Started By
Message
UAA will represent Billy Napier in Rashada lawsuit
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:07 pm
LINK /
Disney Gators can stand beside Sunbelt Billy now
quote:
“We do not comment on ongoing litigation, and neither the University Athletic Association nor the University are named in the complaint,” Florida athletic department spokesman Steve McClain said in a release. “The UAA will provide for Coach Napier’s personal counsel, and we will direct all questions to those representatives.”
Disney Gators can stand beside Sunbelt Billy now
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 12:09 pm
6
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:09 pm to joshnorris14
I can’t wait for them to counter claim on Rashada for lying about the Ruiz offer to jack up the price.
Probably won’t get that far though. Likely small settlement or Rashada voluntarily dismisses.
Probably won’t get that far though. Likely small settlement or Rashada voluntarily dismisses.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:15 pm to ForeverGator
UAA representing the coach - interesting times for CFB
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:17 pm to ColoradoAg
quote:
UAA representing the coach - interesting times for CFB
They aren’t representing him, just supporting him and probably just paying for his counsel’s bills.
Y’all need to learn how to read.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:25 pm to joshnorris14
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:26 pm to theCAW
Stop posting your tweets.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:31 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
Stop posting your tweets.
he actually has his own account
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:33 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
he actually has his own account
He has multiple accounts on twitter and talks to himself. It’s painfully obvious too.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:37 pm to ForeverGator
quote:I mean they are definitely providing him council:
They aren’t representing him, just supporting him and probably just paying for his counsel’s bills. Y’all need to learn how to read.
quote:
The UAA will provide for Coach Napier’s personal counsel,
They aren’t doing this out of the kindness of their heart.
It’s probably more because Napier was operating as a representative of the school in his official capacity. Things could potentially come out of this that could harm the UAA/school so they want to make sure their council is handling the defense.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:40 pm to BigBinBR
Providing him counsel =/= The UAA representing him.
Counsel will represent him. There’s a big distinction between the two.
Counsel will represent him. There’s a big distinction between the two.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:48 pm to joshnorris14
quote:
joshnorris14
Don't bring this here. We get our UAA news exclusively from theCAW now.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:02 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
I can’t wait for them to counter claim on Rashada for lying about the Ruiz offer to jack up the price.
That's not illegal. It's up to the parties agreeing to the contract to do their fact checking before hand. If I tell my boss that I have an offer for 20 grand more and he agrees to match it, they can't then back out of the deal if I was lying about it.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:09 pm to DawginSC
It’s 100% false misrepresentation if he states it as fact in negotiations.
It just depends on how it’s stated. If he said something to the effect of “I have a contract for $9.5 million” then it’s false misrepresentation as no contract exists. If he says “I’ve have an offer of $9.5 million” the yeah, could argue it’s not false misrepresentation as that would be very difficult to prove or disprove.
It just depends on how it’s stated. If he said something to the effect of “I have a contract for $9.5 million” then it’s false misrepresentation as no contract exists. If he says “I’ve have an offer of $9.5 million” the yeah, could argue it’s not false misrepresentation as that would be very difficult to prove or disprove.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:22 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
It just depends on how it’s stated. If he said something to the effect of “I have a contract for $9.5 million” then it’s false misrepresentation as no contract exists. If he says “I’ve have an offer of $9.5 million” the yeah, could argue it’s not false misrepresentation as that would be very difficult to prove or disprove.
Feels like you're grasping at straws there. Why would he have (or claim to have) a signed contract with Miami? Seems pretty likely he had an offer.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:24 pm to joshnorris14
My question is....where did this $13,000,000 figure come from?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:26 pm to joshnorris14
I hate everything about unlimited NIL. This is such a screwed up way to operate with 18-20 year olds.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:49 pm to DawginSC
quote:
Feels like you're grasping at straws there. Why would he have (or claim to have) a signed contract with Miami?
Because Rashada claimed that Hatchcock wired him $150,000 to pay back Ruiz?
Don't think there was a conversation about the contract to go to UM?
Logic is hard for some.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:51 pm to kywildcatfanone
I think the unlimited nil will be over five years from now earliest or ten years from now latest. The schools won’t stand by and watch as alumni poor more money into kids pockets than they are investing in the school. I think part of this expansion the sec and big ten are doing is getting the “market for paying players” all under one roof so they can cap pay. Unlimited transferring will come to an end too. They need to grab it while it’s hot
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:53 pm to joshnorris14
Hopefully this is true and we can fire Napier with cause. 
Posted on 5/21/24 at 1:56 pm to ForeverGator
quote:
It’s 100% false misrepresentation if he states it as fact in negotiations.
Sue him.
Please.
I'm loving the direction that this has taken. All I want is more disclosure. Give me more disclosure. Please.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News