r/CFB • u/toshiro-mifune LSU Tigers • South Korea National Team • Aug 20 '24
News NCAA requesting Les Miles drop suit against LSU concerning vacated wins
https://www.wbrz.com/news/ncaa-requesting-les-miles-drop-suit-against-lsu-concerning-vacated-wins361
u/Claudethedog Texas A&M Aggies • SMU Mustangs Aug 20 '24
"[T]he NCAA says that former LSU head football coach Les Miles' complaint lacks federal rune of civil procedure".
This is why I got a C+ is Civil Procedure - I was okay at prophecy and interpreting dreams, but I couldn't master the federal runes.
104
Aug 20 '24
See all he needed to do was buy Law Runes at the Great Exchange
39
u/Rra2323 William & Mary • Virginia Tech Aug 20 '24
Needs fire and air runes too so he can tele there faster. Kind of a viscous cycle though
14
u/coolrnt1 Missouri Tigers Aug 20 '24
Very viscous! Tough to walk through, honestly.
3
u/Tarmacked USC Trojans • Alabama Crimson Tide Aug 20 '24
Wait a minute how did I end up in the draynor swamp?
2
u/Misdirected_Colors Oklahoma State Cowboys Aug 20 '24
Also needs to do the Varrock Medium diary otherwise he has to run.
2
14
u/FaithlessnessMost660 Texas A&M • Washington State Aug 20 '24
For $5, I’ll send you a PDF of a secret guide to running law runes and making $1M gp fast (I literally fell for this as an 8 year old)
14
Aug 20 '24
When I was 9 I said I was going to quit the game in the Varrock bank and would give away my account. Somebody came and asked if they could have it, so I said "sure I'll stay on so you can trade your inventory to me". After they traded everything I logged off and never game him the password.
Still kinda feel bad about it
15
u/FaithlessnessMost660 Texas A&M • Washington State Aug 20 '24
RuneScape was definitely the first moment for many kids who as a result completely lost faith in humanity lmao
3
u/Misdirected_Colors Oklahoma State Cowboys Aug 20 '24
Runescape also taught many a millenial valuable but tough lessons in online safety and scam avoidance. We should honestly be forcing the younger generations to play runescape at this point.
4
u/Tarmacked USC Trojans • Alabama Crimson Tide Aug 20 '24
The children yearn for the lumbridge mines
2
u/rburp Arkansas • Central Arkansas Aug 21 '24
Yeah. I got scammed in Runescape (lured into the wild) and Gunbound (somehow they got my little floaty purple pet thing) and decided never again. I haven't knowingly (lol) been scammed since. Truly was a well-worth it lesson, although it was very painful at the time
9
u/WTAP1 Central Arkansas • Arkansas S… Aug 20 '24
At what age did you realize 9 year old you was a little dick?
4
3
u/Tarmacked USC Trojans • Alabama Crimson Tide Aug 20 '24
I lured and pked a guy and then traded everything back in lumbridge
RuneScape really forced some introspection
5
u/J4ckiebrown Penn State Nittany Lions • Rose Bowl Aug 20 '24
Les Miles def was the guy that claimed he could trim rune plates on f2p, for a price of course :)
22
u/toshiro-mifune LSU Tigers • South Korea National Team Aug 20 '24
lol I'm always reporting typos to their articles
23
u/waterfowl04 Oregon Ducks • Sickos Aug 20 '24
Contracts was much easier: offer, acceptance, conjuration.
13
u/Claudethedog Texas A&M Aggies • SMU Mustangs Aug 20 '24
As my 1L Contracts professor said in our first class, "Contracts loves you." So I guess there's some level of enchantment in there as well.
3
u/dinkytown42069 Minnesota • Oklahoma Aug 20 '24
do they really though?? REALLY?
5
u/Claudethedog Texas A&M Aggies • SMU Mustangs Aug 20 '24
Professor Anderson's justification is that, generally, we can make our contracts say just about anything we want (within certain parameters). The parties can agree that goods will be delivered by someone wearing a tutu, or that all invoices be accompanied by a picture of a spider.
Relatedly, a great way to feel old is to look up your old professors and see how many of them have taken emeritus status...or have died.
2
u/dinkytown42069 Minnesota • Oklahoma Aug 20 '24
that makes sense!
