forums

Rashada is suing Napier and a Florida booster.

Rellyrell said:
OK, this is going to be unpopular, but I’m objective so idgaf.

Ruiz just said there was never a $9.5m on the table for Rashada. OK, here’s the problem I see w/ Rashada’s camp trying to sue Napier/UF…it’s a NIL deal. At what point did UF or its Collectives monetize off Rashada’s name, image, or likeness?
-Was it when they sold his jersey? No, that didn’t happen. -Was it b/c of viewership to watch him play? No, that didn’t happen.
-Was it at an event that he attended to help sales for the booster group? No, that didn’t happen.

As I told my lil homie’s mom, whose son now attends UW, b4 signing anything u have to read the entire document until u see a blank page, & have someone versed in financial law to read along w/ u. If UF made verbal promises, but didn’t fulfill said promises by a specific timeline, then it was up to the Rashada’s to either a) make the decision the program wasn’t for them & go elsewhere or b) enter into the NIL agreement & enroll thus making them fully liable. Also, if UF upon review felt that the kid wasn’t worth the price point, then they too had the right to bow out & move on.

They chose option a; now here’s the thing:
From 3 NIL contracts I’ve seen, enrollment + playing time were buried in the language. I’m not sure what his agreement was, but it appears to be sour grapes on The Rashada’s part b/c they chose the bush v. the bird in hand. The fact is, this kid & his camp played themselves. They used us to leverage more $$ from other programs, & instead of doing due diligence or better yet staying loyal, they got burned.

If I’m the courts, I’m being very weary of this type of suit b/c it would set up precedence, rewarding kids, parents, handlers for making ill informed decision to not follow throw on a commitment going to the highest bidder.

However, let’s be clear….if college students want to be treated as employees, welcome to adulthood.
Click to expand...
I dont see this being an unpopular opinion. Seems pretty basic. I would just add a few caveats....

1. Ruiz did not say Rashada never had a 9.5 million deal on the table. He said Lifewallet and Ruiz never had a deal for 9.5 million. He could have agreed to pay him 6 million and the canes collective paid him the other 3.5 million. Ruiz seemed to choose his words carefully and him being a lawyer is not surprising if he is electing to toe that line.

2. If you want to see Rashada's NIL agreement it was posted, I can send it to you if you want but I did not see anything about playing time but enrollment in a secondary education institution as defined by fla stat was in there.

3. Yes it could be seen as rewarding kids for de-comitting and playing games, it could also be seen as forcing individuals on the other side to follow-through on promises.

4. like you mentioned, if the kids want to be treated as employees, welcome to adulthood but take the same analogous situation and put it in the real world. I am unsure what you do for a living but I was headhunted to be at my current employer from my previous. I was employed at my old employer, thus "committed" to them, however new employer swooped in and promised me more money. It was a very good deal so I took that to my current employer as a courtesy if they wanted to match who said they were unable to match. I then quit and went to work for my new and current employer. If in that exact scenario I quit but then new employer re-negged on their offer of more money and now I am unemployed do you see that as I made an ill-informed decision or the cold call new employer induced me to quit then left me up **** creek?
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
I agree, generally point 2 is NOT good and Ruiz already spouted out that Life Wallet and Ruiz did not have a deal that big. However, Miami has some big boy lawyers. I am unsure if a federal Judge would entertain discovery that led to the discussions or draft agreements around our alleged 9.5 million number. I assume if Rusty if throwing that number out Rashada likely signed something with our collective that promised to pay him 9.5 million. That should be the only piece of documentation relevant and discoverable, not necessarily if Mario told him about the deal, or who he talked to, or text messages, or who was involved etc. I just dont see how any of that is tied to fraud and misrepresentation of UF? I know UF will try but I think all Rashada would need to show is he had a deal for 9.5 mil.
Click to expand...
First, whatever Ruiz has said doesn't matter. I assume that there was a contract floated around. I don't know Rashada's lawyers (although I know he represented Deshaun Watson and I read was generally well regarded) but most lawyers are very, very careful about what they put in pleadings--particularly in federal court. So, if they're saying $9.5M, I have to tend to believe there is some actual substantiation for that.

Second, I don't want to get too far into the weeds on legal stuff, but both sides have to dig into that alleged $9.5 million offer. Rashada's camp has to prove it was real money and guaranteed and not contingent. Conversely, UF will want to show that the money was contingent and speculative so a lot of stuff will get on the table about that offer and Miami's deal. Depositions are pretty liberal with discovery so UF's lawyers can get into a whole lot about Rashada's recruitment with UM.
 
