CB Xavier Lucas is transferring to Miami

[The U is back to work]

View attachment 318415

Eat **** Wisconsin lurkers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[RVACane]

Did UW hire lawyers who previously worked for and lost case after case for the NCAA? Seems like UW is receiving terrible legal advice between the handling of the Lucas situation, the subsequent defamatory remarks and now refusing to turn over what are clearly public records at a state university.
I guess sometimes you have to fight losing causes just to prove you aren’t giving up. But sometimes the smart money is on walking away.
As Kenny Rogers famously told us,
“you got to know when to hold em,
know when to walk away,
know when to run”

I think the lawyers for Wisconsin might have some room within a FOIA request to prevent disclosure of some things in the context of trade secrets maybe??? I don’t see an attorney client privilege exemption here. I’d think they have to turn some portion of it over.

 

[n0rcalcane]

I think the lawyers for Wisconsin might have some room within a FOIA request to prevent disclosure of some things in the context of trade secrets maybe??? I don’t see an attorney client privilege exemption here. I’d think they have to turn some portion of it over.

Don’t know about Wisconsin’s PRA, but they would likely argue that it would fall under a catchall exemption (if they have one) where the public’s interest is better served by withholding the records.

Would this be governed by FOIA instead because UW receives federal funding?

 

[RVACane]

I think you are 100% correct. And so now we are discussing damages from a freshman DB leaving your school after a season with 12 tackle and 1 INT.
I can understand why UW is upset, and the BIG 10 which felt it had “solved” the annual transfer issue by creating a 2 year contract. But all contracts can be broken. The only issue is damages.

How can their contract be ok with the ncaa when it seems to prevent use of the portal?

 

[RVACane]

Don’t know about Wisconsin’s PRA, but they would likely argue that it would fall under a catchall exemption (if they have one) where the public’s interest is better served by withholding the records.

Would this be governed by FOIA instead because UW receives federal funding?

Yup. I literally deleted public interest exception in my response because I wasn’t sure if that was viable but government agencies can and do argue that.

 

[caneingville]

Couple of responses to that.

I do not believe there is buy-out/opt-out. But there is supposedly a provision in the common template for repayment of money RECEIVED back to the university if a player leaves. I don't believe Xavier has RECEIVED any money yet under the common template rev-share, but this leads directly into my second point.

The second part of the response is the curious one. Rev-share is currently unavailable. Supposedly, the reason that there is a SECOND contractual deal with the Collective is that the Collective may be "fronting" money against future-rev-share distributions. This is what was hinted to me when I was DM'ing with a Wisconsin 247 poster who is an attorney.

In other words, kids on "old" NIL deals still want to get paid between December 2024 and whenever-the-House-settlement-happens-in-2025. So if the Collective gives a kid $50K now, and then once the school can hand out rev share, the first 50K goes to repay the Collective, and then all other future payments are between Wisconsin and the players directly...

The mental gymnastics are exhausting. But this is what was hinted to me, that Big 10 schools might be sliding money to players out of the Collectives, but it's really just a "bridge loan" until the rev-share deals are fully legal.

Weird.

So that’s why Heitner’s trying to work out a settlement. I was very confused when watching his interview yesterday when he said he was speaking to them about negotiating a settlement, but then he also broached the subject of damages. It was inconsistent. But there it is. If Lucas was fronted money by the collective for the rev-sharing, then Wisconsin wants their money back.

But if I’m Lucas’s attorney? Yes, of course you try to negotiate something first to just be done with it. We always do that. In reality, I might just be calling their bluff because I know I have them by the cojones with this ridiculous MOU.

Edit- to be clear, Heitner was saying re: damages that there aren’t any. Same thing we’ve all been saying here.

 

[caneingville]

How can their contract be ok with the ncaa when it seems to prevent use of the portal?

Because the MOU language clearly states that the NCAA bylaws superseded the MOU.

BTW, Heitner spoke to the NCAA’s attorneys prior to Lucas officially leaving UW. He pretty much threatened an antitrust lawsuit and they admitted they are powerless in all this. They know they ****ed up in not controlling it from the start.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So that’s why Heitner’s trying to work out a settlement. I was very confused when watching his interview yesterday when he said he was speaking to them about negotiating a settlement, but then he also broached the subject of damages. It was inconsistent. But there it is. If Lucas was fronted money by the collective for the rev-sharing, then Wisconsin wants their money back.

But if I’m Lucas’s attorney? Yes, of course you try to negotiate something first to just be done with it. We always do that. In reality, I might just be calling their bluff because I know I have them by the cojones with this ridiculous MOU.

Here's the reality. One contract cannot be dependent on another contract the way I described it. And to be clear, Wisconsin can DRAFT anything they want. Xavier Lucas can (ignorantly) sign anything that Wisconsin wants. Doesn't make it enforceable.

So this is what it comes down to. If the Collective agreement did NOT contain a repayment clause, then Xavier Lucas owes the Wisconsin Collective nothing.

As I've alluded to before, if a normal Collective contract gives out over half of the money up-front, and does NOT have a repayment clause, then it's a signing bonus. And believe me, I understand the "emotional" argument of "but we gave money and got nothing". I get it. But that doesn't change anything.

Again, I can't PROVE that this is what the Wisconsin Collective did. But given the pains that Wisconsin took to mention TWO agreements in its nasty press release, and given the fact that the Big 10 and Wisconsin are trying to enact deals MONTHS before the House settlement is finalized, this is not some crazy guess here.

