forums

Tears Gator Tears

RVACane said:
On3 is destroying the recruiting rankings. 247 should get out of that combined ranking deal. It’s not good.
Click to expand...
They just dropped Cormani down to like 50th. Regardless of whether he commits to Miami, Colorado, or the University of Manitoba, that kid is a top 10 talent.

On3 doesn’t even try to hide that they have no objectivity in their process. They’ve been inflating **** recruits all season having them considerably higher than the other three sites.
 
Advertisement
BishopEli said:
He specifically used the word promise not pledge so I’m assuming he’s asking this rhetorically. Either way they’ve made a mess of it.
Click to expand...
I think promise = pledge in this scenario. I believe Heitner just used promise so he could parlay it into a claim for "promissory" estoppel based on word play alone. But in my limited knowledge (I am sure an attorney can correct me) promissory estoppel is a defense, not an affirmative claim. Like breach of contract is a claim or cause of action but estoppel is a defense.
 
Are they seriously taking a page out of the Amber Heard playbook?
 

Attachments

  • amber-heard-fake-crying.gif
    amber-heard-fake-crying.gif
    72.9 KB · Views: 7
Cookie917 said:
The funny undertone in this is that in order for this to be true, that means some big booster or other UF supporter "pledged" money to the collective or alternatively a completely separate business and GC wrote the contract. THEN the prominent booster or UF supporter allegedly reneged on the promise and failed to come through. Who knows why. Maybe they were expecting help from other sources, maybe a loan was denied, maybe their business took a ****, regardless the promise did not happen.

Now Heitner is trying to clear GC's name and saying they may have a "claim" for promissory estoppel basically the GC detrimentally relied on the promise of the booster so they should not be held liable to Rashada, liability essentially passes through GC to the booster. But in order to do that you now need to sue the person who at one point was promising to donate tons of cash. Once you sue that person I would find it hard to believe that person turns around and is quick to donate again.
Click to expand...
If I were that booster, I would turn right around and file a complaint against Heitner with the Florida Bar for malpractice.
 
Cookie917 said:
The funny undertone in this is that in order for this to be true, that means some big booster or other UF supporter "pledged" money to the collective or alternatively a completely separate business and GC wrote the contract. THEN the prominent booster or UF supporter allegedly reneged on the promise and failed to come through. Who knows why. Maybe they were expecting help from other sources, maybe a loan was denied, maybe their business took a ****, regardless the promise did not happen.

Now Heitner is trying to clear GC's name and saying they may have a "claim" for promissory estoppel basically the GC detrimentally relied on the promise of the booster so they should not be held liable to Rashada, liability essentially passes through GC to the booster. But in order to do that you now need to sue the person who at one point was promising to donate tons of cash. Once you sue that person I would find it hard to believe that person turns around and is quick to donate again.
Click to expand...
LMFAO

First, promissory estoppel in this case is very difficult to prove and probably not even applicable, and second .... a lawsuit based on that theory makes you look retarded. The boosters will run from you like their hair is on fire, and no one will ever believe anything you say in the future. You are basically shouting to the world: a) we have no money, b) are highly ignorant and incompetent, c) litigious, and d) can't be trusted to perform.
 
RVACane said:
It’s beautiful
Click to expand...
Heitner discussing possible legal strategy and rationale on an open forum like Twitter is just another example of the bush league operation the gaturd recruiting/NIL mechanism is, and nobody is exempt, not the athletic department, not the coaches, not the school itself, not the boosters, and not the collectives.

Total amateur hour.

Good Lord, what a glorious mess!
 
Cookie917 said:
The funny undertone in this is that in order for this to be true, that means some big booster or other UF supporter "pledged" money to the collective or alternatively a completely separate business and GC wrote the contract. THEN the prominent booster or UF supporter allegedly reneged on the promise and failed to come through. Who knows why. Maybe they were expecting help from other sources, maybe a loan was denied, maybe their business took a ****, regardless the promise did not happen.