Caneau said:
The contract shows his signature but not the Gator Collective. Hopefully that is a mistake on which copy was attached to the suit.
Click to expand...


It's the Docusigned copy from the Rashadas' side.

Regardless of whether Hathnocock signed it, the lawsuit is NOT a "breach of contract" action.
 
Cookie917 said:
Yeah I understand what Staples wrote. He is not wrong for saying that contract is at the heart of the lawsuit, the entire lawsuit is about a broken promise to pay 13.85 million. But if he meant the lawsuit is over the contract I would argue that is wrong. His tweet does not say that the contract was attached to the complaint or they were trying to enforce it. He just got a copy of the collective contract and posted it. I just read the entire complaint and nothing even purports to attach a contract or any document.

Here is a link to the actual complaint filed:

Click to expand...
I just looked at the original complaint in the link and it has the case number in the caption and it was the first document filed in the CM/ECF Pacer Portal as ECF No. 1. Anyone who files know how the author/filer of the original complaint could know the case number before actually filing the complaint? I'm guessing the person who uploaded it for public consumption used the edit function on Adobe Acrobat Pro and wrote in the case number after it received the filing information we see printed at the top of every page.
 
Rellyrell said:
OK, this is going to be unpopular, but I’m objective so idgaf.

Ruiz just said there was never a $9.5m on the table for Rashada. OK, here’s the problem I see w/ Rashada’s camp trying to sue Napier/UF…it’s a NIL deal. At what point did UF or its Collectives monetize off Rashada’s name, image, or likeness?
-Was it when they sold his jersey? No, that didn’t happen. -Was it b/c of viewership to watch him play? No, that didn’t happen.
-Was it at an event that he attended to help sales for the booster group? No, that didn’t happen.

As I told my lil homie’s mom, whose son now attends UW, b4 signing anything u have to read the entire document until u see a blank page, & have someone versed in financial law to read along w/ u. If UF made verbal promises, but didn’t fulfill said promises by a specific timeline, then it was up to the Rashada’s to either a) make the decision the program wasn’t for them & go elsewhere or b) enter into the NIL agreement & enroll thus making them fully liable. Also, if UF upon review felt that the kid wasn’t worth the price point, then they too had the right to bow out & move on.

They chose option a; now here’s the thing:
From 3 NIL contracts I’ve seen, enrollment + playing time were buried in the language. I’m not sure what his agreement was, but it appears to be sour grapes on The Rashada’s part b/c they chose the bush v. the bird in hand. The fact is, this kid & his camp played themselves. They used us to leverage more $$ from other programs, & instead of doing due diligence or better yet staying loyal, they got burned.

If I’m the courts, I’m being very weary of this type of suit b/c it would set up precedence, rewarding kids, parents, handlers for making ill informed decision to not follow throw on a commitment going to the highest bidder.

However, let’s be clear….if college students want to be treated as employees, welcome to adulthood.
Click to expand...
The problem for Rashada is that I imagine UM's NIL deal was renewable or contingent and so even if maybe he could have made $9.5 M over the course of a 4 year "contract," if he stunk it up year 1 and was "encouraged" to go elsewhere, UM would not have any further commitment to him. So the $9.5 million figure is very, very speculative to me. That will be hard for him to prove.
 
Cookie917 said:
Yeah I understand what Staples wrote. He is not wrong for saying that contract is at the heart of the lawsuit, the entire lawsuit is about a broken promise to pay 13.85 million. But if he meant the lawsuit is over the contract I would argue that is wrong. His tweet does not say that the contract was attached to the complaint or they were trying to enforce it. He just got a copy of the collective contract and posted it. I just read the entire complaint and nothing even purports to attach a contract or any document.

Here is a link to the actual complaint filed:

Click to expand...


This is completely true.

NOT a "contract breach" lawsuit.

At the same time, the breached contract is a PART of the overall presentation of facts as to what happened.

Essentially, everyone told Rashada "hey, the reason we are breaching is NOT because we don't have money, but because we need to find a different funding vehicle, since Hathnocock is about to sell his company and we can no longer use it as our personal piggy bank".

Of course, anyone with a brain woulda/coulda/shoulda realized that...SUDDENLY...Hathnocock was selling his company? And he didn't know that fact ONE DAY PRIOR?

It's all a pile of Gator bull****. Doesn't mean they didn't try to bamboozle the Rashadas, because they sure as **** did.
 
Bender said:
I highly doubt we've been given full information here.

Rashada isn't suing unless the likelihood of money being paid out via a settlement is fairly high. Which means some form of contractual violation has taken place.
Click to expand...


If you win a breach of contract action, you may get the promised contractual payout.

