Even though the contract states $390K as liquidated damages, it doesn't seem like they'll get it. But they will likely get something.

I'd like to see some framework around this process. If a player is under contract, they can't negotiate with another school. You certainly don't see that in other professional sports leagues (which is essentially what CFB has become). It would require teams essentially saying, "you're already under contract with another school, so we can't deal with you until you've either played out that contract or been released from it".

Quote:

---

I'd like to see some framework around this process. If a player is under contract, they can't negotiate with another school. You certainly don't see that in other professional sports leagues (which is essentially what CFB has become). It would require teams essentially saying, "you're already under contract with another school, so we can't deal with you until you've either played out that contract or been released from it".

---

Agree, need more clarity as these are personal service contracts. Can't force specific performance as a remedy (not that anyone would want to even if they could) so that leaves either an injunction against playing for anyone else (unlikely) or monetary damages.

No problem with it if it's in the contract and is enforceable. These players are adults making adult business decisions. They can hire lawyers to handle their contracts. This is no different than if a CFB coach with a $10 million penalty for leaving were to coach for one year at $5 million per year and then leave to take a better job. He'd owe $10 million after only being paid $5 million. His hiring school would likely pay it, and it seems like this kid should have read his contract and asked the school where he was transferring to pay his penalty for leaving.

No sympathy. You're an adult. You signed a contract. Either comply with it or go try to defend yourself in the courtroom.

These kids need to learn they don't run the show. If you sign a contract you're done

northeastag said:

---

Even though the contract states $390K as liquidated damages, it doesn't seem like they'll get it. But they will likely get something.

---

Why? Why would GA not get EXACTLY what both parties freely, knowingly, and willingly agreed to?

northeastag said:

---

I'd like to see some framework around this process. If a player is under contract, they can't negotiate with another school. You certainly don't see that in other professional sports leagues (which is essentially what CFB has become). It would require teams essentially saying, "you're already under contract with another school, so we can't deal with you until you've either played out that contract or been released from it".

---

What? So you have to be out of work before you can talk to someone else? That makes no sense in any industry and, as a result, it's simply not how it works. It's a free world. People can talk/negotiate and work whatever they want. What they're not free to do is breach an agreement where they agreed to pay something if they decide to go somewhere else. It's the same as a buyout clause we see in effect all the time.

texag101 said:

---

northeastag said:

---

Even though the contract states $390K as liquidated damages, it doesn't seem like they'll get it. But they will likely get something.

---

Why? Why would GA not get EXACTLY what both parties freely, knowingly, and willingly agreed to?

---

Does he even have $390K? Because even if Georgia wins, collecting that is moot point if he doesn't have the money.

Quote:

---

What? So you have to be out of work before you can talk to someone else? That makes no sense in any industry and, as a result, it's simply not how it works.

---

Not exactly. If employees are designated key employees and put under employment contracts? There is such a cause of action such as "raiding key employees" as a business tort, usually in a antitrust theft of trade secrets type case.

Now those types of arrangements, such as a noncompete clause have to be restricted to a specific time frame and geographical location but they can be enforceable within those limited terms.

This is a lawyers dream…..

Many of them are going to get PAID….

Yet another reason to hate what college football has become.

Hope this backfires on Georgia

nai06 said:

---

texag101 said:

---

northeastag said:

---

Even though the contract states $390K as liquidated damages, it doesn't seem like they'll get it. But they will likely get something.

---

Why? Why would GA not get EXACTLY what both parties freely, knowingly, and willingly agreed to?

---

Does he even have $390K? Because even if Georgia wins, collecting that is moot point if he doesn't have the money.

---

Nobody knows. It's entirely possible Missouri gave him $390K specifically to pay his contract off, and he decided to pocket it. It's also possible the kid and his agent never read the contract and had no idea the clause was in there. There isn't enough information on the article to really know who is getting screwed here.

Hill08 said:

---

These kids need to learn they don't run the show. If you sign a contract you're done

---

Like student loans? That genie is already out of the bottle.

