forums

Demond Williams enters portal

AtlAtty said:
It seems impossible to identify the damage associated with losing Williams. Any number is basically made up. As is the argument that ‘we would have brought in a different QB had we known, and this will cost us __$$$’.

@Cookie917 provided a great analysis of the contract issues. I wonder if either of you have an opinion as to whether the next school could be successfully sued for Interfering with UW’s business relationship with Williams? Again, damages are next to impossible to prove, but maybe they feel just receiving a successful decision/verdict is worth the time and cost.
Click to expand...
wouldn't this pose an argument that any damages (potential) are also speculative with respect to interfering with a business relationship, and speculative damages are mostly unenforceable.
 
Advertisement
wnycanesfan said:
So the contact basically goes counter to an NCAA rule stating the school is required to enter the kid within 48 hours of the paperwork being submitted. That seems dubious at best. If that is possible what is to prevent schools from just writing contacts around every rule.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine there is a provision (severability clause) in the contract indicating any such provision that is unenforceable is stricken from the contract and the rest remains intact. If so, then UW would have to enter Williams into the portal within the 48 hours as required by the NCAA.
 
jifarina said:
wouldn't this pose an argument that any damages (potential) are also speculative with respect to interfering with a business relationship, and speculative damages are mostly unenforceable.
Click to expand...
Definitively. Which is just one of the problems with all these threats of lawsuits. The university outside counsel lawyers are told to create iron clad agreements, which they try to create to please their bosses, but cannot. The university outside counsel, who charge an exorbitant hourly rate, act as though these lawsuits are worth the expense. And at the end of day, it is all a waste because all the damages are so speculative.

Which begs the question of what it is all worth.
 
AtlAtty said:
This is interesting in that UW is not going to a court to force Williams to play. Rather it is saying that Williams agreed not to enter the portal by signing his deal with UW, and that only UW can use Williams NIL.
I have to admit it is an interesting way to word the contract. I still don’t know how UW can force Williams do anything, but it may limit his options if he leaves. I can’t see any judge wanting to enforce the first clause because it restrains player/employee movement. And there is no damamge to UW if it does not pay Williams NIL deal because the school will be saving money, in effect, by not paying him.

Definitely interesting.
I know we have some folks on CIS who deal more with contracts. I would love to get some opinions on the enforceability of this contract.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he got a chunk of the payment at the time of signing, which is highly likely. Now you have consideration for agreeing to not enter your name in the portal.

If is still a restriction on employment for a guy that I guess technically still isn't an employee? This is a rev share agreement, not an employment contract.

Hard to diagnose this without being able to read the contract (as usual).
 
scrantoncane said:
I wonder if he got a chunk of the payment at the time of signing, which is highly likely. Now you have consideration for agreeing to not enter your name in the portal.

If is still a restriction on employment for a guy that I guess technically still isn't an employee? This is a rev share agreement, not an employment contract.

Hard to diagnose this without being able to read the contract (as usual).
Click to expand...
Correct on all points.

Your first point is great, because then UW can at least argue there was consideration for the contract. And of course Williams should be required to repay that if he leaves UW.

But you are also right that we are all speculating without seeing the actual contract. Which is what the internet is best at; speculation and outrage.
 
Advertisement
jifarina said:
I'd imagine there is a provision (severability clause) in the contract indicating any such provision that is unenforceable is stricken from the contract and the rest remains intact. If so, then UW would have to enter Williams into the portal within the 48 hours as required by the NCAA.
Click to expand...
Yeah… the more I read the less convinced I am of Washington’s case. The NCAA isn’t going to block a transfer here because rules state UW shall enter. Can’t expect the NCAA to enforce their contract instead of the NCAA’s own rules.

Courts areby going to block his transfer. So yeah we’re left with Washington suing for speculative damages while also needing to argue these damages aren’t punitive.
 
Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
It seems impossible to identify the damage associated with losing Williams. Any number is basically made up. As is the argument that ‘we would have brought in a different QB had we known, and this will cost us __$$$’.

@Cookie917 provided a great analysis of the contract issues. I wonder if either of you have an opinion as to whether the next school could be successfully sued for Interfering with UW’s business relationship with Williams? Again, damages are next to impossible to prove, but maybe they feel just receiving a successful decision/verdict is worth the time and cost.
Click to expand...
i think they MAY try to say that anyone that contacted him, even if not the first, even after he said he was in the portal but wasnt IN the portal, was tampering. Big 10 involved again because its their template as baseline contract (whethere it was redlined or not i have no idea)

how that will go over legally- who knows at this point.
 
Ispyin said:
i think they MAY try to say that anyone that contacted him, even if not the first, even after he said he was in the portal but wasnt IN the portal, was tampering. Big 10 involved again because its their template as baseline contract (whethere it was redlined or not i have no idea)

how that will go over legally- who knows at this point.
Click to expand...
The NCAA accused folks of tampering, at this level it's all tortious interference which is a higher bar.
 
Back
Top