If you win a fraudulent inducement/tortious interference case, you may get actual damages AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
 
AlexCane said:
First, whatever Ruiz has said doesn't matter. I assume that there was a contract floated around. I don't know Rashada's lawyers (although I know he represented Deshaun Watson and I read was generally well regarded) but most lawyers are very, very careful about what they put in pleadings--particularly in federal court. So, if they're saying $9.5M, I have to tend to believe there is some actual substantiation for that.

Second, I don't want to get too far into the weeds on legal stuff, but both sides have to dig into that alleged $9.5 million offer. Rashada's camp has to prove it was real money and guaranteed and not contingent. Conversely, UF will want to show that the money was contingent and speculative so a lot of stuff will get on the table about that offer and Miami's deal. Depositions are pretty liberal with discovery so UF's lawyers can get into a whole lot about Rashada's recruitment with UM.
Click to expand...
First point I pointed out previously that Ruiz said Lifewallet and Ruiz did not have a deal for that amount, he did not say that amount did not exist from other sources cobbled together. Ruiz is a lawyer as well as CEO of a publically traded company, I agree what he says likely does not matter but I doubt he would release a completely false statement when he could have said "no comment" I think he chose his words carefully in saying neither me nor my company had a 9.5 million deal and the complaint says the NIL for 9.5 was from "Miami" not ruiz specifically so it could all check out. I agree with you that Rusty likely has some ammo for the 9.5 million statement. I think people are lumping together a MIAMI deal for 9.5 mil and a 150k re-payment to Ruiz. I assume Ruiz was funding a large part of the deal and that is all.

Second, I agree depos are liberal but if I am UM counsel and UF lawyer starts to get into the weeds I am simply saying dont respond and we can go see the Court and see what happens. As far as what was contingent and guaranteed that again should all be in the contract. I assume it was not guaranteed and was likely structured similar to UF's deal. Monthly payments, appearances, stay enrolled in a secondary education etc. all speculative and contingent upon him doing stuff over the years. But again why the negotiations leading up to the signed agreement would be relevant misses me. He could have demanded 10 million guaranteed and we countered with 2 million guaranteed and then eventually got to the 9.5 million, the negotiations are irrelevant since they were never agreed. Only the final agreed version would be relevant I assume. He cant say "I would have taken the 2 mil guaranteed" now if he didnt back then.
 
Advertisement
Peachycarnahan said:
I just looked at the original complaint in the link and it has the case number in the caption and it was the first document filed in the CM/ECF Pacer Portal as ECF No. 1. Anyone who files know how the author/filer of the original complaint could know the case number before actually filing the complaint? I'm guessing the person who uploaded it for public consumption used the edit function on Adobe Acrobat Pro and wrote in the case number after it received the filing information we see printed at the top of every page.
Click to expand...
My guess is the complaint had no case number when filed and the clerk assigned the case number and input it on the document before putting it on the docket and then the person who posted it just grabbed the filed copy.
 
Cookie917 said:
First point I pointed out previously that Ruiz said Lifewallet and Ruiz did not have a deal for that amount, he did not say that amount did not exist from other sources cobbled together. Ruiz is a lawyer as well as CEO of a publically traded company, I agree what he says likely does not matter but I doubt he would release a completely false statement when he could have said "no comment" I think he chose his words carefully in saying neither me nor my company had a 9.5 million deal and the complaint says the NIL for 9.5 was from "Miami" not ruiz specifically so it could all check out. I agree with you that Rusty likely has some ammo for the 9.5 million statement. I think people are lumping together a MIAMI deal for 9.5 mil and a 150k re-payment to Ruiz. I assume Ruiz was funding a large part of the deal and that is all.

Second, I agree depos are liberal but if I am UM counsel and UF lawyer starts to get into the weeds I am simply saying dont respond and we can go see the Court and see what happens. As far as what was contingent and guaranteed that again should all be in the contract. I assume it was not guaranteed and was likely structured similar to UF's deal. Monthly payments, appearances, stay enrolled in a secondary education etc. all speculative and contingent upon him doing stuff over the years. But again why the negotiations leading up to the signed agreement would be relevant misses me. He could have demanded 10 million guaranteed and we countered with 2 million guaranteed and then eventually got to the 9.5 million, the negotiations are irrelevant since they were never agreed. Only the final agreed version would be relevant I assume. He cant say "I would have taken the 2 mil guaranteed" now if he didnt back then.
Click to expand...
Not happening, brother. That'll get you sanctioned in federal court.
 
Cookie917 said:
I dont see this being an unpopular opinion. Seems pretty basic. I would just add a few caveats....

