forums

wisconsin and b10 are full of ****

Advertisement
AtlAtty said:
The hypocrisy of giving schools the ability to increase or decrease the player’s pay based on performance while still saying it isn’t pay for play? People should be ashamed of themselves for writing and enforcing this.
Click to expand...
They’re a monopoly as I see it and it feels like they’re colluding to take advantage of college ball players. Talk about unfair labor practices.
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
Memorandum of Understanding
Click to expand...
Think of it as like a blue print or draft of the contract before it’s formalized. But it rarely can be enforced in and of itself @Cajuncane unless some consideration (money as an example) has been exchanged. And even then it’s still not likely.

Fwiw bill belicheck and Mike Lombardi are working under mou reportedly and according to Lombardi he has been paid, but their contract still not signed. But that would have a better chance being enforced or at least cause negotiations out of court as there are not a set of conditions that don’t yet exist in it . What we are hearing about these big ten or Wisconsin ones have at least two things not even active yet PLUS the baseline template is so blatantly unbalanced that even an ambulance chaser with no NIL/IP/sports experience could use ai argument to get of it in most courts
 
Last edited:
RVACane said:
Memorandum of Understanding
Click to expand...
To add to what @Ispyin said, the judge is set to possibly approve the final settlement in the House v. NCAA case on April 7, which would give revenue-sharing capabilities to the schools and athletes. However, she has also stated she has some issues with the proposed settlement, and there is by no means a guarantee that she will approve it in April. The MOU (and thus, UW and the B10) presumes that the settlement is approved already - not just in the future. In other words, they put the horse wayyyyyy before the cart and got caught.

Further, @TheOriginalCane has it on good authority that the B10 MOU that was cited in the Sportico article was the main contract using the one-sided unfair language that is unfair to the athletes. However, UW also added two-year grant of rights language as well. So there are at least two versions of this MOU that B10 schools are using. (Heitner did mention in the Lockedin Canes podcast interview today that not all B10 school are using the MOU though, which is very interesting. So at least some schools may have morals? Or maybe it’s just the new ones from the Pac12?)
 
Ispyin said:
Think of it as like a blue print or draft of the contract before it’s formalized. But ir rarely can be enforced in and of itself @Cajuncane unless some consideration (money as an example) has been exchanged. And even then it’s still not likely.

Fwiw bill belichyand Mike Lombardi are working under mou reportedly and according to Lombardi he has been paid, but their contract still not signed. But that would have a better chance being enforced or at least cause negotiations out of court as there are not a set of conditions that don’t yet exist in it . What we are hearing about these big ten or Wisconsin ones have at least two things not even active yet PLUS the baseline template is so blatantly unbalanced that even an ambulance chaser with no NIL/IP/sports experience could use ai argument to get of it in most courts
Click to expand...
Fun wrestling story related to this situation.

Scott Hall and Kevin Nash joined WCW in May 1996 at an unadjusted, very high $750K per year. They worked - and were paid - by Turner throughout the summer.

During this time WCW initially insinuated that they were actually still WWF wrestlers, making fans think that Razor Ramon (Hall) and Diesel (Nash) had invaded. The WWF ultimately sued, but part of their legal preparations they decided quietly to enforce their trademarks and had two other wrestlers adopt the Razor Ramon and Diesel trademarks.

In September 1996 WWF announced on television that Diesel and Razor were coming back to the company. Meanwhile in WCW, there was absolute panic. Why? Because Scott Hall and Kevin Nash had never actually signed their contracts.

Legally both Hall and Nash could return to WWF. They’d never signed the contracts, even though they had been getting paid. Turner officials immediately sat them down at the next Nitro and offered them enhanced deals to sign immediately. Hall and Nash received raises off their original unsigned contracts that put them both at about $1M each. The two signed their deals, getting quarter of a million dollar raises without having done a thing. All because WCW had them working under their new deals, without having signed them.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
TheATLCane said:
You think most agents would advise against this?
Click to expand...
absolutely, they'd suggest that safeguards are negotiated into the deal, (mainly what metric will be used to increase/decrease payments) ... wisky was betting on the fact that if everyone signed one it gave the mou credibility, similar to crypto currency, they more folks accept it, the more credible it becomes ... it's shady all around because if lucas doesn't buck the system, they're framework of a illegitimate contract is never exposed
 
Advertisement
Back
Top