Some posters here are thinking these contracts are just ordinary ones. They are not. These are athletes who have unique talents and abilities, top of the contract hierarchy. Labor works in a different manner at that level.

Think Carroll Shelby and Ford versus Ferrari type of situation. Would Ford really want to lose Shelby to their competitor? Hell, no. Ford would have every reason to lock him and his services down. If he wasn't producing, they can always cut him loose.

I have signed several noncompete clauses in my career(s) because new owners didn't want me to take my client base with me. (Not necessarily only legal clients.) Not everyone is created equal in terms of skills and abilities. Not in big business anyway. And I have litigated other employment contract issues including key employees with specialized knowledge they have acquired in the course of their employment. Don't get me started on patent wars and who ends up owning the patent when something is developed using company time, money and other company resources.

And it is precisely the complexity of these issues that NIL chose to ignore until it bit them in the butt. Shortsighted but the athlete and their agents had the upper hand. Hopefully that changes.

One final analogy, one closer to home, number of football scholarships. When it was free wheeling ad universities could suit up as many players as they wanted on the sideline? Remember that? Coaches would offer scholarships not because they really wanted those guys to play them, they just didn't want them to play any of their competitors. That system needed and ultimately got limits and the sport became better, thriving.

aggiehawg said:

---

Some posters here are thinking these contracts are just ordinary ones. They are not. These are athletes who have unique talents and abilities, top of the contract hierarchy. Labor works in a different manner at that level.

Think Carroll Shelby and Ford versus Ferrari type of situation. Would Ford really want to lose Shelby to their competitor? Hell, no. Ford would have every reason to lock him and his services down. If he wasn't producing, they can always cut him loose.

I have signed several noncompete clauses in my career(s) because new owners didn't want me to take my client base with me. (Not necessarily only legal clients.) Not everyone is created equal in terms of skills and abilities. Not in big business anyway. And I have litigated other employment contract issues including key employees with specialized knowledge they have acquired in the course of their employment. Don't get me started on patent wars and who ends up owning the patent when something is developed using company time, money and other company resources.

And it is precisely the complexity of these issues that NIL chose to ignore until it bit them in the butt. Shortsighted but the athlete and their agents had the upper hand. Hopefully that changes.

One final analogy, one closer to home, number of football scholarships. When it was free wheeling ad universities could suit up as many players as they wanted on the sideline? Remember that? Coaches would offer scholarships not because they really wanted those guys to play them, they just didn't want them to play any of their competitors. That system needed and ultimately got limits and the sport became better, thriving.

---

LOL…leave it to a lawyer to massively over complicate a simple issue and lose sight of reality and reason.

Quote:

---

LOL…leave it to a lawyer to massively over complicate a simple issue and lose sight of reality and reason.

---

LOL. Leave it an IANAL type to totally miss the point. Collectives aren't buying a toaster oven here.

Hellcat64 said:

---

Hope this backfires on Georgia

---

Heck no! That $390,000 was allotted to him. They could have used that money to go get another player. Looks like damages to me.

Texas12&0 said:

---

Hellcat64 said:

---

Hope this backfires on Georgia

---

Heck no! That $390,000 was allotted to him. They could have used that money to go get another player. Looks like damages to me.

---

390K of bad publicity if they get a judgement against a broke black kid.

It seems to me like this is the question at hand (at least according to my OP espn.com link).

Quote:

---

Legal experts say Georgia's attorneys will have to convince an arbitrator that $390,000 in damages is a reasonable assessment of the harm the athletic department suffered due to Wilson's departure. Liquidated damages are not legally allowed to be used as punishment or primarily as an incentive to keep someone from breaking a contract.

---

UGa is obviously owed money, but I'm not sure they'll get $390k.

Hellcat64 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

Hellcat64 said:

---

Hope this backfires on Georgia

---

Heck no! That $390,000 was allotted to him. They could have used that money to go get another player. Looks like damages to me.

---

390K of bad publicity if they get a judgement against a broke black kid.