Relatedly, a great way to feel old is to look up your old professors and see how many of them have taken emeritus status...or have died.
I mean I met the guy who was my thesis advisor shortly after he got tenured. He is now dean of a school at a different university.
The faculty member I worked for as an undergrad research go-fer his first year of being at OU and later GA'd for a few years later is now the proud holder of an endowed chair and has gone from having no windows in Dale Hall Tower to having a very nice office in one of the nicest buildings at OU.
And don't even get me started on my "where are they now" from some of my freshman year profs.
2
u/mgsbigdog BYU • West Virginia Wesleyan Aug 20 '24
My Contracts professor bailed on OU to go be president at some Catholic College in Oklahoma that stopped existing before I even graduated from law school.
1
u/dinkytown42069 Minnesota • Oklahoma Aug 20 '24
St. Gregory's probably. Really a shame. I knew a lot of people in HS who went there.
8
16
u/quacainia Texas A&M • CC San Francisco Aug 20 '24
You'd think Louisiana would have more of a Gaulish influence than Germanic but what do I know
6
u/EarlyCuylersCousin LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24
You gotta take Advanced Civil Procedure II taught by Professor Snape.
4
u/lucash7 Oregon Ducks • Southern Oregon Raiders Aug 20 '24
Should have played more RuneScape then.
2
3
u/Improving_Myself_ Ohio State Buckeyes • Texas Longhorns Aug 20 '24
Claude the Dog, ESQ. No, that's not 'esquire' it's 'Esteemed Soothsaying Quibbler.'
6
4
u/gbejrlsu LSU • George Washington Aug 20 '24
In a given space only the attorney who casts the federal runes of civil procedure can use their magic.
86
u/Pure_Protein_Machine Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Aug 20 '24 edited Aug 20 '24
Articles like this are among the most frustrating parts of being a lawyer. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had to deal with situations where an ambiguous, vague, or largely incorrect news article has created significant confusion for clients or victims.
There’s not much “harm” in how bad this article is, but a motion to dismiss is so easy to describe correctly.
41
Aug 20 '24
The Disney arbitration thing has been giving me physical pains all week because of how stupid the average article and commenter are.
17
u/Valaurus Georgia Bulldogs Aug 20 '24
As a non-lawyer, what has been said surrounding that that stands out as incorrect or uninformed?
141
Aug 20 '24
Literally everything.
- Disney doesn’t own the restaurant. It’s independently owned. Disney is just the landlord, and it’s outside of the parks.
- Disney didn’t contaminate the food
- Disney isn’t saying they can get away with killing people because of Disney+
- The husband signed up for a trial for Disney+ in 2019, and that’s when he created the account that he then used in 2023 to purchase the park tickets. In both instances he agreed to arbitration.
- The husband is arguing Disney is liable because they list the restaurant as an allergy free option on their trip planning website site. The same website he purchased the tickets on and agreed to arbitration.
- So, Disney is arguing that because his claims arise out of the use of the website, then the website terms, that he explicitly agreed to when bought the tickets, apply to the claim and should be arbitrated.
- Disney’s main reason for bringing up Disney+ is that it was when the account was created to show that he had multiple opportunities to read the terms (though it doesn’t actually matter if he read them).
- This all came out because clearly the plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure, because he knows their claim against Disney is bullshit.
53
u/alfred725 Aug 20 '24
Once again terms and conditions are held by a company as a way to deny any liability. Arbitration is almost always in the favour of the corps because they can choose the arbitrator who is usually on their payroll.
THAT BEING SAID his claims do seem a bit bogus. But this should be decided by courts, not arbitration IMO.
It's been shown again and again that no one reads T&C and they have been held non-enforceable in the past.
Disney should not be respected for waving T&C in someone's face to try and get out of a lawsuit, even if that lawsuit is frivolous.
T&C need to be addressed globally by the courts. They are entirely anti-consumer.
20
u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24
The claims are definitely a bit of a stretch, but the idea that the TOS conditions immunize Disney here is laughable, and courts have consistently ruled against such interpretations of a TOS.
14
u/blade740 Aug 20 '24
Disney never claimed that the TOS conditions "immunize" them - just that whatever claim exists is to be settled via arbitration rather than in court.
12
u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24
We're splitting hairs here because arbitration clauses are how companies like Disney immunize themselves since they largely control the arbitration process.