1. Ruiz did not say Rashada never had a 9.5 million deal on the table. He said Lifewallet and Ruiz never had a deal for 9.5 million. He could have agreed to pay him 6 million and the canes collective paid him the other 3.5 million. Ruiz seemed to choose his words carefully and him being a lawyer is not surprising if he is electing to toe that line.

2. If you want to see Rashada's NIL agreement it was posted, I can send it to you if you want but I did not see anything about playing time but enrollment in a secondary education institution as defined by fla stat was in there.

3. Yes it could be seen as rewarding kids for de-comitting and playing games, it could also be seen as forcing individuals on the other side to follow-through on promises.

4. like you mentioned, if the kids want to be treated as employees, welcome to adulthood but take the same analogous situation and put it in the real world. I am unsure what you do for a living but I was headhunted to be at my current employer from my previous. I was employed at my old employer, thus "committed" to them, however new employer swooped in and promised me more money. It was a very good deal so I took that to my current employer as a courtesy if they wanted to match who said they were unable to match. I then quit and went to work for my new and current employer. If in that exact scenario I quit but then new employer re-negged on their offer of more money and now I am unemployed do you see that as I made an ill-informed decision or the cold call new employer induced me to quit then left me up **** creek?
Click to expand...

1. Yes, pls send the NIL deal. Would love to read it.

2. I’m in Risk Management, Financial Planning. However, I’m independent (well, will be fully independent once a loose end ties up), b/c of ur #4 example.

The company I used to work for had a document that was never updated from the 1970’s signed on & approved by both the BOT & Branch Mgrs who represented the interest of employees. That doc stated (in part) the company could make changes to our comp plan at any given moment. B/c everyone was making hand over fist $$, & each CEO/Board Member worked from the bottom to the top, there were no issues. The execs would “generally” meet w/ employees to discuss major changes that created financial changes, and they would “generally” err on the side of what the employees wanted…that was until for the 1st time in company’s history they hired outsiders, outsiders who never were at ground zero & didn’t understand nor care for the culture. They felt employees should never make more than ANY officer of the company.

B/c of that doc, they had the right to adjust goals, parameters, financial compensation even mid year. Now, as an employee I had two options: 1. Figure it out & make the company kiss my *** as I still made more $$ than their bytch asses or 2. Look elsewhere.

I did choose to look elsewhere 3 yrs after the new guys came in, & b/c of my experience & the reputation of the company I worked for, I was offered something better, verbally, by a competitor; BUT, when I asked for it in writing, however, I was told it was a verbal offer. That made me skittish, b/c I know verbal means chit. It means contingent, not guaranteed. So I stayed put.

That’s adulthood, & sometimes the grass is not always greener on the other side. But yeah, pls send that NIL to me. Appreciate u
 
AlexCane said:
The problem for Rashada is that I imagine UM's NIL deal was renewable or contingent and so even if maybe he could have made $9.5 M over the course of a 4 year "contract," if he stunk it up year 1 and was "encouraged" to go elsewhere, UM would not have any further commitment to him. So the $9.5 million figure is very, very speculative to me. That will be hard for him to prove.
Click to expand...
I think the speculation of compensatory damages is somewhat weak for the reasons you say. I think however Rusty is going to target punitive damages so then it is **** the compensatory. It could be 1 dollar. I assume UM guaranteed him at least a dollar, so Court could find he lost out only on a dollar in compensatory but wants to "punish" the defendants and throw out some insane figure. I think that is why Rusty threw that jab in the complaint about Hugh claiming he was worth 500mil. Punitives can relate to a person's income. Basically a 5k punitive damage for me or you may be different than 5k for Hugh as in that would punish you or I and Hugh could have it missing out of his wallet and not even know.
 
AlexCane said:
Not happening, brother. That'll get you sanctioned in federal court.
Click to expand...
You would need a foundation but there are some things that are off limits. Such as personal finances. If they get Ruiz in a depo and start asking him about his investments and where he would come up with the money you think he would be forced to answer? I doubt he would until a Judge forced him to. Or perhaps they keep it confidential. Argue it is UM Collective's trade secrets and thus cannot be published. Otherwise what is the sanction? 1,000 bucks and an order to answer the question? If so then so be it but if they (UF) cannot prove a good faith basis for asking the questions then I think they could be sanctioned.
 
AlexCane said:
The problem for Rashada is that I imagine UM's NIL deal was renewable or contingent and so even if maybe he could have made $9.5 M over the course of a 4 year "contract," if he stunk it up year 1 and was "encouraged" to go elsewhere, UM would not have any further commitment to him. So the $9.5 million figure is very, very speculative to me. That will be hard for him to prove.
Click to expand...
Tough to prove all the elements of fraud in the inducement + clear damages. But, hopefully, the threat of public records requests and heavy discovery will be enough to either make UF squirm or make them look really bad.
 
