0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What started all this? What is the orig suit and Mike's counter all about. Someone pls summarize.TIA
Quote from: CNS Casey on October 27, 2011, 02:44:42 PMWhat started all this? What is the orig suit and Mike's counter all about. Someone pls summarize.TIAMike fired Bell almost immediately (which led to the DC Assault pipeline being ruptured spilling it's oil into the ogalala aquifer). Bell sued Mike for whatever contract breach or some stupid crap. I really have no idea what Mike is counter suing Bell for.
Quote from: OregonHawk on October 27, 2011, 02:53:53 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 02:46:27 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 01:26:46 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 12:59:31 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?yes. if it was reasonable that ksu should have known. which is why you hear 'te saying "hey, Fatima was living normal" and "I don't remember her being at aau tourneys when mike had to travel". I'm confused. If KU can directly pay Chalmers' dad and Manning's dad, then why is K-State supposed to investigate every dollar that its players' parents may get from sources completely unrelated to the university?There was no NCAA rule against Chalmers/Manning coaching for KU. There's an NCAA rule against parents collecting money from boosters.Who is the booster in this situation?
Quote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 02:46:27 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 01:26:46 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 12:59:31 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?yes. if it was reasonable that ksu should have known. which is why you hear 'te saying "hey, Fatima was living normal" and "I don't remember her being at aau tourneys when mike had to travel". I'm confused. If KU can directly pay Chalmers' dad and Manning's dad, then why is K-State supposed to investigate every dollar that its players' parents may get from sources completely unrelated to the university?There was no NCAA rule against Chalmers/Manning coaching for KU. There's an NCAA rule against parents collecting money from boosters.
Quote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 01:26:46 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 12:59:31 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?yes. if it was reasonable that ksu should have known. which is why you hear 'te saying "hey, Fatima was living normal" and "I don't remember her being at aau tourneys when mike had to travel". I'm confused. If KU can directly pay Chalmers' dad and Manning's dad, then why is K-State supposed to investigate every dollar that its players' parents may get from sources completely unrelated to the university?
Quote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 12:59:31 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?yes. if it was reasonable that ksu should have known. which is why you hear 'te saying "hey, Fatima was living normal" and "I don't remember her being at aau tourneys when mike had to travel".
Quote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?
Quote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.
usc got in trouble for illegal recruitment.
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on October 27, 2011, 02:55:14 PMQuote from: OregonHawk on October 27, 2011, 02:53:53 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 02:46:27 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 01:26:46 PMQuote from: thebigcatbowski on October 27, 2011, 12:59:31 PMQuote from: catzacker on October 27, 2011, 12:49:51 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 09:33:29 AMusc got in trouble for illegal recruitment. they got in trouble for not knowing when they should have known. Which is essentially what the ncaa will say to ksu. The ncaa has realized that the only way that it has any leverage at all with schools is through penalty and they've chosen to use this.Is K-State really responsible for money changing hands between someone who isn't associated with the university and a family member?yes. if it was reasonable that ksu should have known. which is why you hear 'te saying "hey, Fatima was living normal" and "I don't remember her being at aau tourneys when mike had to travel". I'm confused. If KU can directly pay Chalmers' dad and Manning's dad, then why is K-State supposed to investigate every dollar that its players' parents may get from sources completely unrelated to the university?There was no NCAA rule against Chalmers/Manning coaching for KU. There's an NCAA rule against parents collecting money from boosters.Who is the booster in this situation?The NCAA also prohibits agents from paying players and their parents (while in school).
DK dunking on Mayo will be erased from both team's record books
this is all just so shocking
Quote from: steve dave on October 27, 2011, 02:57:44 PMQuote from: CNS Casey on October 27, 2011, 02:44:42 PMWhat started all this? What is the orig suit and Mike's counter all about. Someone pls summarize.TIAMike fired Bell almost immediately (which led to the DC Assault pipeline being ruptured spilling it's oil into the ogalala aquifer). Bell sued Mike for whatever contract breach or some stupid crap. I really have no idea what Mike is counter suing Bell for. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/259645-bell-beasley-counter-claim.html^actually a pretty interesting read.Beasley wanted a Nike contract. Bell basically did nothing to get him any contract. Then Beasley found out about all the Bell giving his mom money crap. He fired Bell. Bell and Malone said Beasley owed Bell a shitload of money, some of which were for expenses incurred before Beasley signed with Bell. Mike just payed it for some reason, and I think he's suing him for that and for being a shitty agent for his merchandising contract.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/259645-bell-beasley-counter-claim.html^actually a pretty interesting read.Beasley wanted a Nike contract. Bell basically did nothing to get him any contract. Then Beasley found out about all the Bell giving his mom money crap. He fired Bell. Bell and Malone said Beasley owed Bell a shitload of money, some of which were for expenses incurred before Beasley signed with Bell. Mike just payed it for some reason, and I think he's suing him for that and for being a shitty agent for his merchandising contract.
From the time he was thirteen (13) years old, Beasley was envisioned as a strong NBA prospect … he was over 6 feet tall and had a level of skill and intensity on the court that adumbrated success at every level of basketball.
… but one thing became clear: he was a prodigious basketball talent. By the time he was ready to go to college, he was one of the best teenage basketball players in America
Michael Beasley alleges improper benefits at Kansas State Wildcats in lawsuit against ex-agent http://es.pn/s7CStd
53. In or around September 2008, Beasley learned, through a third party, that Malone and Bell had been making payments to his mother without his knowledge or consent for years. He felt betrayed by the men in whom he had placed his trust and immediately terminated the Agent Contract and the Merchandising Agreement with Bell and dramatically shifted his relationship with Malone at the same time.
Beasley wanted a Nike contract.
sticking to my Mike-would-never-hurt-KSU theory. no worries here.
Quote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 01:12:46 PMsticking to my Mike-would-never-hurt-KSU theory. no worries here.theory confirmed. love you Mike.
Quote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 04:13:55 PMQuote from: mcmwcat on October 27, 2011, 01:12:46 PMsticking to my Mike-would-never-hurt-KSU theory. no worries here.theory confirmed. love you Mike.There he is not doubt he waited on the Cam Newton results so he didn't hurt EMAW.
i take it all back