Started By
Message
re: Mizzou’s Damon Wilson takes Georgia to court
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:41 am to CelticTiger
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:41 am to CelticTiger
quote:
if the kid just decided he just didn’t want to play football and decided to take a job at McDonald’s instead, do you think UGA would prevail in pursuing liquidated damages?
But, that's not what happened. he went with a direct competitor, and that is what will determine the outcome. That and if he signed a contract.
quote:By tyig up money that could have been used on one or more other players, he essentially took away revenue producing clients away from Georgia. I mean, we g to see the players play, which in turn produces revenue, and he tied up money that could have been used by Georgia on other revenue producing clients.
Non-competes have been getting clobbered in the courts. And when they are upheld it’s usually because the employee took revenue producing clients with him.
quote:
Plus, the schools want desperately not to have the athlete viewed as an employee.
The players lost that protection when they demanded pay. When you pay someone of goods or services they in fact are employees. The players can't have it both ways...and neither can the schools. Players are, in fact compensated through pay, insurance, medical care, food, housing and tuition. Shoot, they are compensated far above an average employee.
quote:Agreed.
This solution needs to come through legislation of some sort with the SCOTUS ruling out there. I think the recent lawsuit settlement did not adequately address NIL going forward.
1
Posted on 12/24/25 at 7:58 pm to MizzouTrue
quote:
We’ll see who wins
Accepting a partial payment and keeping it while entering the portal establishes an installment contract obligation.
If Mizzou played an ineligible player, you are possibly looking at vacating your wins this season.
It looks like this lawyer in Boone County may end up screwing over the university by establishing ineligibility.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:07 pm to Chip82
Don't think so chipper
Posted on 12/24/25 at 8:20 pm to Faurot fodder
quote:
Don't think so
A legally established Installment contract based on Georgia codes.
All funds were transferred within the State of Georgia which establishes jurisdiction.
The Columbia lawyer can claim "no contract" all day long, but his client already accepted a payment.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:36 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
The players lost that protection when they demanded pay.
Actually, they are paid from the collective for their likeness and representation. Then that was transferred to Georgia athletics. So he really wasn't an employee of Georgia athletics. It probably should be the collective that is suing in the first place.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 10:52 pm to MizzouTrue
Honestly, he'd have had a chance before Tennessee brought their suit where the NCAA rules still applied.
Now it's just going to be based on what the contract says. And I doubt UGA would be suing if they didn't have the contracts lined up.
Now it's just going to be based on what the contract says. And I doubt UGA would be suing if they didn't have the contracts lined up.
Posted on 12/24/25 at 11:02 pm to CelticTiger
quote:
UGA’s got a loser on this one.
Very doubtful.
Let's be honest here... this isn't UGA lawyers vs Mizzou lawyers. This is UGA lawyers vs whoever Damon Wilson hired. The reality is that UGA lawyers are much more likely to have the details of contract law correct in the state of Georgia than a lawyer hired by Damon Wilson
Wilson did a lot of things that are going to make it tough for him to win this. One, he's trying to argue (and sue for defamation) that UGA can't file civil charges against him. They quite obviously can. Contracts CAN be legally transferred and the Classic City Collective did exactly that to UGA. He's claiming a term sheet isn't a contract... but it is a contract. That's why you sign it. If it says you have to repay the remaining amount on the term sheet if you transfer... thems the rules. And him signing, cashing checks after signing and then transferring pretty much confirms the contract was broken intentionally and the damages specified in the contract are due.
UGA wouldn't be suing unless this were a pretty assured win.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 7:48 am to tpatten
quote:
Actually, they are paid from the collective for their likeness and representation. Then that was transferred to Georgia athletics. So he really wasn't an employee of Georgia athletics. It probably should be the collective that is suing in the first place.
Maybe, but the harm came to Georgia Athletics. And, I'm sure you believe that everything is working exactly as the rules dictate, because, after all, no football institution would break the rules, right?
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:01 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Maybe, but the harm came to Georgia Athletics. And, I'm sure you believe that everything is working exactly as the rules dictate, because, after all, no football institution would break the rules, right?
I may not be a lawyer but I've won all the court cases I've been a part of including against lawyers because I pay attention to the details and don't get greedy by suing for more than I'm entitled to. I pointed out one of the details. Take it or leave it. We will see. I'm sure Georgia has a strong case since they wrote the contract, but there's a potential weak point. In those cases, if Georgia loses, the Collective sues instead. As far as "damages", the only thing Georgia has shown so far is that the collective lost $30,000.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:13 am to tpatten
quote:
I may not be a lawyer but I've won all the court cases I've been a part of including against lawyers because I pay attention to the details and don't get greedy by suing for more than I'm entitled to.