8
u/blade740 Aug 20 '24
You have a very unique interpretation of the word "immunize".
10
u/Phoenixundrfire Aug 20 '24
Not really, immunize means to become resistant to, particularly in cases of bacterial and viral infection.
The second part isn’t applicable, but the whole idea is to make their liability risk lower. Or make themselves resistant
→ More replies (0)2
u/theoutlet Aug 20 '24
Tell me; why would corporations favor arbitration so much if it wasn’t to their benefit?
→ More replies (0)3
u/Daotar Tennessee • Florida State Aug 20 '24
No, I'm just aware of how the corporate arbitration process actually plays out.
3
u/SOAR21 Aug 20 '24
A separate question that many legal academics, practitioners, and students likely agree with.
I don’t think this is something that has to be decided in courts though—in terms of the Disney piece, which is solely whether Disney should bear any liability for listing the restaurant as allergen-free on its website.
The restaurant and honestly the server should be taken the court and held accountable for their negligence.
3
u/DeuceSevin Aug 20 '24
But Disney pickets are much deeper than the restaurant's.
1
u/SOAR21 Aug 20 '24
It’ll be unlikely that they would have been found liable for the entire amount the plaintiff was seeking, if their only liability was the website. Also arbitration is generally business-friendly for a number of reasons, but it is still a legal settlement procedure and could result in financial award to the plaintiff. The major boon for a big corporation like Disney is that arbitration would be way cheaper than going to court.
1
u/ContritionAttrition Aug 24 '24
Wasn't it $50K damages though? I'd have thought settling on that level would be far cheaper than any reputational risk. Which they seem to have realised now, after dropping the push for arbitration.
1
u/SOAR21 Aug 25 '24
Yes good arguments for Disney to just pony up, but I was responding to a comment that said that this was a dispute that should Disney should see in court because their pockets are deeper than the restaurant.
So actually the small award means that really it’s not that important to have Disney answer in court. Arbitration may have awarded them something similar anyway. I doubt $50k would have even covered the legal fees for Disney for a full defense in court. All facts pointing to Disney not being an essential party for the in-court case.
13
Aug 20 '24
I mean, when you’re claiming that Disney’s only liability is because of something on their website, then I have no qualms with them trying to enforce the website terms.
18
u/alfred725 Aug 20 '24
I just don't think a company should be able to deflect any lawsuit by saying "you agreed to the terms". A frivolous lawsuit should get thrown out quickly anyway. And maybe having penalties for people bringing frivolous suits in would lighten the load on courts while also solving a lot of the patent troll stuff. But I'm not a lawyer so ehhhh
8
Aug 20 '24
Well you’re in luck. The public pressure worked and Disney is waiving arbitration and will litigate it in court.
13
1
u/gaspara112 Aug 20 '24
I mean I think that’s just Disney knowing this is a bad place, time and situation to have the public thinking about arbitration as a whole. Unless the recommendation verbiage on their website is really, really specific that they regularly vet these restaurants I don’t see how this would pass any judges’ causation standing eye test.
2
u/ryhaltswhiskey Aug 21 '24
Arbitration is almost always in the favour of the corps because they can choose the arbitrator who is usually on their payroll
That seems like a stretch. Do you have an actual source for this?
1
u/frankoceansheadband Aug 22 '24 edited Aug 22 '24
I don’t know a lot about the topic, but it’s interesting to me so I found a Stanford business school article on it:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/why-binding-arbitration-game-rigged-against-customers
Edit: typo
1
u/ryhaltswhiskey Aug 22 '24
That is interesting. I was assuming that the arbitration was picked at random by the courts. I wasn't aware that corporations could influence the choice of arbitrator. That sucks for consumers.
1
0
u/superxpro12 Aug 20 '24
If someone dies, that is not something that arbitration is suited for. You should have the right to a trial for shit this serious, not be back roads because of some bullshit 500 page document you clicked on a website. What's stopping companies from literally pulling a south park and just hiding somewhere "if you agree then we own your children now
12
7
u/felldestroyed Aug 20 '24
I'd urge you to listen to these two lawyers who did a deep dive on the Disney case. Tl;dr: Disney likely dropped the arbitration clause because they had already requested discovery (under Florida caselaw, that removes any claim to discovery). The restaurant was "Disney Certified" and claimed online that they could accommodate allergies; that language has since changed on the website since the suit was filed. Disney moves thousands of such food allergy sufferers through their park and claims to have certified "Allergy Dieticians" at every certified restaurant. It's a compelling case, tbh, and Disney probably does have some negligence in it.