Rellyrell said:
1. Yes, pls send the NIL deal. Would love to read it.

2. I’m in Risk Management, Financial Planning. However, I’m independent (well, will be fully independent once a loose end ties up), b/c of ur #4 example.

The company I used to work for had a document that was never updated from the 1970’s signed on & approved by both the BOT & Branch Mgrs who represented the interest of employees. That doc stated (in part) the company could make changes to our comp plan at any given moment. B/c everyone was making hand over fist $$, & each CEO/Board Member worked from the bottom to the top, there were no issues. The execs would “generally” meet w/ employees to discuss major changes that created financial changes, and they would “generally” err on the side of what the employees wanted…that was until for the 1st time in company’s history they hired outsiders, outsiders who never were at ground zero & didn’t understand nor care for the culture. They felt employees should never make more than ANY officer of the company.

B/c of that doc, they had the right to adjust goals, parameters, financial compensation even mid year. Now, as an employee I had two options: 1. Figure it out & make the company kiss my *** as I still made more $$ than their bytch asses or 2. Look elsewhere.

I did choose to look elsewhere 3 yrs after the new guys came in, & b/c of my experience & the reputation of the company I worked for, I was offered something better, verbally, by a competitor; BUT, when I asked for it in writing, however, I was told it was a verbal offer. That made me skittish, b/c I know verbal means chit. It means contingent, not guaranteed. So I stayed put.

That’s adulthood, & sometimes the grass is not always greener on the other side. But yeah, pls send that NIL to me. Appreciate u
Click to expand...
Check your PM, sent. and yeah see you were smart, it was a verbal offer and the fact they were hesitant to put it in writing made your radar go off. I think Rashada's radar did go off after they DID put his NIL offer in writing, he signed it and Hugh started bragging about it on twitter. Then they cancel but tell him its okay, it is still guaranteed, we just had to change the pay structure. Someone more in the know than me can confirm but I believe this was in early December around the same time Rashada looped back around to us and we said no thanks.

Then at that point he waited to sign his NLI to FLorida, but a call from the HC who allegedly promised him a new payment was coming so he signed it. The latter I believe is what you are referencing and I agree. He got played and did it to himself. It is the former that I think holds more water. He had a signed deal but UF cancelled and made up an excuse it was because the payor needed to be changed since Hugh was selling his business. Sounds fishy but not completely asinine and they kept stringing him along until it was basically too late and he was out of options.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
You would need a foundation but there are some things that are off limits. Such as personal finances. If they get Ruiz in a depo and start asking him about his investments and where he would come up with the money you think he would be forced to answer? I doubt he would until a Judge forced him to. Or perhaps they keep it confidential. Argue it is UM Collective's trade secrets and thus cannot be published. Otherwise what is the sanction? 1,000 bucks and an order to answer the question? If so then so be it but if they (UF) cannot prove a good faith basis for asking the questions then I think they could be sanctioned.
Click to expand...
Of course there are things that are off limits. But how the recruitment with Miami went isn't.
 
AlexCane said:
Of course there are things that are off limits. But how the recruitment with Miami went isn't.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree, I think there is some grey area, but this also assumes this goes to depositions, in order to depose a non-party on the UM side, I imagine Napier and Hugh would be sitting for depositions. Stuff they likely do not want to do unless they go scorched earth.
 
Cookie917 said:
I think the speculation of compensatory damages is somewhat weak for the reasons you say. I think however Rusty is going to target punitive damages so then it is **** the compensatory. It could be 1 dollar. I assume UM guaranteed him at least a dollar, so Court could find he lost out only on a dollar in compensatory but wants to "punish" the defendants and throw out some insane figure. I think that is why Rusty threw that jab in the complaint about Hugh claiming he was worth 500mil. Punitives can relate to a person's income. Basically a 5k punitive damage for me or you may be different than 5k for Hugh as in that would punish you or I and Hugh could have it missing out of his wallet and not even know.
Click to expand...
This isn't a punitive damage case. Based on what's pled, it doesn't meet the legal standard IMO.
 
AlexCane said:
This isn't a punitive damage case. Based on what's pled, it doesn't meet the legal standard IMO.
Click to expand...
Could be or could not be but they did request them. If I am Hugh I am not wanting that proffer of evidence to occur to open financial discovery on myself. Like you said the bar for relevant discovery is low. Same for punitives IMO, only need to show a "reasonable" showing or basis, both are low bars.
 
Back
Top