forums

Tears Gator Tears

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.
 
Advertisement
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.
 
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.
 
Advertisement
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...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
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...
Click to expand...
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...
@wspcane makes the best legal argument anyone in this nonsense has because Rashada arguably has identifiable damages, unlike UF.
and if Rashada does sue, this will be a big factor in the NIL world going forward; a college better not promise what it can’t deliver because if the student-athlete relies on that promise ot his detriment, he can sue.

This is not an outrageous idea and it maybe why UF is already trying to redirect blame from their collective to an individual booster.
 
AtlAtty said:
@wspcane makes the best legal argument anyone in this nonsense has because Rashada arguably has identifiable damages, unlike UF.
and if Rashada does sue, this will be a big factor in the NIL world going forward; a college better not promise what it can’t deliver because if the student-athlete relies on that promise ot his detriment, he can sue.

This is not an outrageous idea and it maybe why UF is already trying to redirect blame from their collective to an individual booster.
Click to expand...

this ☝️
 
AtlAtty said:
@wspcane makes the best legal argument anyone in this nonsense has because Rashada arguably has identifiable damages, unlike UF.
and if Rashada does sue, this will be a big factor in the NIL world going forward; a college better not promise what it can’t deliver because if the student-athlete relies on that promise ot his detriment, he can sue.

This is not an outrageous idea and it maybe why UF is already trying to redirect blame from their collective to an individual booster.
Click to expand...


Truth.

And for the record, it's STILL an interesting discussion to have on promissory estoppel vis-a-vis HathNoCock. Imagine if UiF started building a building.

Obviously, if the Gaytors went down this pathway, it's unlikely they'd never be able to use the blue Lambo for another recruiting weekend...
 
Advertisement
More Rashada...

1673994451879.png
 
TheOriginalCane said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing but I will try to clear it up. I have never heard of something being sued and Count I of the complaint is for "Promissory Estoppel" I think that is just a defense. If Heitner is asking for the promise to be enforced then that is just breach of contract. We had a deal, your did not pay, you breached, I want a money judgment for damages correct? and those damages would be based on what Rashada gets. (Otherwise GC has no damages)

I dont know how you "enforce" a promise to pay. That would seem to be injunctive relief (which would be inapplicable IMO) or specific performance which again I do not think would be applicable. So it would just be a money judgment.

That is why I thought Heitner saying he has a "claim" for promissory estoppel is BS and my earlier post (and ATL's) I think clarified that Rashada would need to sue the GC then GC would need to state promissory estoppel as a defense and drag the booster into it and say exactly what you said, basically admitting we breached the contract with Rashada but we are not responsible as a matter of avoidance and booster is responsible because we detrimentally relied on his promise so Rasahda gets X money judgment against GC, GC gets money judgment against booster.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
I think we are saying the same thing but I will try to clear it up. I have never heard of something being sued and Count I of the complaint is for "Promissory Estoppel" I think that is just a defense. If Heitner is asking for the promise to be enforced then that is just breach of contract. We had a deal, your did not pay, you breached, I want a money judgment for damages correct?

I dont know how you "enforce" a promise to pay. That would seem to be injunctive relief (which would be inapplicable IMO) or specific performance which again I do not think would be applicable. So it would just be a money judgment.

That is why I thought Heitner saying he has a "claim" for promissory estoppel is BS and my earlier post (and ATL's) I think clarified that Rashada would need to sue the GC then GC would need to state promissory estoppel as a defense and drag the booster into it and say exactly what you said, basically admitting we breached the contract with Rashada but we are not responsible as a matter of avoidance and booster is responsible because we detrimentally relied on his promise so Rasahda gets X money judgment against GC, GC gets money judgment against booster.
Click to expand...


No, it's not an affirmative defense. It's a real assertion. It is an argument used when there is no consideration. It is an argument that is an ALTERNATIVE to consideration.

I gave a similar example above (in response to @AtlAtty . So if Hugh HathNoCock promised to give $15 million to build a building, and then halfway through construction he reneges on his promise, UiF might ask a court to use promissory estoppel to compel HathNoCock to make the promised payments. So even though the promise between HathNoCock and UF was a gratuitious promise, and lacked the mutual consideration to be a contract, the University then detrimentally relied on this promise to enter into a separate contract with a builder to construct the $15 million building. And the argument to the court is for the court to compel HathNoCock to make good on his promise.

That's all.

I'm not saying it will definitely succeed, and there are certainly massive PR risks. But that's the legal strategy in a nutshell. Again, it's fun for conversation, but it's fairly unlikely to actually happen.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
No, it's not an affirmative defense. It's a real assertion. It is an argument used when there is no consideration. It is an argument that is an ALTERNATIVE to consideration.

I gave a similar example above (in response to @AtlAtty . So if Hugh HathNoCock promised to give $15 million to build a building, and then halfway through construction he reneges on his promise, UiF might ask a court to use promissory estoppel to compel HathNoCock to make the promised payments. So even though the promise between HathNoCock and UF was a gratuitious promise, and lacked the mutual consideration to be a contract, the University then detrimentally relied on this promise to enter into a separate contract with a builder to construct the $15 million building. And the argument to the court is for the court to compel HathNoCock to make good on his promise.

That's all.

I'm not saying it will definitely succeed, and there are certainly massive PR risks. But that's the legal strategy in a nutshell. Again, it's fun for conversation, but it's fairly unlikely to actually happen.
Click to expand...
In that case I am also interested in what was said or agreed to between GC and the booster. I would assume the GC would get something in writing from a booster instead of just some oral promise. UF needs to 1. pay him immediately, have him enroll in summer and the drama will die down, or 2. cut ties immediately, grant him his release, and go off into the shadows.
 
Advertisement
Cookie917 said:
In that case I am also interested in what was said or agreed to between GC and the booster. I would assume the GC would get something in writing from a booster instead of just some oral promise. UF needs to 1. pay him immediately, have him enroll in summer and the drama will die down, or 2. cut ties immediately, grant him his release, and go off into the shadows.
Click to expand...


What is so fascinating about this whole thing is that the GC and GG organizations are an attempt to be so "uncoordinated" as a kind of defense against the NCAA. As in, "all the money is over here at GG, but it's GC that's out there doing deals, and the separation provides a reasonable subtext for denying that there is a linkage".

And, of course, that's also the greatest weakness, as in "what if GG is shocked beyond recognition at the insane deal just struck by GC and exercises its right NOT to write a blank check".

I'm not exaggerating here, this is fascinating stuff. Not just legally, but how it is impacted by ego and self-grandeur and competitive insanity.

And let's not forget the most important part...while the reported numbers may not be 100% correct...the final number thrown at Rashada was approximately double what was agreed to with Miami...

...and there were no other bidders...

So Florida was essentially bidding against its reputation as a boring cowtown without much success by a coach not named Spurrier or Meyer...
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Truth.

And for the record, it's STILL an interesting discussion to have on promissory estoppel vis-a-vis HathNoCock. Imagine if UiF started building a building.

Obviously, if the Gaytors went down this pathway, it's unlikely they'd never be able to use the blue Lambo for another recruiting weekend...
Click to expand...
So here’s where it can get interesting. In that example, a charity can rely on the promise of a gift even without using those funds. But is GC a charity? What is its exempt purpose? It’s not existing for education. It clearly doesn’t exist for amateur sports.

It also doesn’t mean it makes good business sense to sue contributors.

Schadenfreude.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top