forums

Wisconsin officially sues Miami over Xavier Lucas

Advertisement
https://tenor.com/search/sloth-yawn-gifs
Sloth Yawn GIFs | Tenor

IF X HAD NO INTEREST HERE, THERE WOULD BE NO “TAMPERING”…
 
Last edited:
Schnelly'sPipe said:
A jury trial in Madison for this bull****!?! wtf kind of back woods badger ****ery is this!?
shocked the princess bride GIF
Click to expand...
This is routine- everyone asks for a jury in their initial pleading- it's kind of like deferring the option to receive a kickoff in a football game. If it ever gets that far, remember there are probably more people in Madison who don't like football than true fans. All of you who have college-aged daughters likely know what I mean.
 
hcanes100 said:
I'm no lawyer, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I like to study it. I said it from the beginning, what is the "Win" here for Wisconsin.

This is basically the why. Do you win what damages, but get raked over the coals in discovery and also recruiting takes a MASSIVE hit here? I just don't understand the why here. There is a reason many others passed on trying this.
Click to expand...
The “why” is because it’s Miami. I know this. You know this. We all know this. I want you to ask yourself honestly: If this were literally any other program other than Miami that was involved do you think they would be taking it this far?
 
DoctorKrazey said:
The “why” is because it’s Miami. I know this. You know this. We all know this. I want you to ask yourself honestly: If this were literally any other program other than Miami that was involved do you think they would be taking it this far?
Click to expand...
For as much as Mario fell short and didn’t finish the job last year the idea of Miami getting into the playoffs are winning in national title in an era where you can pay players look out
 
DoctorKrazey said:
The “why” is because it’s Miami. I know this. You know this. We all know this. I want you to ask yourself honestly: If this were literally any other program other than Miami that was involved do you think they would be taking it this far?
Click to expand...
Honestly, yes. Because this suit isn’t about Miami at all as much as it’s the conference’s shot in the dark to try to get their model agreement rubber stamped by a court.
 
caneingville said:
Just saw that in addition to money damages, the plaintiffs are also asking for a declaratory judgment. I imagine the Big10 would want this in federal court then, otherwise what’s the point of trying to establish precedent? UW just wants Wisconsin state law applied.
Click to expand...
I hope it can be removed. We can’t get a fair trial in Wisconsin
 
Advertisement
Calinative said:
www.on3.com

Wisconsin's lawsuit against Miami is about tampering, but it could mean much more

Wisconsin's lawsuit against Miami over cornerback Xavier Lucas might deter tampering, or it could completely blow up in the schools' faces.
www.on3.com www.on3.com
Click to expand...
From the article:

After a clause about the loss of a “student-athlete with valuable NIL rights” — which makes sense in the context of losing the paid endorser Wisconsin is purporting Lucas to be — plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote this: “Further harms include the loss of financial benefits UW-Madison stood to receive from Student-Athlete A’s continued participation in its football program.” If Wisconsin wasn’t paying Lucas to play football, then why would that matter in the context of the case?

AND

Or the lawsuit be a lot of noise without an intent to follow through. Wisconsin’s complaint is intentionally vague. Often, plaintiffs will include a copy of the contract in question as an exhibit. Wisconsin opted not to do that in this case, presumably because the schools do not want that contract language released to the public.


Bingo.

Article basically summed up every single point we’ve said here in this thread. Andy’s not bad, for a Gator.
 
caneingville said:
From the article:

After a clause about the loss of a “student-athlete with valuable NIL rights” — which makes sense in the context of losing the paid endorser Wisconsin is purporting Lucas to be — plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote this: “Further harms include the loss of financial benefits UW-Madison stood to receive from Student-Athlete A’s continued participation in its football program.” If Wisconsin wasn’t paying Lucas to play football, then why would that matter in the context of the case?

AND

Or the lawsuit be a lot of noise without an intent to follow through. Wisconsin’s complaint is intentionally vague. Often, plaintiffs will include a copy of the contract in question as an exhibit. Wisconsin opted not to do that in this case, presumably because the schools do not want that contract language released to the public.


Bingo.

Article basically summed up every single point we’ve said here in this thread. Andy’s not bad, for a Gator.
Click to expand...


At a certain point, the two contracts will need to be produced.

Hopefully, nobody will leave them on the photocopier...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
At a certain point, the two contracts will need to be produced.

Hopefully, nobody will leave them on the photocopier...
Click to expand...
I think they’re just trying to postpone the inevitable for as long as possible. They know they can’t file this type of suit without ever producing the agreements. But if they can keep using them in the meantime and getting recruits to sign, while keeping the PR focus off the real issue, then why not? Business as usual.

Btw, you slipped and called them contracts!
 
An attorney on TOS used the term "terminable at will contracts" to describe the realistic view of existing NIL agreements in the era of the ultra permissive transfer portal. He believes that that reality will be the biggest legal challenge to WU attempting to get any rulings on tortious interference.
 
Rickd said:
An attorney on TOS used the term "terminable at will contracts" to describe the realistic view of existing NIL agreements in the era of the ultra permissive transfer portal. He believes that that reality will be the biggest legal challenge to WU attempting to get any rulings on tortious interference.
Click to expand...

On the deal with the Wisconsin collective, yes. It’s the same-old same-old with NIL-collective deals.

But the Wisconsin rev-share MOU is a new thing. So we really don’t know how the first judge would compare it to traditional NIL deals.

The better defense would simply be to argue that the MOU isn’t a contract. Because it isn’t a contract.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top