Looks like VT will be sued over Revenue Sharing
I am betting money it's Holloway....
38 Replies
10mo
VT should be prepared with assistance with the Attorney General, this could be extended to the supreme court and this attorney wants the attention.
Link:
scumbag attorney
(In response to this post by section11hokie)
10mo
seen as a "breach of contract"
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
This whole mid-season portal window is brand new for 2025. At the moment it's VT, UCLA, and OSU and no one else.
This is a guy's lawyer making a public statement, so it should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. But if it turns out that VT is being spiteful about attempting to claw back what amounts to peanuts in the grand scheme of things, and legally in the wrong in doing so ... you can kiss recruiting goodbye for pretty much ever.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
If a promise proves false, offering a bigger one doesn't mean anything. That's the problem.
So I really hope that is not the case.
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
10mo
This is pretty straight forward assuming thereâs no convoluted language in the House agreement. Oh, wait, never mind! Pay the kid because D.C. âfixed itâ. SMH
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
Are they generating revenue?
(In response to this post by Hokiefied)
10mo
âTo redshirt, there generally needs to be agreement between the school (coaching staff) and the athlete, though the final decision rests with the coaching staff
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
You hit the portal though that assumption is invalid. But as noted Iâm sure Congress screwed up that very simple concept for an obvious scenario so Iâm sure the kid is owed money.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
(In response to this post by Hokiefied)
10mo
will get all of the money anyway in fees-and they better be a really really good player to land somewhere else- tough lesson for the kid
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
Under NCAA Bylaw 12.8.3.7, redshirting is automatic if a football player participates in 4 or fewer games in a season, preserving eligibility without formal school approval needed.
Sounds not as âblack and whiteâ as the school controls it allâĻ
(In response to this post by VAHokie89)
10mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
he was transferring?
(In response to this post by hokietony)
10mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
Player has nothing to lose, same will happen at OK State, UCLA and whatever college has let their coach go. IMO, a fully time ambulance chaser type lawyer will jump on opportunity.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
First, coaches, not players, make the decision on redshirts.
Second, once you enter the portal, it shouldn't matter whether you've announced your intention to redshirt or not. You've publicly declared that you're leaving a team.
College sports has got to be the only industry in America where the employees voluntarily quit and still expect to get paid. And don't tell me they're not employees, cute semantics don't hide the reality of the situation.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
Players can, and sometimes do, return to their original school after entering the transfer portal.
A player may declare they are entering the portal and continue to participate in team activities. That's up to the player and the coach. Of course the portal is generally an off-season thing for a reason.
College sports is just about the only industry in America where the employees are not, technically, employees and are paid for something other than participation in the industry. Call it cute semantics all you like, but it's the legal reality of the situation.
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)
10mo
for the NCAA and schools.
I think it will be very difficult for the school to claim on one hand that revenue sharing is NIL and then on the other hand claim it is "pay for play" when the athlete redshirts.
If schools want to disguise "pay for play" as NIL as part of the House settlement, then they get everything that goes along with that especially after fighting against making players employees....
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)
10mo
revenue sharing is NIL? If they did, then I missed that.
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
messy real quick. I say that because you have 3 division levels, which may have their own CBAs, and the fact that you have some DII/DIII schools competing at the DI level in certain sports. Also, you have contests between 2 schools from different division levels and subdivision levels (i.e. DI-FBS vs. DI-FCS). That is before you even talk about the giant Byzantine (the color) elephant in the room (aka Title IX).
(In response to this post by AirborneHokie96)
10mo
receive the guaranteed portion of their salary even if they retire/quit in the middle of the season. I'm not sure there is much difference than this issue.
(In response to this post by Gobbler Guru)