The Blind Side scandal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think the ESPN article answered this, but do we know if/when the conservatorship was terminated?

He's only just filed to end the conservatorship, saying he didn't realize that was the legal agreement (vs adoption).

If he can prove he never benefited from the conservatorship, they're screwed. But they are claiming he did receive a cut of the movie profits. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out in court.

No matter what, it's a very bad look that they didn't actually adopt him. The movie really played up his becoming part of the family, ugh.

[Anonymous]

The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

Wait. They were advised not to adopt, or they were advised that it was not possible to adopt? You claim the first one, but then accuse them of lying. But it’s not a lie in your own telling so I’m confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

Wait. They were advised not to adopt, or they were advised that it was not possible to adopt? You claim the first one, but then accuse them of lying. But it’s not a lie in your own telling so I’m confused.

Sean Tuohy: “Michael was obviously living with us for a long time, and the NCAA didn’t like that,” Tuohy told the Daily Memphian. “They said the only way Michael could go to Ole Miss was if he was actually part of the family. I sat Michael down and told him, ‘If you’re planning to go to Ole Miss — or even considering Ole Miss — we think you have to be part of the family. This would do that, legally.’ We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn’t adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court.”


This is NOT TRUE. He then stated he finds the allegation he would "profit off any of his children...insulting" and that they would continue to "love Michael" now like they did when he was a teenager (though they chose not to adopt him but merely to control his financial affairs to their benefit). Does ANY of this pass the sniff test?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They sound like vultures. Scammers. Saw their chance and went for it.

What chance?

You think you can see a kid walk down the street and know he will play in the NFL and be the main character in a block buster movie.

Are you daft?

They will be sued and he will get money from his NIL.

But if you think they had a master plan you’re insane.

Are you f-ing kidding me? They tricked him into signing an extremely predatory contract. They are absolute vultures.

I agree they are vultures but they didn’t see a chance, there was no master plan just devious maneuvers as they presented themselves.

DP. In real life they already saw that he was playing football at that school on a scholarship and clearly could have guessed he could play in college. I went to an expensive prep school and all of the kids who were on scholarship were either great at school or athletically gifted. I was the former but friendly with all of the latter group. I’d say almost all of them played in college with one playing in the wnba and another professional soccer (don’t know what the league is lol)

[Anonymous]

So was he member of the family or a side business venture? Hard not to suppose it's the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Tuohy family statement lays out their position, and if it is at all true, this won’t be an especially good look for Oher.

No question that they’ve enhanced their $$ through the connection with him, which is gross. It seems like this has been building for at least several years, they weren’t invited to his wedding last year, etc.

It will be interesting to watch this unfold in court.

Their statement claims they received legal advice against adoption. This is a lie; there is nothing prohibiting adult adoption in their state. They also claim the profit from the book and film was small, and he received a share. Seems that will be easy to prove in court one way or the other. But given they're lying out of the gate, I'm not inclined to buy what they're selling.

Wait. They were advised not to adopt, or they were advised that it was not possible to adopt? You claim the first one, but then accuse them of lying. But it’s not a lie in your own telling so I’m confused.

Sean Tuohy: “Michael was obviously living with us for a long time, and the NCAA didn’t like that,” Tuohy told the Daily Memphian. “They said the only way Michael could go to Ole Miss was if he was actually part of the family. I sat Michael down and told him, ‘If you’re planning to go to Ole Miss — or even considering Ole Miss — we think you have to be part of the family. This would do that, legally.’ We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn’t adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court.”


This is NOT TRUE. He then stated he finds the allegation he would "profit off any of his children...insulting" and that they would continue to "love Michael" now like they did when he was a teenager (though they chose not to adopt him but merely to control his financial affairs to their benefit). Does ANY of this pass the sniff test?

He basically incriminates himself in this statement. Dangling becoming "part of the family" then giving him conservatorship instead of adoption papers to sign. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.

It's possible the terminology wasn't commonly used, or he didn't grasp the distinction. He thought he was signing adoption papers and probably made lots of assumptions based on that.

[Anonymous]

What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.




It's possible the terminology wasn't commonly used, or he didn't grasp the distinction. He thought he was signing adoption papers and probably made lots of assumptions based on that.

Yes, he may have assumed that when he was 18, but he did not stop playing football until 2016. It really seems unlikely that an adult who graduated college would be confused for that long, IF his agents or advisors had actually done their job and given him information/advice, which is unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.

They would not know. How do you think they would know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.

They would not know. How do you think they would know?

Because per the terms of a conservatorshop, the Tuohys would have needed to approve any business contract. It seems they did that, but it remains to be seen whether they took an inappropriate cut and/or kept all Blind Side profits for themselves. That’s his specific complaint and he wants them to stop profiting from his story, which seems reasonable. Pretty gross they became celebrities, with who knows what perks, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What confuses me is how his nfl agents or anybody advising him financially didn’t specifically tell him he was in a conservatorship.

They would not know. How do you think they would know?

Because per the terms of a conservatorshop, the Tuohys would have needed to approve any business contract. It seems they did that, but it remains to be seen whether they took an inappropriate cut and/or kept all Blind Side profits for themselves. That’s his specific complaint and he wants them to stop profiting from his story, which seems reasonable. Pretty gross they became celebrities, with who knows what perks, too.

And used his name and likeness to promote books and speaking engagements. Why would they not end the conservatorship years ago. Their actions matter so much more than their words

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that they picked a conservatorship over an adoption is so suspect. Why would they need to go that route, if not for money?

In the movie, they mention his age and how he’s too old for adoption. I think it’s silly for him to bring this up now.