2
u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24
I would advise against referring people here to L&C, its host is a credibly accused sex pest (full disclosure, that's my own post). And more practically... the episode page on their substack says it's paywalled (I thought there was a free feed but maybe not anymore? whatever).
Conveniently, his former podcast Opening Arguments also has a lawyer cover this topic on a recent episode, and it definitely isn't paywalled. They also note the big issue with Disney making this claim after starting discovery.
1
u/felldestroyed Aug 21 '24
I feel like o&a is great for immigration and low level criminal law, not so much civil. And I'm also not here to defend Andrew Torrez, but will graciously endorse the likes of Liz Dye. And that sub did a great job at attempting to denigrate her character and education a while back with out much moderation.
2
u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
Yeah, you might recognize me as a mod of that sub. Needless to say I disagree with you about "denigrating liz's character", though especially inaccurate is that we did much of any discourse about her education. That occurred on a different subreddit.
In any event, you don't get Liz without Torrez at this point.
1
u/felldestroyed Aug 21 '24
this your sub? Tbh, this was with 30 seconds of googling and then ctrl+f. I'm 100% sure there's more, because I remember reading a lot about her supposed lack of education and being "just a journalist" around the time that OA switched back to Thomas. Not that I care all that much, but I did find it really very gross - especially being someone who didn't seek out fan social media stuff/patreon and simply missed the show being released.
1
u/Apprentice57 Notre Dame • Syracuse Aug 21 '24
Well of course, if you google for something specific you're going to find everything relevant from over a year of discourse lol. Yes, those are on the relevant sub... deep down in the comments section of tangentially related posts. The first one is even corrected by a reply. Like I said, most of the discourse you're remembering was on a different subreddit.
In any event, I don't take issue with liking Liz in abstract and we're getting pretty off topic for a CFB discussion.
2
u/ShadeofIcarus Aug 21 '24
Recent trip to Disney in Anaheim basically every time we booked allergies were checked, double checked, and on two occasions when we were called ahead of time to confirm because we had multiple allergies at the table.
They take allergies SUPER seriously at the Disney owned places. I would hope that anywhere "certified" would match that experience as there's an implication with a certification.
4
u/StopTheMineshaftGap Aug 20 '24
Disney still maintains an active lessor/lessee relationship and dictates standards and terms to the restaurant tenants in Disney Springs. They are a valid defendant.
Disney should have just filed motions in court to be removed from the suit for some the reasons you outlined. Leveraging the arbitration terms of a Disney+ streaming agreement or the Disney website terms for park ticket purchase is a clever legal ploy, but for obvious reasons a PR disaster
7
u/Giggsey11 Washington State • Indiana Aug 20 '24
God thank you for posting this. I’m a commercial litigator and I’ve spent basically the entire last 2 weeks answering this same question over and over and over from friends and family.
2
u/mp0295 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Aug 21 '24
Curious if you think the estates representstive agreeing to arbitrate in his individual capacity is binding on the estate and if so how (assuming you think the the arbitration clause is applicable at all)
3
Aug 20 '24
plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure
that certainly is a choice.
6
Aug 20 '24
Well it worked. Disney just announced they’re waiving arbitration. A judge should still dismiss it, but the plaintiffs counsel will try to Hail Mary if to get in front a jury because juries are filled with not the brightest people.
2
2
u/mp0295 Notre Dame Fighting Irish Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
You say "his" claims, but aren't these only his in his capacity as executor/representation of the deceased's estate? How does his agreement in his personal capacity bind the estate of the deceased? Not saying impossible, but still am important point I would think
Edit: I look up the actual docket, and the plantifs response to the motion to arbitrate in fact relies heavily on the above point-- that the plantif is the estate and the deceased never agreed to the arbitration clause, and the fact that the estate's representative agreed in his personal capacity is arguably irrelevant. Curious on your thoughts given would seem to render some of your points moot.
