Started By
Message
re: The agreement Demond Williams signed with Washington included a provision. Uh oh, LSU.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:08 pm to AGGIES
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:08 pm to AGGIES
y'all keep talking about courts which court? a court in Washington state? or a district Court? and what are they going to say? hey college kid you have to stay at this school and play Football for them even though you arent a employee and cant sign a "pay to play" scheme. you also arent allowed to transfer bc you agreed not to in this NIL deal, even thought that is against the standing body bylaws..... why isn't every Big10 university pulling this lol? you just aren't allowed to transfer?
1
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:08 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
That would violate the13th amendment.
Did you seriously just compare SLAVERY to a guy making millions in a mutually agreed upon SIGNED CONTRACT?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:09 pm to BCreed1
We have to make sure we are talking about the same subjects.
A contract to receive revenue sharing can be binding, however any clause that prevents the athlete from transferring is a violation of legal rulings and a settlement.
A contract to receive revenue sharing can be binding, however any clause that prevents the athlete from transferring is a violation of legal rulings and a settlement.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:09 pm to stitchop
quote:
We do know what the court will rule. The court has already ruled that athletes have a legal right to transfer and universities, conferences and NCAA cannot prevent athletes from transferring. The contract in question would prevent the athletes from transferring for two years. This clause will certainly be voided. It has absolutely no legal binding
Are you aware of any details in this case that are different from the Xavier Lucas case?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:10 pm to BevoBucks
Someone has to do it.
Contracts have to be worth more than it's weight in paper.
Contracts have to be worth more than it's weight in paper.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:10 pm to BCreed1
You are suggesting that UW can somehow prevent a free citizen of the US from playing football at another school, man. 
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:11 pm to stitchop
quote:
The courts have already decided the athletes rights to transfer
And the courts also decided with the NCAA until they didn't.
You can jump up and down.. crawl on your back yelling. Pick up a microphone and turn it up to scream even louder. It does not change that courts often have to reign is wildly board rulings.
Or are you seriously saying courts never do that?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:13 pm to BCreed1
they arent contracts because you legally can not sign a contract to play a sport for a University, you can have strongly worded agreements, you might and probably will have pay some money back, but this are not contracts. if some one can show me that a school or a conference can sign Student-Athletes to contracts i will say you are right and im wrong. and even if they are...... Contacts get broken.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:13 pm to stitchop
quote:
We do know what the court will rule.
No sir. You know what a previous court ruled. Courts before that ruled the opposite way which is why there was no REV sharing and NIL to be concerned with.
You repeating it will not change that fact.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:14 pm to BCreed1
quote:
You are not listening. One more attempt.
You have no idea what a court will rule. It was a by law that players could not profit off NIL. Thus a court case... and now NIL.
Yes, it was a bylaw that was struck down in favor of player rights not team rights. Now they can profit off NIL and as student athletes cannot be paid for play. That is the current laws. If UW wants to go to court to make them employees, by all means do it. End the charade, but as of right now, they are not.
quote:
That alone should explain that the court don't give a damn about the NCAA by laws. Just laws of the land.
They only care if it is preventing the athletes from their rights, not the school.
quote:
And it appears that WASHINGTON is going to seek a court resolution.
Good for them. They will pay a price for that as it will cost them future players knowing they are willing to take you to court and force you to play.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:16 pm to GhostofAlfredBlue
I assume the District Court where it is filed…
Who knows what they will say….the landscape is changing by the day.
Who knows what they will say….the landscape is changing by the day.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:18 pm to Panthers4life
quote:
This was broken down very specifically. Demond is pretty much screwed. His agent messed up big time.
I mean eventually, it's going to have to go to court and move up the chain.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:18 pm to BCreed1
quote:
You know what a previous court ruled. Courts before that ruled the opposite way which is why there was no REV sharing and NIL to be concerned with.
You don’t understand how courts work.
The court rulings and the settlement are now legal precedent concerning NIL and transfers.
These rulings are the results of appeals and have been upheld and are now the law.
Any future ruling that is contrary would have to survive appeal.
Again, the right to transfer is now precedent. A contract or agreement cannot violate that right nor can the agreement or contract make exercising that right disadvantageous for the athlete
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:19 pm to stitchop
quote:
however any clause that prevents the athlete from transferring is a violation of legal rulings and a settlement.
Until it is reversed or the broadness of it is narrowed or narrowly defined.
Again. As an attorney, you should know that.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:21 pm to LSU Patrick
quote:
You are suggesting that UW can somehow prevent a free citizen of the US from playing football at another school, man.
I am suggesting that a free man FREELY entered into a contract and knew very well what it stated.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:21 pm to BCreed1
quote:
quote: This was broken down very specifically. Demond is pretty much screwed. His agent messed up big time. I mean eventually, it's going to have to go to court and move up the chain.
It’s already been to court
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:24 pm to Geauxgurt
quote:
Yes, it was a bylaw that was struck down in favor of player rights not team rights.
Correct. Now that we have established that courts have been known to change their position, at some point and university or NIL collective is going to also be protected by the courts.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:25 pm to jangalang
quote:In principle, agree. But, given current environment, best case they win and wrest a few damages and maybe a slap on the wrist. Doubt that'll be worth the headache and reputation hit for Washington's program.
Contracts have to be worth more than it's weight in paper.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:25 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Until it is reversed or the broadness of it is narrowed or narrowly defined.
Again. As an attorney, you should know that.
so basically your entire argument boils down to you don't care what current Washington state law says or what the relevant case law precedent is because there is a remote chance a judge may ignore said state law and ignore standing precedent and rule differently? Sounds like wish casting to me
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:27 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
You cannot just void your contract in the world or the NFL. Same should apply here. That is how you get the portal under control. Enforce contracts
Any contract can be breached, it is a matter of remedies. As he is not an employee, equitable remedies are highly unlikely. So Washington would be entitled to money damages.
Page 6 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News