---

Publicity is not the point here. Reining in an uncontrolled system is the point.

aggiehawg said:

---

Hellcat64 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

Hellcat64 said:

---

Hope this backfires on Georgia

---

Heck no! That $390,000 was allotted to him. They could have used that money to go get another player. Looks like damages to me.

---

390K of bad publicity if they get a judgement against a broke black kid.

---

Publicity is not the point here. Reining in an uncontrolled system is the point.

---

Publicity is the entire point of NIL - Name Image Likeness

Georgia should chalk this up to a learning experience and get better lawyers to write better contracts.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

LOL…leave it to a lawyer to massively over complicate a simple issue and lose sight of reality and reason.

---

LOL. Leave it an IANAL type to totally miss the point. Collectives aren't buying a toaster oven here.

---

Yes they are. It's "you play football for us and we pay you x; if you breach the deal, you pay us y". Now go bill another 6 minutes of wasted time. And for the love of god, don't go on another diatribe about antitrust, trade secrets, key employee, patents, mustangs, etc.

texag101 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

LOL…leave it to a lawyer to massively over complicate a simple issue and lose sight of reality and reason.

---

LOL. Leave it an IANAL type to totally miss the point. Collectives aren't buying a toaster oven here.

---

Yes they are. It's "you play football for us and we pay you x; if you breach the deal, you pay us y". Now go bill another 6 minutes of wasted time. And for the love of god, don't go on another diatribe about antitrust, trade secrets, key employee, patents, mustangs, etc.

---

LOL. I have been retired for years, dear. So thank for your unsolicited and clueless advice.

This is a joke. He was going to make 500,000. He might be a "broke black kid", but if he is it's his own fault.

Most of us saw this coming 100 miles away

Complete ignorance. I'm sure Georgia just got some run of the mill lawyer and the "broke black kid" went and got a 1,000 / hr attorney. Get real. You have been all over the wrong side of this argument.

aggiehawg said:

---

texag101 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

LOL…leave it to a lawyer to massively over complicate a simple issue and lose sight of reality and reason.

---

LOL. Leave it an IANAL type to totally miss the point. Collectives aren't buying a toaster oven here.

---

Yes they are. It's "you play football for us and we pay you x; if you breach the deal, you pay us y". Now go bill another 6 minutes of wasted time. And for the love of god, don't go on another diatribe about antitrust, trade secrets, key employee, patents, mustangs, etc.

---

LOL. I have been retired for years, dear. So thank for your unsolicited and clueless advice.

---

Well that explains a lot!

aggiehawg said:

---

FDT 1999 said:

---

nai06 said:

---

What's the end game for Georgia here? Let's say they win, how are they going to get 390K from this player? Are they hoping he gets drafted and can pay?

---

I think Georgia's endgame is to deter players from hitting the portal. Like others have said, they aren't going to see the $390k, but they (and other schools as well) are tired of ponying up a lot of money to players only to have them leave. It's looks bad right now, but they're trying to shut this transfer **** down.

---

Maybe not shut it down but just to begin some guardrails where virtually none exists currently. This current situation is a morass with no order nor structure. Anything goes such as it is now, creates chaos.

---

Completely agree. Transfers will happen, but being able to transfer every year is certainly chaos.

I don't think they should have to sit out, but limit it to one and maybe a second one if a head coach leaves or maybe it's after your current deal ends. If you have an 1 year deal, then you can renegotiate or transfer. If you sign an 4 year deal, you stay 4 years. And, NIL should have contracts just like pro. 1-4 year deals with specifics if you transfer what you pay back or not pay back. It needs to be spelled out or it will continue to be the wild west every year in recruiting and transfers.

I like this move and I'm not surprised by it. The current situation allows the players to have basically one season of sport 'deals' with the boosters of a particular university with no guard rails (I like that description of what is currently lacking) on future activities. The pendulum swung so far back to the players favor that it has created chaos within the sport. At some point, the people paying these players money were going to realize that without any guard rails in place, the sport at large would suffer.