Crap, dude. how often do you sue people?
quote:
As far as "damages", the only thing Georgia has shown so far is that the collective lost $30,000.
Except that when you have a budget set aside for NIL, and a certain amount of that budget is supposedly sent, then a wise institution does not spend past that amount. Then, when Wilson goes somewhere else, Georgia...or the collective has lost the ability to use that money on a different recruit that may have been available...thus losing services of another player that signed with someone else.
For example...say you have allocated money for a new car. Two that you like are available at your budget. You like one a little more than the other, so you strike a deal with the dealer, sign the paperwork and leave while they clean up the car. While you are away, another salesperson sells the car you wanted and had a deal for, so you contact the other dealership for the other car, and it has been sold, too, or decide they want more money.
Damages? You better believe it.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:43 am to CelticTiger
quote:
The $30k should definitely have been repaid. The liquidated damages part is bullshite.
Therein lies the legal aspects of trying to recoup the money already paid out.
Installment contracts in Georgia are typically not severable contracts unless an agree is struck. Sounds like Wilson simply flipped us the middle finger and our only recourse was to invoke the stipulations of the entire installment contract.
All Georgia has to prove is a breech of an installment contract.
You're right, Wilson should have simply repaid the 30K, but that is not what he did.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:53 am to SpartanSoul
quote:
SpartanSoul
I hope the irony of LSU having to be sued by Kelly isn’t lost here
Posted on 12/25/25 at 9:58 am to DawgsLife
quote:
legal council
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:05 am to CelticTiger
You use too many exclamation points to be under 55
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:18 am to MizzouTrue
Classless, should be perfect fit with mizzOU
Posted on 12/25/25 at 10:49 am to Jrv2damac
LOL 
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:34 am to CelticTiger
There was a thread about this a few weeks ago.
Georgia is seeking more that 30K. The contract was written similar to a coaches contract in that if the player wants to leave Georgia he has to "buy" his way out of the contract. Georgia was claiming that they're purchasing the players NIL and need to lock him into a contract to make his NIL effective.
I'll see if I can't find the thread as it had a lot of the contract information.
Found it, from 5th December.
https://www.secrant.com/rant/sec-football/georgia-nil-collective-suing-missouris-damon-wilson-for-390k/121722425/
Georgia is seeking more that 30K. The contract was written similar to a coaches contract in that if the player wants to leave Georgia he has to "buy" his way out of the contract. Georgia was claiming that they're purchasing the players NIL and need to lock him into a contract to make his NIL effective.
I'll see if I can't find the thread as it had a lot of the contract information.
Found it, from 5th December.
https://www.secrant.com/rant/sec-football/georgia-nil-collective-suing-missouris-damon-wilson-for-390k/121722425/
This post was edited on 12/25/25 at 11:42 am
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:53 am to DawgsLife
quote:
For example...say you have
You're dealing in hypothetical. I'm dealing in the details including what Georgia has already demonstrated their damages are. Except that it isn't Georgia but the Collective that has demonstrated damages of $30,000.
Posted on 12/25/25 at 11:54 am to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
I’m siding with the university over the player every single time in these situations.
Me too. Can you imagine how pissed the donors that gave Quinn ewers all that money at ohio state and he never started a damn game for them
Posted on 12/25/25 at 12:16 pm to tpatten
quote:
You're dealing in hypothetical.
Hypothetical? More of an example, but i guess it is hypothetical.
quote:
I'm dealing in the details including what Georgia has already demonstrated their damages are.
You think they aid out the entire case for publication? I mean, it's not difficult to surmise what the damages would be.
quote:
Except that it isn't Georgia but the Collective that has demonstrated damages of $30,000.
Ok, but the damages are the same regardless, right? I mean, a collective would still be having their budget tied up until after Portal window is up. The collective is certainly allocating money on behalf of the university, right? I mean, do you think the Missouri collective offered him a NIL deal so he could go and play for Kansas? If they did offer him a deal and he took the money, then went to Kansas you think they are just going to shrug and say...c'est la vie?
Honestly...if Missouri had missed on one or more other targets they wanted/needed because of being played, you honestly believe all of you would juats shrug and forget about it?
Page 3 of 4
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News