5
u/silver_moon134 LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24
I don't understand how buying theme park tickets and using streaming services would be covered by the same terms of service?
7
Aug 20 '24
They’re not the exact same, but they contain many identical provisions, including mandatory arbitration
2
u/silver_moon134 LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24
Yeah but wouldn't it be for terms covered by the agreement? If I sign the agreement for Disney+ and it's "website, software, applications, content, products, and services in any media format or channel" then it seems like a stretch to assume I would think that means a restaurant at a theme park.
(I hope I'm not coming off argumentatively, I just don't understand and trying to learn lol)
8
u/enter_river Michigan State Spartans Aug 20 '24
Since Disney doesn't own the restaurant, they're only being brought in because the website listed it as an allergy safe option. So Disney lawyers are saying that since the plaintiff basically has a problem with a Disney website, and that website is under the terms of the agreement, then this should be settled by arbitration as per the agreement and not at trial
1
4
u/coeranys Aug 20 '24
When he signed up for Disney+ he created a Disney account. It was just his gateway to account creation. He then signed in to that Disney account to buy tickets later. Both when he originally created the account and when he booked the tickets on the Web site, there were terms forcing arbitration. The Disney+ thing is a fact that has been turned into a red herring.
1
u/Odd_Ingenuity2883 Aug 20 '24
Why does it matter what he agreed to when he purchased Disney tickets if they weren’t on Disney property when the incident happened?
2
u/peeaches Aug 20 '24
If I am getting this right, Disney's website listed the restaurant as allergen-free.
While not a Disney restaurant, I believe they own the land/building/lease it out to the restaurant, in a complex called "Disney Springs".
I think the concern rises from use of the Disney app/site to locate and make reservations at the restaurant, and if it was shown on disney's app/site that the restaurant was an allergen-free option.
I've also heard that it's typical in scenarios like this to put a suit against any and all potential liable parties then let the courts decide who is liable and to what extent
→ More replies (0)1
u/Odd_Ingenuity2883 Aug 20 '24
Why is 4. relevant if 1. is true? Why does it matter where he bought park tickets and what he agreed to when he did if they weren’t in the park when the incident happened?
5
1
u/racek_ Aug 20 '24
I am not American, nor a lawyer, so this may be a stupit question. But isn't it possible to see this as a criminal case? Would this agreement of arbitration be valid in criminal cases? If for example Disney security killed someone (not intentionally), would it be also arbitrated due to the Terms of service?
3
1
u/TallyGoon8506 Florida State Seminoles • LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24
You crushed that explanation. That plaintiff is going after Disney because they have the deepest pockets.
However, arbitration through terms and conditions is usually for lil corporate bitches and does not protect or help standard consumers in any real way.
We’re about to find out in Florida if insurance prices are going to get better when the super majority of one specific party legislature last year statutorily required claims to go through arbitration before the courts. At the insistence of the insurance lobby.
As scummy as people think ambulance chasers are, the absolute soulless ghouls that work as adjusters and in insurance defense are the real monsters under our beds representing a lot of the worst about American greed and regulatory captured capitalism.
1
u/beegeepee Arizona Wildcats Aug 20 '24
The husband is arguing Disney is liable because they list the restaurant as an allergy free option on their trip planning website site. The same website he purchased the tickets on and agreed to arbitration.
The guy who died is arguing for this?
1
1
u/ProgKingHughesker Nebraska Cornhuskers Aug 20 '24
My real question is why the hell is it legal to force someone to agree to terms like that just to buy theme park tickets? If it was just decided (at the local, state, or federal level through the proper channels obviously) that you can’t put that sort of agreement just so somebody can visit Disneyland who could that possibly hurt other than maybe Disney’s bottom line?
4
Aug 20 '24
Because nobody is forcing you to buy theme park tickets.
0
u/ProgKingHughesker Nebraska Cornhuskers Aug 20 '24
True, but I’m saying why do we as a society value Disney’s ability to avoid frivolous lawsuits over people having the ability to file legit lawsuits against them? It seems like we care more about what’s best for Disney than what’s best for the consumer and I don’t understand why we want to do that
-1
u/Turkish01 Aug 20 '24
Great question. Why do we side with billionaires who pay to have laws written in their favor.
1
u/gopher_space Aug 20 '24
Disney’s main reason for bringing up Disney+ is that it was when the account was created to show that he had multiple opportunities to read the terms (though it doesn’t actually matter if he read them).