Now Heitner is trying to clear GC's name and saying they may have a "claim" for promissory estoppel basically the GC detrimentally relied on the promise of the booster so they should not be held liable to Rashada, liability essentially passes through GC to the booster. But in order to do that you now need to sue the person who at one point was promising to donate tons of cash. Once you sue that person I would find it hard to believe that person turns around and is quick to donate again.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
The Gator Collective wants to sue one of their donors for backing off a promise? These guys get dumber every day.
First, the Gators can’t even show a financial loss to collect damages
Second, as you noted, it would eliminate that person from ever being a booster going forward
Third, it would deter other boosters. Donating money to a collective is voluntary built it won’t feel that way if UF is suing their donors

Now if the collective is sued by Rashada (very unlikely), and then wants to add the booster to the lawsuit and try to put the blame on the booster, they can do that but issues 2 and 3 would still exist.

Gators need to tuck their tails between their legs and move on publicly. Privately you can axe that booster but to do it publicly is suicide.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
I think promise = pledge in this scenario. I believe Heitner just used promise so he could parlay it into a claim for "promissory" estoppel based on word play alone. But in my limited knowledge (I am sure an attorney can correct me) promissory estoppel is a defense, not an affirmative claim. Like breach of contract is a claim or cause of action but estoppel is a defense.
Click to expand...


No, Heitner would be asking for HathNoCock's promise to be enforced.

Normally, a contract requires "a promise for a promise". Consideration. Mutuality. And the problem WOULD BE, but what did Heitner and GC promise to HathNoCock in exchange for his promise to fund GC.

But in promissory estoppel you say, "but wait a minute, based on his promise I THEN DID SOMETHING ELSE TO MY DETRIMENT, thus we need to enforce his initial promise".

What Heitner is REALLY saying is that HathNoCock promised to fund the GC offer made to Rashada, and that even though the contract is between GC and Rashada, then GC should be able to pull HathNoCock into this and have a court enforce his promise, since GC relied on that promise to its detriment to offer an amount that they did not actually have sitting in the bank.
 
AtlAtty said:
Exactly.
The Gator Collective wants to sue one of their donors for backing off a promise? These guys get dumber every day.
First, the Gators can’t even show a financial loss to collect damages
Second, as you noted, it would eliminate that person from ever being a booster going forward
Third, it would deter other boosters. Donating money to a collective is voluntary built it won’t feel that way if UF is suing their donors

Now if the collective is sued by Rashada (very unlikely), and then wants to add the booster to the lawsuit and try to put the blame on the booster, they can do that but issues 2 and 3 would still exist.

Gators need to tuck their tails between their legs and move on publicly. Privately you can axe that booster but to do it publicly is suicide.
Click to expand...

Why so unlikely?
 
SpikeUM said:
Why so unlikely?
Click to expand...


Without seeing the contract itself, I would imagine that Rashada is in a Catch-22 with trying to sue the collective.

Clearly, NIL contracts are NOT "pay-for-play" (feel free to insert your own joke here).

So if the NIL deal calls for him to actually perform services in Hogtown...and he is not currently in Hogtown by his own choice...a court might very well find that choice to be "voluntary" on the part of Rashada, thus freeing the Collective from liability. In other words, you usually have to be AVAILABLE to perform your side of the agreement, and THEN you can argue "but the other side won't pay me".

Still, the complicating factor is the Gaytor Collective trying to "cancel" in advance, so that is tricky. I'm not sure the contract allows for unilateral cancellation, because a power such as that would render the contract null and void. Anyone could just say "I cancel I cancel I cancel" like it was a marriage in the Sinai Desert thousands of years ago.

On the other hand, there could be "conditions" that allow for cancellation. Such as "if Rashada does not enroll in school and move to Alachua County". Now, that would be a term that Rashada has control over. But I'm really struggling to figure out a condition that could allow the COLLECTIVE to "cancel" the contract before it ever really kicks in. I've never heard of "if we don't have the money, we get to cancel the contract" as being a valid term in a valid contract.

Who knows. This **** is wild.
 
