forums

Wisconsin officially sues Miami over Xavier Lucas

Advertisement
Election 2020 GIF by CBS News
 
Rickd said:
Not an attorney ... but this looks like a decent interpretation of the issues being presented ... and if at all accurate it is a 100% win for Miami.
Click to expand...

There are too many flimsy arguments and holes in Wisconsins case to win. Them proving and winning on all of the questionable issues is highly improbable imo.
 
Advertisement
Like you mentioned at the top of the video, I was a bit disturbed to learn that the B1G is the "man behind the curtain". Should we be worried that they've retained Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe?
 
TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...
I haven’t been following but are there any illusory contract issues given that the contract was based on a future law being passed or whatever it was???
 
Fart Keyhole said:
Like you mentioned at the top of the video, I was a bit disturbed to learn that the B1G is the "man behind the curtain". Should we be worried that they've retained Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe?
Click to expand...


I would not be too worried right now. The Big 10 has to do SOMETHING to validate all these prospective rev-share deals that all the Big 10 athletes signed last year. I think this is a gentlemen's lawsuit (for now) and I wouldn't be surprised if it lost steam once the season starts.

I'd be curious to know how many rev-share deals were for TWO years, and how many of these players retained SMART representation that red-lined them down to ONE year.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
I haven’t been following but are there any illusory contract issues given that the contract was based on a future law being passed or whatever it was???
Click to expand...


It wasn't a future law, it was the House lawsuit settlement. And, yes, I would argue that it could be illusory because nobody had any idea what all the terms of the House settlement would include. There were multiple times between December 2024 and today when it seemed like the House settlement would go off the tracks.

Also, the NCAA has not even created the system to administer the House settlement. So if you say "hey, we're gonna pay you contingent upon the House settlement", and then the NCAA can't get its **** together in time, WHEN WILL THE PLAYERS GET PAID? And will they get paid? Nobody knows. Would be funny if Wisconsin followed the contract and paid all the players directly, and then the NCAA decides that was illegal and that it was Wisconsin's second NCAA violation within months and Wisconsin got the death penalty...
 
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...
One of the elements to proving tortious interference is that the poacher knows of the contract. This assertion in the article (if accurate) that the contract is "proprietary" could be problematic for UW. I'm wondering if the contract Lucas signed has a confidentiality provision (presumably to keep the players from posting it on the internet). That little bug could tank UW's case.
 
Back
Top