Joe Alleva’s hand, caught in the cookie jar

Hey, remember when LSU decided to sue John Chavis for his buyout when he left for Texas A&M?

LSU quickly answered Chavis with a suit of its own later Friday in East Baton Rouge Parish, saying that Chavis confirmed in media reports on Jan. 1 that he had been hired by Texas A&M. Chavis’ contract states that he is relieved of the buyout if he leaves during the last 11 months of his contract with the first day of that period being Feb. 1, 2015. So according to Chavis and his lawyer, he beat that by three days. According to LSU, he broke the contract too early and owes the $400,000.

“We expect him to comply,” Alleva told the Baton Rouge Advocate in January. Alleva had no comment Friday.

Stern stuff.  Of course, it would help if Chavis had agreed to the terms Alleva expects him to comply with.

It turns out he didn’t.

In filings made Tuesday morning, LSU admits to altering the 2012 contract of Chavis after the coach signed it – one of Chavis’ claims in the on-going lawsuit between the two parties.

“It’s exactly what coach has been saying all along, that the contract was altered after he signed it in 2012,” said Jill Craft, attorney for Chavis. “You can’t alter a contract and try to claim it’s valid and you certainly can’t sue over it. One of the things they did admit was altered was the buyout provision. In some sense, it’s vindication.”

Bob Barton, representing LSU, declined comment.

No kidding.  What’s he gonna say – “my client’s sleaziness here is only exceeded by its dumbassery in thinking this was going to stay under wraps”?



Filed under See You In Court

24 responses to “Joe Alleva’s hand, caught in the cookie jar

  1. Jared S.

    You know, AGDM doesn’t look so bad when you see stories like this. I know a lot of snarky comments are thrown out there about the “Georgia Way” but at least Richt’s firing didn’t look anything like this. I know that has as much to do with Richt’s class as it has to do with AGDM, but I also think about how AGDM honored Richt’s contract even though it was never technically signed. I like that.


    • Napoleon BonerFart

      If you go to Zaxby’s, order a finger plate, wait for them to hand it over, and then try to avoid paying because there is no written contract, you wouldn’t have a case. Richt’s contract with UGA is a similar deal.


    • HVL Dawg

      Richt had a contract in force. Call it the old contract. Richt never signed a new contract. The old contract still had a buyout provision and it is applicable.

      I’m assuming that the only difference between the two contracts’ buyout clauses is the base rate of pay, which was what, $300,000 higher?

      This is nothing compared to what they are apparently willing to eat to keep Shotty off campus for three weeks.


      • Argondawg

        There has been some speculation as to why CMR didn’t sign that contract. From what I have heard there may have been language in the new contract to tone down the Jesus talk and that was what he was balking at.

        Just what I heard.


    • 79Dawg

      Again, there is no requirement that Richt’s contract had to be signed to be enforceable – given that all the material terms had essentially been agreed to (Jesus stuff, Juco limits, etc are all non-material) and that there had been part performance for the last nine months, it was outside the statute of frauds. If McGarity had refused to honor the agreement, Richt would have sued his ass – the last thing the Universiy or McGarity would want would be to go through discovery on something like this…


      • Mayor

        I have to disagree, 79. I take it you are an attorney. I am one myself. This issue is very fact intensive and even then the sort of thing that appellate court judges disagree over and write dissenting opinions about. I take the view that the Jesus stuff is NOT non-material. After all, one of the parties refused to sign the contract over it. Same with JUCO limits. There is a contract in force–the one previously signed. The new unsigned contract is simply a renegotiation of the earlier deal and they didn’t come to final terms.


  2. DawgPhan

    I mean that seems very Louisiana so it makes sense to me.


  3. Cousin Eddie

    So ADs do make this stuff up as they go along. I think Chavis should sue Alleva for defamation of character (or some other BS for dragging his name through the mud) just to prove he can be a bigger ass.


  4. W Cobb Dawg

    Les Miles should have that a.d. fired!


  5. Dog in Fla

    “Bob Barton, representing LSU, declined comment.”

    At least he got his graduate degrees at a good school

    “Mr. Barton graduated from Louisiana State University in 1990 and earned his Juris Doctor cum laude and Master of Business Administration degrees from the University of Georgia.”


  6. Jack Klompus

    Speaking of which… I did hear a rumor that Kirby may have been chatting with Chavis in recent days.


    • Dog in Fla

      Well what would Kirby do then?


    • Napoleon BonerFart

      Chavis runs a 4-3 base, while Saban/Smart run a 3-4. Granted, both are required to be multiple, but Chavis is markedly different than Saban/Smart.

      Also, not insignificantly, TAMU has Chavis under contract so that, if he leaves for another SEC school, he must pay his contracted base salary for 2016 & 2017 ($3.4 million) as a buyout. Call me skeptical that ADGM backs that kind of play.


  7. Hogbody Spradlin

    Altering the contract after it’s signed?! That’s what mobile home salesmen do!


  8. Powell

    Can we please fire both the ADs at Uga and Lsu? Can the ncaa please prohibit email and cell phone contact from major boosters. Meddling egotistical boosters and their submissive ADs are the real problem.