- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:29 am to LaBR4
(no message)
This post was edited on 10/1/20 at 9:22 am
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:29 am to IAHTiger
I can't give you enough upvotes.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:30 am to The First Cut
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:42 am to Golfer
Again, if LSU denied him the ability to have his lawyer there, that is unfair & unethical.
If the meeting didn’t happen because Wade wouldn’t show up without knowing what they were going to ask, that is a separate issue that is on the Wade camp.
I’ll repeat again, I want Will Wade to coach again at lsu.
If the meeting didn’t happen because Wade wouldn’t show up without knowing what they were going to ask, that is a separate issue that is on the Wade camp.
I’ll repeat again, I want Will Wade to coach again at lsu.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:42 am to MrJimBeam
No problem with Benford. AT ALL.
I’m confused by Williams. You’d think he would be tolerant of trying to help families.
I’m confused by Williams. You’d think he would be tolerant of trying to help families.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:44 am to Byrdybyrd05
quote:
but Will Wade cannot answer questions because of the FBI
Will Wades attorney said he sent a letter to the BOS saying, "we want the meeting, but coach Wade CANNOT answer any questions about the FBI wiretaps."
Cannot, he didn't say refuse or in Wades best interest to not answer questions, he said, CANNOT. There is something going on here behind the scenes the media, the fans and the public are not aware of. This sounds more and more like a gag order by the FBI. Anything Wade says about the wiretaps, anything that is pertinent to the FBI's investigation and trial could be used by the defense to request a mistrial. You don't discuss pertinent information about an ongoing investigation and trial without potentially damaging the case. This is really beginning to sound like Wade has been given strict orders by the FBI to not discuss anything about the case and the wiretaps. That is a completely different situation than a man facing indictment or punishment. A guilty man is going to sing like a canary, this sounds more like someone involved with the investigation rather than the subject of the investigation. Regardless what opinion I have, something very pertinent regarding Wade has not been revealed. Maybe he wasn't just blowing smoke when he said what has been reported doesn't come close to telling the entire story.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:47 am to Lester Earl
Wade can't answer questions about an FBI investigation to which he's been subpoenaed as a witness without his lawyer present. Once you lawyer up, you can't end round around the lawyers, and LSU should know this. Asking for the questions in advance is good practice because it gives the lawyer and his client time to research the issue and not rely on instant recollection.
I can see backing down over the questions in advance issue, but the lawyer being present is non-negotiable. No way should Wade meet the BOD without his, unless its to tell them to direct all questions about a legal proceeding to his lawyer, or else they would be subject to subpoena as fact witnesses as well.
I can see backing down over the questions in advance issue, but the lawyer being present is non-negotiable. No way should Wade meet the BOD without his, unless its to tell them to direct all questions about a legal proceeding to his lawyer, or else they would be subject to subpoena as fact witnesses as well.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:47 am to Lester Earl
If what jordy said is true it is blatantly clear LSU was the one acting unethical and extremely shady.
And if that gets out idk of any decent coach that would ever agree to come here.
And if that gets out idk of any decent coach that would ever agree to come here.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:47 am to Tigers eyes
You are right the FBI has most likely told Wade not to talk about his testimony to anyone else not involved in the trial proceedings.
This is something that we always ask of our witnesses and defense witnesses in all of our cases. Very common practice.
This is something that we always ask of our witnesses and defense witnesses in all of our cases. Very common practice.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:48 am to Lester Earl
quote:
Again, if LSU denied him the ability to have his lawyer there, that is unfair & unethical.
quote:
If the meeting didn’t happen because Wade wouldn’t show up without knowing what they were going to ask, that is a separate issue that is on the Wade camp.
The meeting didn't happen because of both of these things. Not sure why you're trying to separate them.
Over the weekend you dug your feet into the ground with the "well Wade didn't want to meet with his boss, so they had to suspend him stance" now it's being reported that Wade did agree to meet but then the content, time, and participants of the meeting changed.
I'm sorry, if I'm being called into a meeting with my boss, our company president, our board chairman, and our chief legal officer I want to know what is going to be discussed. Ambushing an employee is a terrible look here but I'm not shocked you're in support of this tactic.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:52 am to Golfer
This thing with Wade and the BoS is starting to remind me of the BR council vs Lea Anne Batson.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:55 am to Lester Earl
quote:
If the meeting didn’t happen because Wade wouldn’t show up without knowing what they were going to ask, that is a separate issue that is on the Wade camp.
As someone with 20 years of executive risk management, this is not an unreasonable request from someone who has been subpoenaed to testify in the near future. It is not indication of guilt; nor is it an effort to conceal info.
Anyone - anyone - who has been caught up in an FBI operation and is scheduled to testify regarding that operation should not answer questions concerning that matter without legal representation and the opportunity to review said questions in advance to prevent legal complications during sworn testimony.
To read anything into the request for an attorney present and advance review of questions is naive ignorance (at best) of this process.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:58 am to The First Cut
quote:
I'm most concerned with what sanctions the NCAA levies on LSU.
Meh.. LSU has been playing with self imposed sanctions with their hires since the Brady years. What's a few more years?
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:58 am to LSUGrrrl
quote:Everything you said is correct, and our board knew that. The fact our board didnt allow that, shows me they dont want to get to the bottom of anything nor do they want to try and save Wade, they have made their mind up they want to fire him with cause.
As someone with 20 years of executive risk management, this is not an unreasonable request from someone who has been subpoenaed to testify in the near future. It is not indication of guilt; nor is it an effort to conceal info.
Anyone - anyone - who has been caught up in an FBI operation and is scheduled to testify regarding that operation should not answer questions concerning that matter without legal representation and the opportunity to review said questions in advance to prevent legal complications during sworn testimony.
To read anything into the request for an attorney present and advance review of questions is naive ignorance (at best) of this process.
This post was edited on 3/13/19 at 10:59 am
Posted on 3/13/19 at 10:59 am to lsupride87
And pull shady shite to do so
Posted on 3/13/19 at 11:00 am to More beer please
quote:Yeh, kind of. But in honestly, the board may be correct in needing to fire Wade.
And pull shady shite to do so
But the way they have handled it has been horrific
Posted on 3/13/19 at 11:00 am to Baloo
quote:
I can see backing down over the questions in advance issue, but the lawyer being present is non-negotiable
That is my stance at well.
Id be happy to be wrong about what I said this weekend if those facts come out.
I dont give a shite about Joe Alleva. I dont care if hes fired. I dont care if he died in the next 10 minutes.
I want Will Wade to coach. I just understand that LSU would be irresponsible to not have their own procedures.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 11:02 am to Golfer
quote:
I'm sorry, if I'm being called into a meeting with my boss, our company president, our board chairman, and our chief legal officer I want to know what is going to be discussed. Ambushing an employee is a terrible look here but I'm not shocked you're in support of this tactic.
This. They set the ambush for Wade.
At this point, I think it's clear LSU is looking for the cheapest way to cut bait with Wade. To that end, ambushing him at a meeting with all parties necessary to fire him present seems like a good way to get that done. If they want to keep Wade, why isn't LSU budging on any of the terms of their ambush?
Friday I said it seemed like LSU and Wade's interests had fundamentally diverged, and this reinforces that for me. LSU's mind is made up, With this subpoena, Wade is between a rock and a hard place, and he's at the mercy of some clowns who can't or won't understand that.
Posted on 3/13/19 at 11:02 am to Lester Earl
quote:
I just understand that LSU would be irresponsible to not have their own procedures.
Agreed. However, ambushing an otherwise stellar employee is not a procedure.
Page 15 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News