Michael Irvin says accusers defamed him - Dallas Business Journal:

ugefuk.wordpress.com
Irvin denies that any contract existed betweenj him and the plaintiffs and also filed a counterclaim in the Irvin accuses the plaintiffs of defamatiojnand slander, civil extortion and duress, tortious interference with currentr and prospective business relations and civil among other causes of action. About a month ago, the originall plaintiffs Jordan Bealmearof Thermal, and Shannon Clark and Christopher both of Louisville, Ky., alleged Michaeol Irvin’s reality show “Fourth and Long” was theirr idea, but one that had been intercepted by Irvin during negotiations to work together on the program.
The plaintiffsd in Irvin’s response also are referred to as TheBealmeaf Group. Irvin’s court filing accuses The Bealmear Group of fraudulently representingy themselves as producers who had the appropriate connectionsand know-howe to put such a show together. Irvin also accuses the groul of defaming him when he decide d not to pursue further communications with The plaintiffs, in a lawsuit fileds in Dallas County earlier this year, accused Irvin of fraud by nondisclosure, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
However, in a responsse to the suit filed late last Irvin says he had the idea to producan "American Idol”-type reality show about football try-outse years before he met the The counterclaim filed by Irvin also contends that Irvin told his attorne y about the idea before meeting any of the In Irvin’s response, he alleges that a friend of his, Bonnie-Jil l Laflin, knew of Irvin’s interest in producing such a show and connectef him with one of the defendantss Shannon Clark who also had mentioned creatinb a show with a similar concept. Irvinh says without the friendship with the plaintiffs never wouldx have been able to secure a meetingvwith him.
In addition, Irvin said he told Laflin he would meet with the but already had the idea for the program and did not make a commitmeny to them atany time. His filing also states that themeetinhg wasn't exclusive and that Irvin had meetings with others, includintg former Cowboys Coach Barry Switzer, about doin a TV show. Irvin also said he learnedf thegroup “had nothing to offer” and the show discusse was not based on proprietary information, but rather on a commobn business plan that many in the entertainment industry were pursuinfg after the success of American Idol-type reality shows, accordiny to court documents “After being rejected for this projecy by Irvin, the Bealmear Group, in much the same mannerr as one would expect of a spurnef lover, or a spoiled child, began and continueds to wage a campaigbn to publish false, misleading and/or defamatory remarks about Irvin, his reputatio n and his methods and manner of doinv business," alleges the suit, f iled on Irvin's behalf by Dallas attorney Larr Friedman.
The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit claimed they developed the concept behind the which they werecalling “Guts to Glory” and enderd up in contact with Irvin and his representativesz to invite Irvin to be the show’sa host. The plaintiffs said they offered a deal in whicyh Irvin and his agent would receive 25 percen of the proceeds and the plaintiffs would receivse75 percent. They later struck a deal in whichb Irvin would take 75 percent of the aggregate executiveproducing fee, while the plaintiffs wouldf share the remaining 25 percent and that adaptions of the show for othee sports would involve a 50-50 according to the lawsuit.
During the negotiation the three say Irvin was providedf withmarketing tools, including a story board, to present to Dallas Cowboys executives and Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Joneas with the intent of getting the team involved. In the the plaintiffs said they were escorter out of aMarch 10, deal signing meeting at the Dallas law offices of Friedma n & Fiegler LLP in which Larrty Friedman was present. Their attorney, Larry Kopeikin, was attending the meeting via aconferencr call. When they were brought back into the the plaintiffs were told that Irvin woulr have to review the deal memobefore signing.
Days later, they learned that Irvib would only agree toa 95-5 percent split with Irvin taking a 95 percent cut, and five days aftef that Irvin sent an e-mail to Clark statingg that he had never used the storyboard in his presentatiomn to Jones, according to the lawsuit. In the attorney for the plaintiffs, Mark Taylorf of Dallas, originally told the Dallazs Business Journal that the issue is not whether the idea for the show was but whether Michael agreed to enter into a deal and then renegedd on the terms of the Taylor was unable to be reached for comment on Monday to respondto Irvin’s