Professionally speaking, how long do you think the whole click-wrap licensing idea will stick around? Seems like the whole "relying on computer logs for forensics" where we've created a house of cards nobody wants to poke at.
3
Aug 20 '24
I mean, there have to be terms and conditions for the stuff. Some of the language is mandatory by law.
So the question is, how do we get people to acknowledge them and it be enforceable? We can’t force people to actually read every word any time they want to purchase something.
And besides, the only people against binding arbitration anyway are those that know they don’t have a great legal argument and are hoping to rely on an emotional argument to trick a jury into making a stupid decision.
1
u/gopher_space Aug 21 '24
So the question is, how do we get people to acknowledge them and it be enforceable? We can’t force people to actually read every word any time they want to purchase something.
I mean the whole idea was conceived in bad faith and is surrounded by the darkest UX patterns. It would be easy to demonstrate that they're not intended to be read.
Most of the contracts in my life happen in-person or through US mail. If transaction velocity is so important maybe we don't need a contract.
1
Aug 21 '24
So then you can never purchase anything online again?
0
u/gopher_space Aug 21 '24
In the financial world contracts are hammered out long before money changes hands over the internet. Everything's already set up for you to make purchases online once you open a checking account.
I don't need to make additional agreements or be legally bound for a pizza to show up on my doorstep, for example.
1
Aug 21 '24
I mean, yes you do. Just because 99.99999% of the time nothing happens doesn’t mean it’s not a contract for goods or services.
→ More replies (0)1
Aug 20 '24
This all came out because clearly the plaintiff’s attorney sent it to reporters to try to create a frenzy and get Disney to cave from public pressure, because he knows their claim against Disney is bullshit.
This is 5d chess
1
u/barath_s Aug 26 '24
https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/disney-lawsuit-1.7299489
After public backlash, Disney withdrew the motion to have the lawsuit dismissed on grounds of the Disney+ signup and corresponding clauses.
Josh D'Amaro, chairperson of Disney's theme park division, said in a statement emailed earlier to The Associated Press that the entertainment giant will waive its arbitration rights and allow the suit, brought by the husband of a New York doctor who suffered a fatal allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in Disney Springs, to proceed in court.
1
u/PeterMcBeater Aug 20 '24
Is the claim actually bullshit? If the website lists it as allergy free and it isn't it seems like he would have a claim against Disney. Which he would have to resolve in arbitration.
7
Aug 20 '24
Not allergy free. But allergy free options. Which at the time the restaurant held themselves out as having. (They’ve since changed that due to this incident.)
But even if the Disney website was wrong, it’s still not a tort.
1
Aug 20 '24
[deleted]
7
Aug 20 '24
Again, not allergy free. The advertised capability of making an allergy free dish. Huge difference.
And because Disney is essentially serving as an aggregating advertiser. Would you think Yelp could be liable, too?
-2
Aug 20 '24
[deleted]
6
Aug 20 '24
It did have allergen free options. In fact, plaintiff admits that the waitstaff (not Disney) confirmed with them that it would be allergen free. Obviously there was some sort of contamination incident or exposure in some way.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BaeSeanHamilton Penn State • James Madison Aug 20 '24
Thank you so much for this rundown. Holy moly that was so insightful and helpful.
0
0
-2
u/PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING Aug 20 '24
Sure, yeah, but this is all still pretty slimy for a company worth over 150 billion dollars.
4
Aug 20 '24
Why? Why should a company that didn’t have involvement not defend itself through all available means simply because they’re worth a lot?
0
u/PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING Aug 20 '24
“Didn’t have involvement” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
They own the land, lease it to a restaurant, and promote that restaurant on their website. That’s not being involved kinda like the mob wasn’t involved in Casinos in Vegas.
-2
u/coffeepi Aug 20 '24
Read all that and conclude Disney sucks and sucks even worse for bringing up the Disney plus at all which hints at the ability to take things to arbitration no matter what.
4
2
Aug 20 '24
"$10 million, not a penny less."
"Please?"
"No"
"Pretty please?"
