• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

House settlement finally released….

NU_Alum said:


I'm not sure why you think it's stupid for the university to be involved.
Click to expand...

I posted bylaw 22.1.1.1. "An institution shall not provide a written or oral guarantee to a student athlete of a third-party NIL contract or payment."

There is just no way, the University would be getting themselves in the mix of third party NIL when it is a direct violation of those terms.

As to a joint representation agreement, this leads to exactly my point. The most likely reason would be because there are other forms of direct payments from the University and direct benefit caps that must be adhered to. The last thing UNL would want is to have a ruling that the benefit was promised and should be counter towards the cap. We want to be as far away from the deal as possible, while also being able to defend against accusations.

Its hard to see what they are trying to argue here. Not only is warehousing a clear reason to reject an agreement, they put out an advisory specifically addressing it as a reason to reject. The statements of taking it to the Nebraska courts are like they plan on losing in arbitration. Maybe there are other motives to get some action on the participation agreements.

The deals sound even more sketchy the longer they sit out there. Its been several months. If they had legit NIL, then they should have been able to back them with contracts by now and make this a moot point. The latest deal flow report is this:

21,025 deals cleared worth $166M.
711 deals not cleared worth $29M.
18 deals in arbitration, all Nebraska players.
 
RedRum said:
I posted bylaw 22.1.1.1. "An institution shall not provide a written or oral guarantee to a student athlete of a third-party NIL contract or payment."

There is just no way, the University would be getting themselves in the mix of third party NIL when it is a direct violation of those terms.

As to a joint representation agreement, this leads to exactly my point. The most likely reason would be because there are other forms of direct payments from the University and direct benefit caps that must be adhered to. The last thing UNL would want is to have a ruling that the benefit was promised and should be counter towards the cap. We want to be as far away from the deal as possible, while also being able to defend against accusations.

Its hard to see what they are trying to argue here. Not only is warehousing a clear reason to reject an agreement, they put out an advisory specifically addressing it as a reason to reject. The statements of taking it to the Nebraska courts are like they plan on losing in arbitration. Maybe there are other motives to get some action on the participation agreements.

The deals sound even more sketchy the longer they sit out there. Its been several months. If they had legit NIL, then they should have been able to back them with contracts by now and make this a moot point. The latest deal flow report is this:

21,025 deals cleared worth $166M.
711 deals not cleared worth $29M.
18 deals in arbitration, all Nebraska players.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure we're reading the bylaw the same. I never said NU was guaranteeing anything from a third party. That doesn't prevent NU from discussing it or providing counsel to review agreements. Are you reading guaranty differently?

NU is going to win here. I haven't read a single analysis of the situation that says otherwise. The 18 is going to balloon very shortly. The CSC was DOA, IMO. The NCAA is a dinosaur trying to maintain some type of control but there is little it can honestly do at this point that's going to allow control and be legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS





Back
Top