April 28, 2006
Bush's family never paid rent
Michael Michaels, the agent-affiliated homeowner in the center of the Reggie Bush Rent-gate saga, told the San Diego Union-Tribune that Bush's family never paid rent on the home they lived in for the past year.
According to Michaels, who also goes by the name Michael Pettiford, LaMar and Denise Griffin promised to pay $4,500/month in rent when they moved into the house last spring, but never did. Michaels allowed the family to stay in the house, because they promised to pay the rent once Bush turned pro. The couple now owes $54,000 in unpaid rent.
The Griffins got an an eviction letter from Michaels' attorney on April 3, 2006, after Reggie Bush didn't sign with Michaels' New Era agency. Several days later, the press got wind of the story and the Griffins moved out of the home.
From the sound of things, it may have been Michaels (or someone connected to him) that broke this story to the press. That would seem to put a damper on Trojanwire's assertion that "THIS IS A CLASSLESS TEXAS SMEAR JOB ON BUSH".
Comments:
FanoftheGame said:
posted on April 28, 2006 10:41 AM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
So, if there is a "rental agreement" between the Bush's and the owner, where is the violation? They were never told they could live there for free, and allthough they never paid rent, the owner let them stay under the condition that the back rent would be paid. They were evicted and Michaels is seeking payment for rent owed to him. All they were really given was more time to pay the rent (1 year). Based on the information we've learned so far, I can't see as how the NCAA could punish Reggie for his role in all of this. Maybe there is more to the story and if so, it will eventually come out. But you never know what the National Coalition Against Athletes (NCAA) is going to do.
Gerald said:
posted on April 28, 2006 1:51 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
FanoftheGame:
You cannot have your cake and eat it too here. If you accept that there was a rental agreement with Michael Michaels based on Michael Michael's word, then you will have to accept everything else too, which (unlisted here but is on profootballtalk.com) is that Reggie Bush's father agreed to go into business with Michaels in a sports marketing/agent business with Reggie Bush as their primary client. After all, Michaels only evicted the Bush family after Bush did not sign with his company as promised. Else, why would he evict them NOW, with the draft and Reggie's contract signing imminent? Why not allow them to stay and get another couple of month's rent, and even attempt to remain in their good graces so there can still perhaps be a business relationship down the line? And also, it is well known that athletes can take out loans based on their NFL potential. Bush could have EASILY taken out a loan as soon as he declared for the draft and paid the rent. After all, Bush claimed that his parents moved out NOT because Michaels kicked them out but because "he was in the process of buying them a new home." And then there are endorsements, such as the contracts that he has already signed with GM and with Adidas, plus money from appearances and things like that. Bush could have LONG paid that $54,000 bill. The fact that he did not pretty much demonstrates that there was a business relationship between the Bush family and Michaels based solely on Bush's marketability as a football player, which is ILLEGAL.
Look, the NCAA would not even let a college football player write a food critic column for the town newspaper, claiming that it was an implied endorsement. Even Matt Leinart's saying "stay tuned for Sportscenter" for ABC after the USC/UCLA game as a violation. The NCAA initially revoked a Saint John's basketball player's eligibity because his UNCLE bought him a car FOR HIS BIRTHDAY (and his uncle was a USED CAR DEALER WITH NO TIES TO SAINT JOHNS). And the NCAA forced Curtis Enis to pay back his FIANCEE after she bought him a suit TO WEAR TO THE HEISMAN CEREMONY just so he could play in a bowl game. So there is NO WAY the NCAA is going to allow a family to stay in a house RENT FREE in a "we will pay you after the draft" arrangement!
That said, I do not believe a word that Michael Michaels says, and neither will the NCAA. It will be all about whether the Bushes paid rent. If they did not, Bush is ineligible and his Heisman is gone. End of story.
MisterBond said:
posted on April 28, 2006 1:54 PM — 69.149.185.208 — link — abuse?
For anyone to assume or make remarks that "THIS IS A CLASSLESS TEXAS SMEAR JOB ON BUSH" is unbelievable. Why would "Texas" need to do that. They proved to the USC Trojans and the world on Jan 4th they were the better team and had the true Heisman Winner.
FanoftheGame said:
posted on April 28, 2006 3:33 PM — 12.43.234.14 — link — abuse?