It's still unenforceable. If ANY Wisconsin-affiliated entity (including the Collective) gave Xavier Lucas ANY money between mid-July-2024 and mid-December-2024, and THAT ENTITY does not have a repayment clause, then that money belongs to Xavier Lucas. End of story.

Wisconsin cannot use a FUTURE revenue-sharing agreement to claw back money that it paid (or the Collective paid) previously.

 

[ristwasdown]

Money is peanuts though. Can't we just drop a couple mcdonalds bags off at UW and be done with this?

 

[Hoyacane1620]

Heitner was a guest on The Orange Bowl Boys podcast this morning. He spoke on the Lucas situation with a few new details.

really worth a listen.

 

[pacusmc]

I’m far from a legal mind, but what exactly would whisky be seeking from a legal standpoint?
What monetary or any other benefits would they gain and what grounds are there for legal action against Lucas or um?
It seem that only benefit they gain is any sanctions taken against um or the fear of any other B10 player taking g the Lucas route.

No way they Lucas is on the hook for money he “may” have gotten in the future.

“Hey Coach this MOU is worthless”

“Yeah but they’re gonna sue your *** anyway if you leave. You don’t want to be another Lucas. Trust me he’s in the hook for a lot of money”

“Umm ….yeah…: but how do I trust you if you said nobody could transfer after they signed”

 

[d--1]

Heitner was a guest on The Orange Bowl Boys podcast this morning. He spoke on the Lucas situation with a few new details.

really worth a listen.

Thanks needed another pod for a drive today

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I’m far from a legal mind, but what exactly would whisky be seeking from a legal standpoint?
What monetary or any other benefits would they gain and what grounds are there for legal action against Lucas or um?
It seem that only benefit they gain is any sanctions taken against um or the fear of any other B10 player taking g the Lucas route.

No way they Lucas is on the hook for money he “may” have gotten in the future.

“Hey Coach this MOU is worthless”

“Yeah but they’re gonna sue your *** anyway if you leave. You don’t want to be another Lucas. Trust me he’s in the hook for a lot of money”

“Umm ….yeah…: but how do I trust you if you said nobody could transfer after they signed”

There are two primary things we can speculate on.

First, by issuing public statements and/or filing lawsuits, Wisconsin hopes to demonstrate that the MOU's and/or any other contracts they have proffered to student-athletes within the last 6 months (and possibly the next 6 months) are ENFORCEABLE.

Second, to the extent that my educated guess might be true (the Collective fronted money against the future rev-share deals), Wisconsin would be trying to claw back money that has already been paid.

 

[brcane1]

Every hour that passes without a filing by the Badger makes it more likely they will do nothing.

 

[pacusmc]

There are two primary things we can speculate on.

First, by issuing public statements and/or filing lawsuits, Wisconsin hopes to demonstrate that the MOU's and/or any other contracts they have proffered to student-athletes within the last 6 months (and possibly the next 6 months) are ENFORCEABLE.

Second, to the extent that my educated guess might be true (the Collective fronted money against the future rev-share deals), Wisconsin would be trying to claw back money that has already been paid.

Damm, that seems like a reach. Seems like a lot of money being spent on a potential nothing burger.

But they’re likely trying to get any little W they can and also trying to hold off any players thinking about transferring.

 

[Ispyin]

Eat **** Wisconsin lurkers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are Miami. We have to up our game

glass houses you cheese curd eating brandy drinking house of pain singing *******!

 

[theribdoctor]

There are two primary things we can speculate on.

First, by issuing public statements and/or filing lawsuits, Wisconsin hopes to demonstrate that the MOU's and/or any other contracts they have proffered to student-athletes within the last 6 months (and possibly the next 6 months) are ENFORCEABLE.

Second, to the extent that my educated guess might be true (the Collective fronted money against the future rev-share deals), Wisconsin would be trying to claw back money that has already been paid.

but correct me if I'm wrong, a University can not offer NIL on their own...so is it Wisconsin or is it a collective that may or may not sue Miami and XL?

either way I think it's just a court of public opinion thing and they won't actually do anything.

 

[CanesLifer2]

but correct me if I'm wrong, a University can not offer NIL on their own...so is it Wisconsin or is it a collective that may or may not sue Miami and XL?

either way I think it's just a court of public opinion thing and they won't actually do anything.

There is now a rule/agreement that schools can pay their athletes if all sports with a total of 20m. So you may see it allocated like this, 15m football, 3m basketball, 2m all other sports etc.

If my understanding is correct, the schools agreement with Lucas is in regards to the above which isn’t yet allowed.

I don’t believe it is allowed until summer time -ish and must be passed by some sort of government agency (house or senate or something idk)

I could be wrong and have not looked anything up in awhile but this is just me racking my brain to remember the situation

 

[TheOriginalCane]

but correct me if I'm wrong, a University can not offer NIL on their own...so is it Wisconsin or is it a collective that may or may not sue Miami and XL?

either way I think it's just a court of public opinion thing and they won't actually do anything.

To clarify, I believe the "right to repayment" is in the Wisconsin rev-share agreement, while the actual flow of funds is in the Wisconsin Collective NIL agreement.

Which, of course, means Wisconsin is probably ****-out-of-luck.

But it does NOT reduce the Badger butthurt feelings about "paying some money" and then feeling "ripped off".

Hey, try new ****...you might **** it up and be left holding the bag...

 

[AtlAtty]

How can their contract be ok with the ncaa when it seems to prevent use of the portal?

Great question. Does the NCAA even exist anymore, since it certainly seems like no one pays attention to it anymore.