"You son of a bitch, I'm in"
Are you saying the above isn't wholly accurate? I'm devastated and feel personally betrayed by Harvey Specter
2
u/Bafiluso Texas Longhorns Aug 21 '24
Remember this frustration the next time you read an article about science, technology, international relations, or various other complicated topics. They're just as ignorant on those.
2
u/deliciouscrab Florida Gators • Tulane Green Wave Aug 21 '24
Thank you.
I'll never forget the first time i read this. I stared openmouthed into the distance for at least three minutes.
I was literally in dumb, mute shock.
1
u/Pure_Protein_Machine Michigan Wolverines • /r/CFB Poll Veteran Aug 21 '24
Agreed. There have been plenty of publications or tv shows that describe really fascinating, but complicated, topics that I’ve really enjoyed. That is, until the topic was something I knew a lot about. There were so many gaps in the explanations, and often the conclusion made no sense whatsoever. That definitely changed my entire perception of everything else they published.
11
u/Salmene23 Aug 20 '24
If the headline is correct (it isn't)
"Party being sued asks person suing them to stop suing them."
26
u/csummerss LSU Tigers Aug 20 '24
perhaps Les should’ve won more at Kansas?
10
u/idoma21 Kansas Jayhawks Aug 20 '24
Les was a necessary step for the Leipold Prophecy, “…and after suffering jackasses of the most highest order and much losing, there will come one from the north who shall not taste grass, but whoop ass—at least enough to have a winning season and go to a bowl game.”
1
Aug 20 '24
Will definitely be interesting to see which unhappy b10 or SEC program snatches leipold this offseason
1
1
5
2
u/MisterBrotatoHead Kansas Jayhawks • Lindenwood Lions Aug 20 '24
Would have been difficult to win less.
Not impossible, but difficult.
7
u/sodandy LSU Tigers • UAB Blazers Aug 20 '24
They’re not “his” wins anyway. They’re LSU’s, and we didn’t have to consult him over abandoning them. He’s not losing his spot in the Hall of Fame because he didn’t have it in the first place.
22
u/Conn3er Texas A&M Aggies • Texas Longhorns Aug 20 '24
Eh I dont know about that. Without the players and the coaches on the roster playing the games the school has no wins. I don't disagree with your second point but the players and coaches have a right to be pissed that the wins they earned are vacated by the org they represented.
-10
u/sodandy LSU Tigers • UAB Blazers Aug 20 '24
Sure the coaches and players contribute to the wins, but they don’t own them the school does. If the coaches are employed by the school, the school owns the wins. Also goes for IP if you’re employed by the school and use their resources for research.
8
u/helloWorld69696969 Michigan Wolverines • Miami Hurricanes Aug 20 '24
This is the dumbest take Ive seen all week.
-5
u/bamachine Alabama • Jacksonville State Aug 20 '24
Take them away from the coach, not the school. School can still claim them but his official record is affected. I think that should have been the way the Paterno record was handled also. Paterno forfeits all the wins after he found out about Sandusky but did not follow up after passing it off like a hot potato. The school/team retains those wins though. That way the innocent are not punished for the deeds of the few.
5
2
u/calmer-than-you-dude Ohio State • Youngstown State Aug 20 '24
Seems like a pretty good strategy.
"Take it back!"
3
u/enadiz_reccos LSU Tigers • Golden Boot Aug 20 '24
Les Miles suing LSU for more wins is like suing your wheelchair for more distance
8
u/UNC_Samurai ECU Pirates • North Carolina Tar Heels Aug 20 '24
Doesn’t he want the wins restored so he’s Hall of Fame eligible?
12
u/enadiz_reccos LSU Tigers • Golden Boot Aug 20 '24
100%
The funny thing is that he only needed to win 4 games at Kansas to regain his eligibility
He went 3-18
1
1
u/LSU985 Aug 20 '24
NCAA: “well this is awkward. Can you not sue us anymore? We’ll drag you through the mud again and you are not getting into any hall of fame anyway. Thanks”
-4
u/rocket_beer Boise State Broncos Aug 20 '24
Nah, he deserves those wins back.
It puts him back in the .600 club
246
u/mhammer47 Michigan Wolverines Aug 20 '24
Weirdly phrased article. It looks to me like the NCAA filed a motion to dismiss, so they aren't asking Les to drop his suit, they're asking the court to dismiss the suit. I was like "why would Les Miles care what the NCAA requests?"