Gerald...I see the point you're making but, if in fact Reggie knew nothing about the rent or its arrangements and it was his parents doing, then how would Reggie know to take out a loan for them based on his potential earnings? Regardless, I don't believe Michaels is very trustworthy either, however there is still more to this story. I can only imagine that every NCAA athlete at one time has been late on a payment of somekind, or movie rental return, or something just as ridiculous that the NCAA would deem to be illegal due to some obscure circumstance.
Gerald said:
posted on April 28, 2006 5:20 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
FanOfTheGame:
Well, I was wrong. It turns out that Charles Woodson accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts during his last year in college during which he won the Heisman and Michigan won the national title, and the NCAA didn't do SQUAT. Read that in a Yahoo.com column posted today. So, if they did not declare Woodson ineligible, take away his Heisman, and take away Michigan's shared national title, then nothing is going to happen to Reggie Bush either.
And you do agree that there is a difference between being late for a movie rental and running up a $54,000 rent bill from spring of 2004 until April of 2005 from a guy who was trying to steer Bush to an agent? In any event, Maurice Clarett was found to have been driving A BRAND NEW FULLY LOADED SUV FOR A WHOLE YEAR, which AN OHIO STATE BOOSTER WHO WAS ALSO A CAR DEALER WAS "allowing him to test drive." They didn't do a thing to Clarett or Ohio State over it; they did not even rule it was a violation. And Tee Martin was found to have accepted a loan from a Tennessee booster (although in this case the amount was small, and Martin apparently sent it to his destitute mother in Alabama). Once Martin repaid the money, the NCAA stopped pursuing the matter.
But on the other hand, the NCAA declared a basketball player ineligible because he took a few hundred bucks from an agent to keep his mother's house from being foreclosed on. The NCAA is really inconsistent with who they hammer and who they let off scot free. There is really NO WAY they can justify doing anything to Reggie Bush or USC now if they let Clarett and Woodson off the hook.
MisterBond said:
posted on April 28, 2006 5:21 PM — 69.154.143.115 — link — abuse?
For Reggie Bush to say, "I did not know about the lease agreement" or how his parents were leasing the house is riddiculous. His mom moves from a slum apartment to a $750,000 house and not question how they could afford it or not to ask any questions is B.S. Being an NCAA student-athlete and knowing the infractions that could get him into trouble, I would have asked the questions. Being late on one or two payments maybe, but if his parents did not pay any rent for a whole year.....Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. TAKE AWAY THE HEISMAN.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 28, 2006 5:54 PM — 204.62.104.215 — link — abuse?
Gerald, its up to the PAC-10 and NCAA investigation to decide who's responsible for what, and what should be done about it (btw its "the Griffins" not "the Bushes")
Just to claify: We all understand that there hasNT been anything "criminal" here right, even the eviction.
At this point best case scenerio from a USC standpoint is that the Griffin family simply have been Dead-beat tenants, it happens in every-day life not just to families of College athletes (Ive had some experience with bad tenents - evictions can take a long time).
This Micheals guy may be claiming that they had an unspoken "wink-wink" agreement, but thats yet to be proven (or admitted to).
Heres a twisted take on this... had Reggie SIGNED with that Agency, or PAID Micheals the Rent money, the arguement FOR inappropriote arrangements woulda been Stronger than they are presently. No money was exchanged from Reggie's end... the Griffin's havent admitted to any "deals" (Yet!... fingers-crossed that they wont)- that St John's player, did he get his eligibility back; you said "initially"...
It'll come down to which party the NCAA/PAC-10 believes, the Griffin Family or this Micheal-snake-n-the-grass-Micheals character.Gerald said:
posted on April 28, 2006 7:14 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
So Cal Clips:
Did you read my post 7? I take it all back; nothing is going to happen to Reggie and USC. They would have no excuse for not doing anything to Tee Martin, Charles Woodson, and Maurice Clarett and their respective schools and hammering Reggie and USC, especially since MONEY AND BENEFITS ACTUALLY WENT INTO THE HANDS of Martin, Woodson, and Clarett, while the benefits in the Bush case only went to the Griffins.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 28, 2006 8:15 PM — 204.62.104.215 — link — abuse?
