT and/or other parties. Which would be a really stupid, disastrous move on his part.
Anyone else think the lawsuit was threatened at the Fri meeting between the parties, hence Mack not resigning (possibly Powers knowing what was coming), and then leaked after Mack's camp decided to get "The Forde" article out. Hence the lawsuit story is leaked?
This is ugly.
Mack and JJ meet with Powers and Patterson at which time it is expected Mack resigns. He doesn't. We don't really know what was discussed, just who was present.
Mack retires the next day under order he does so or is fired (we don't fully know this to absolutely 100% accurate, but we are 95% sure it is so).
The Pat Forde article comes out which was definitely leaked by the Mack camp, maybe even by Mack himself.
Next day a rumor comes out about Mack contemplating suing UT and/or other parties. Which would be a really stupid, disastrous move on his part.
Anyone else think the lawsuit was threatened at the Fri meeting between the parties, hence Mack not resigning (possibly Powers knowing what was coming), and then leaked after Mack's camp decided to get "The Forde" article out. Hence the lawsuit story is leaked?
This is ugly.
doc longhorn
V.I.P.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,985
As someone that knows Mack, perhaps you know Sally as well?
This is a serious question that might explain Mack's bizarre behavior these last few months. Do you think Sally is influencing Mack's decisions? Do you think it is SALLY is the one that is squirming on the potential loss of power?
doc longhorn
V.I.P.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 2,985
???? What hasn't changed with Saban?
whatthewhat
V.I.P.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 309
I've typed this three times and keep getting knocked out of the reply box. I hate this tablet.
Summarized version: my input means jizz here, but word amongst my acquaintance in Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa is that this deal looks done. Little Nick is upset because he rides high, big dog in town, but things won't necessarily be as pleasant after CNS's departure. He and his wife will have to follow suit, and she's not happy. Kristen is excited because she has issues in Tuscaloosa, it's a small town and a lot of pressure exists for a girl with such a high profile. Or she likes to complain about it anyway, 'Nobody understands!'. I have no clue whether there's any ink on this deal, but for all the talk between people who 'know,' this is the first I'm hearing of tension amongst the familial ranks.
The end.
ETA: I hesitate to share too many details because some of them are pretty ugly and I don't know that they're relevant to the discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that a week ago, my Bama friends were all in one camp: No fricking way. Now there's a few in the 'Oh crap, what does this mean?' camp.
Summarized version: my input means jizz here, but word amongst my acquaintance in Baton Rouge and Tuscaloosa is that this deal looks done. Little Nick is upset because he rides high, big dog in town, but things won't necessarily be as pleasant after CNS's departure. He and his wife will have to follow suit, and she's not happy. Kristen is excited because she has issues in Tuscaloosa, it's a small town and a lot of pressure exists for a girl with such a high profile. Or she likes to complain about it anyway, 'Nobody understands!'. I have no clue whether there's any ink on this deal, but for all the talk between people who 'know,' this is the first I'm hearing of tension amongst the familial ranks.
The end.
ETA: I hesitate to share too many details because some of them are pretty ugly and I don't know that they're relevant to the discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that a week ago, my Bama friends were all in one camp: No fricking way. Now there's a few in the 'Oh crap, what does this mean?' camp.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is just selfish controlling Mack/Macks corner leaking info thinking he still has some type of pull that may sway the next decision on the next coach. He is scared to death that Saban will come here and be successful and he will just be a name of the past. People will only remember him as a underperforming coach that was only saved by possibly the best college player ever. What he doesn't realize is the legacy that he so desires is being pissed away every time something like this comes out.
pringlelake
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2013
- Messages
- 542
As PDX previously posted, there is almost zero chance that Mack Brown files a lawsuit against the University of Texas. Further, there is also almost zero chance that he has a cause of action. Lastly, if ANYONE was going to file a lawsuit, it would more likely be someone from Alabama suing Texas for interfering with the existing contract between Alabama and Saban.
To recover for a tortious interference with an existing contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) a willful and intentional act of interference; (3) that the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages; and (4) actual damage or loss.
“To show proximate cause, a plaintiff must allege that 'the defendant took an active part in persuading a party to a contract to breach it. It is necessary that there be some act of interference or of persuading a party to breach, for example by offering better terms or other incentives, for tort liability to arise.â€
Disclaimer: I didn't conduct original legal research to find the above. I simply googled tortious interference with contract and found it. But read the blurb and decide for yourself which party is most likely to file a law suit......if that's in the picture.
To recover for a tortious interference with an existing contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) a willful and intentional act of interference; (3) that the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages; and (4) actual damage or loss.
“To show proximate cause, a plaintiff must allege that 'the defendant took an active part in persuading a party to a contract to breach it. It is necessary that there be some act of interference or of persuading a party to breach, for example by offering better terms or other incentives, for tort liability to arise.â€
Disclaimer: I didn't conduct original legal research to find the above. I simply googled tortious interference with contract and found it. But read the blurb and decide for yourself which party is most likely to file a law suit......if that's in the picture.
Two general points (and this is not specific legal advice, merely general observation):
Under Texas law, tortious interference with contract can be established only with respect to a third party who is a "stranger" to the contract. That is, a party to a contract can't be liable for tortious interference with its own contract--breach yes, but interference no. Thus, UT itself wouldn't be a proper defendant for this cause of action. Whether third parties like Wallace Hall could be would probably depend on whether he was found to be acting within the scope of his authority as a regent.
Second, so far as I can tell, interference with contract requires a third party persuading a party with the contract to breach it. But if the contract provides conditions for termination, then termination according to the terms of the contract is not breach. I haven't studied the language of Mack's contract to assess what its provisions are in this respect, so can't speak to the facts here, but interference with contract seems unlikely.
X1000. Always remember the 80/20 rule. 20 percent of your posters/clients/customers etc cause 80 percent of your problems. Fire the 20% as you go along and your life will be much smoother. Plus the remaining 80 percent are much happier to boot . Win/win.
hornonthe40
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Messages
- 102
Wouldn't this be under Alabama law? Since, if they sue it will be done in their state? I'm no lawyer but wouldn't it be based on which state the person lives and works that breaches the contract? Any one know?
About Us