RedSquare said:
LMFAO

First, promissory estoppel in this case is very difficult to prove and probably not even applicable, and second .... a lawsuit based on that theory makes you look retarded. The boosters will run from you like their hair is on fire, and no one will ever believe anything you say in the future. You are basically shouting to the world: a) we have no money, b) are highly ignorant and incompetent, c) litigious, and d) can't be trusted to perform.
Click to expand...
I mean, if I were a booster and this guy even sent this out even threatening litigation, I would walk away.
AtlAtty said:
Exactly.
The Gator Collective wants to sue one of their donors for backing off a promise? These guys get dumber every day.
First, the Gators can’t even show a financial loss to collect damages
Second, as you noted, it would eliminate that person from ever being a booster going forward
Third, it would deter other boosters. Donating money to a collective is voluntary built it won’t feel that way if UF is suing their donors

Now if the collective is sued by Rashada (very unlikely), and then wants to add the booster to the lawsuit and try to put the blame on the booster, they can do that but issues 2 and 3 would still exist.

Gators need to tuck their tails between their legs and move on publicly. Privately you can axe that booster but to do it publicly is suicide.
Click to expand...
I said this in half-jest to TOC in a message, but I am studying for the Georgia bar's one day attorney's exam. The Rashada thing would be a perfect contracts essay hypo, and I would **** myself laughing if I get there and a Georgia alum managed to slide it on there.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Heitner discussing possible legal strategy and rationale on an open forum like Twitter is just another example of the bush league operation the gaturd recruiting/NIL mechanism is, and nobody is exempt, not the athletic department, not the coaches, not the school itself, not the boosters, and not the collectives.

Total amateur hour.

Good Lord, what a glorious mess!
Click to expand...
It seems like he’s openly trying to intimidate their biggest boosters on the gator Guard into paying Rashada. So that’s Hathcock for one who just gave like $14 million to their program. That’s a suicide solution - an Ozzie song.
 
RVACane said:
It seems like he’s openly trying to intimidate their biggest boosters on the gator Guard into paying Rashada. So that’s Hathcock for one who just gave like $14 million to their program. That’s a suicide solution - an Ozzie song.
Click to expand...

This is just such a bad strategy, you have to ask yourself if this is even reality, why would anybody do this? And then you realize it is reality, they are really that dumb.
 
Advertisement
RedSquare said:
LMFAO

First, promissory estoppel in this case is very difficult to prove and probably not even applicable, and second .... a lawsuit based on that theory makes you look retarded. The boosters will run from you like their hair is on fire, and no one will ever believe anything you say in the future. You are basically shouting to the world: a) we have no money, b) are highly ignorant and incompetent, c) litigious, and d) can't be trusted to perform.
Click to expand...
@TheOriginalCane @AtlAtty What's even funnier about this threat... I wonder if Rashada can sue the GC under promissory estoppel. If he forewent other opportunities on the reasonable belief they would follow through with the terms of their contract, can he sue for whatever amount he winds up with less than this offer? If the GC offered $13m, we offered $9m (who knows if that number was true), and he winds up at Arizona State for $6m, because of this, can he collect damages from the GC for that balance? Of course you would need to see the contract to know fully. This is great. Told you - bar exam hypo.
 
wspcane said:
@TheOriginalCane @AtlAtty What's even funnier about this threat... I wonder if Rashada can sue the GC under promissory estoppel. If he forewent other opportunities on the reasonable belief they would follow through with the terms of their contract, can he sue for whatever amount he winds up with less than this offer? If the GC offered $13m, we offered $9m (who knows if that number was true), and he winds up at Arizona State for $6m, because of this, can he collect damages from the GC for that balance? Of course you would need to see the contract to know fully. This is great. Told you - bar exam hypo.
Click to expand...


I may overuse this term, but it's truly GLORIOUS...

...I'm still stuck on the part about GC just sending a unilateral letter to the Rashadas saying "Nope, no deal"...

Imagine that we get the Rashada contract, and it is as artfully drafted as Beta Blake's game contract with Arkansas State...
 
Back
Top