Gerald, just read post 7... is that a change-of-heart or are you just conceding that possiblity that USC will end up with sanctions, gettin records & the Heisman stripped? - based on the Clarett, Martin, Woodson precedences.
One thing is what you think Should happen, another is what you think Will happen, (and maybe even another is what you Want to happen).Gerald said:
posted on April 29, 2006 8:14 AM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
So Cal Clips:
This thing is getting more complex by the day. All this stuff is coming out from all these shady people (which by the way, includes Bush and the Griffins) that we do not know who is lying and who is telling the truth.
But we do know that the Griffins stayed in a house rent free from spring 2004 until April 2005 based on a relationship with a guy who at minimum was trying to steer Bush to an agent and perhaps may have had designs on being an agent himself. Based on that, what I think that should happen is also what I want to happen: USC is 0 - 13 and the Heisman Trophy is vacated. But as far as what I think will happen; I have to go back to Tee Martin, Charles Woodson, and Maurice Clarett.
But dude, the other stuff coming out is REAL DAMAGING if true. New Era Sports claims to have a text message from Bush about their intent to pay the rent for the house. Also, New Era claims that Bush sat in on a meeting with New Era on his family's financial problems before the 2004 season, and that money traded hands before the 2004 season. So forget 2005; if this is true, then the 2004 season is gone too! Auburn national champs baby!
But that is a big if. Why? Because, well, I am going to put this as nicely as I can ... the New Era people have severe credibility problems. So, I do not believe a thing that they say. The only reason why I believe that the Griffins stayed rent free is because they have yet to provide evidence otherwise; a couple of cancelled checks would have ended this whole thing. Plus even though they received an eviction notice on April 3, they still only left the house when the media came sniffing around!
So right now I will base my opinion on what is factually known: that the Griffins stayed in an apartment for a year rent free. While that is clearly a violation, it is nowhere near what Charles Woodson in particular did, and if you did not punish Woodson you should not punish USC.
chi said:
posted on April 30, 2006 7:00 PM — 68.181.246.5 — link — abuse?
i'm currently a student at sc and everything that's going on here is shocking and rather messed up. true or not..you're rude.. to comment on the tragedy in New Orleans like that tim... my family an the people in that city, die hard saints fans, must be ecstatic that they are receiving a player of bush's caliber.. despite everything he's a great player.. let the city have something to be excited about for once.
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 30, 2006 7:10 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Tim, Bush isnt "getting" anything!... even IF its all true. The trouble is that the School might be getting what the Giffin Family deserve. The guys in the NFL now... what am I mi$$ing?
"hes getting his"???? - How?
So Cal Clippers said:
posted on April 30, 2006 7:30 PM — 204.62.68.23 — link — abuse?
Gerald, interesting stance on your part. But, so if thats your take, being "late with the rent" isnt a NCAA violation is it? A family didnt pay their rent, the landlord is asking for his money owed... that isnt "living rent free"... At this point I think thats all it might be (investigation should clear it up).
All of the other stuff -meeting with an investor tribe, travel money, text messages, etc- is tougher to 'overlook' or explain (if true).Gerald: "if you did not punish Woodson [or Michigan] you should not punish USC"... thats sounds fair to me (fingersXcrossed).
Chi said:
posted on April 30, 2006 8:39 PM — 68.181.246.5 — link — abuse?
exactly.. thanx So Cal.. im not saying he's guilty of anything.. bottom line.. everything is under investigation. (and maybe he didnt kno.. sh!t happens)SC is now risks losing everything and by everything i mean all of this has the potential to crippling the football tradition. which really sucks.
Craig Torline said:
posted on May 1, 2006 4:08 PM — 149.169.85.216 — link — abuse?
I think that this entire situation is being blown way out of proportion. I feel that the press and the media is doing everything that they can possibly do in order to mess up Bush's athletic future. They are trying to bring out problems that he has at home in order to make him look bad in front of the public. The fact remains that he is still a top athlete and a Heisman winner, and there is still nothing the press can say about that.
california said:
posted on May 11, 2006 6:00 AM — 82.135.208.170 — link — abuse?
i can not understand how people can act like this
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
The Mayor said:
posted on April 28, 2006 8:49 AM — 12.37.188.67 — link — abuse?Oh no...say it aint so. This is ugly news if its true.