The UNLV NIL situation is quite interesting. It will be interesting to watch if it turns to litigation. It seems that it also has the potential to harm UNLV beyond this season. Right now, UNLV is in the middle of a conference realignment. Plus, UNLV doesn’t want to be known as a program with NIL sponsors that don’t honor their commitments. Bad for recruiting.
Bad look for the supposed leader of a team that finally gets a taste of success and blows up a program and posts nebulous reasons for it all. Selfish and self-centered response by that kid. Spoiled and entitled.
He has his degree. He transferred to UNLV for the cash, not because we’re such a storied and rock-solid team. He’s not getting the cash. No pay, no play. Whether he’s good enough to go NFL is questionable. His best shot at getting paid is either to get paid here, or, now that he’s shown his value in leading UNL-freaking-V to a 3-0 start, he can get paid elsewhere next year.
Is it a bad look? Yes.
However, he has advantage considering the timing is impeccable with all the realignment talks happening and now that UNLV is ranked. UNLV better shut this story down quick.
UNLV may have a black eye, but the more information that comes out the worse it looks for this QB and his agent. He apparently expected $100k from the collective, but didn’t have anything in writing. He demanded payment from the University, which is illegal and prohibited by the NCAA. MAybe he was orally promised $100k, but that seems not credible to me.
I think UNLV screwed the kid. I remember when he was shopping around from College of the Holy Cross and he had NIL offers from Power 4 conference schools. Should he have gotten it in writing? How often do we tell clients that. But what do I think went down? They offered him $100,000 in value and he bit on it and then UNLV’s Collective did not come up with the cash.
Maybe. The problem with NIL is that the people recruiting (UNLV) are not the people who make the payments (the Collective). That’s a formula rife for genuine misunderstanding, but also for lies. It’s hard to know what happened here. It doesn’t help that none of it is in writing, which is especially inexcusable because this kid was apparently represented.
Guest
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 10:56 am
College football is now pro football, only with zero restriction on free agency and no salary cap. Its nominal connection with educational institutions is merely incidental, and almost entirely meaningless. At one time, not so long ago, athletic scholarships were a means for athletically talented young people to obtain a college degree that would have otherwise been out of their reach and then move up in socioeconomic status as the result of having received that degree. What exists now bears not even a passing resemblance to that ideal.
Personally, I’m more annoyed/troubled by the promiscuity of head coaches freely jumping from job to job, and schools jumping from conference to conference. If they’re allowed to test the free market, why can’t the “student-athletes”? It’s such hypocrisy. How many big time programs are still paying tens of millions of dollars in “dead money” to head coaches they fired for not living up to their alumni/boosters’ win-at-all-cost expectations? What a waste.
Amateurism is overrated, especially if a student-athlete gets injured and face losing their scholarships as a result. I want to see elite athletes play ball, and I honestly don’t care if they’re taking endorsement money from a local car dealership or Nike. Meanwhile, under the old system, otherwise compliant student-athletes and coaches were often punished with stripped banners and postseason bans whenever a star athlete gets paid a little bit of money under the table to help them and their family pay bills and buy nice things for their efforts on the field/court (see, Jerry Tarkanian, Chris Webber, Reggie Bush, etc.). Still, reform and regulation of NIL and student compensation will be necessary to stabilize things going forward.
The pending antitrust litigation/settlement is a good start College athletes in all sports (but especially the profitable ones–e.g., football, basketball) should have the ability to make a living above and beyond their scholarship–especially if the scholarship doesn’t cover reasonable living expenses. Their hands shouldn’t be arbitrarily tied. I’d like to see some hybrid of the old system and the new system, that incentivizes players to remain with their program (e.g., losing a year of eligibility if they enter the transfer portal), while also giving these athletes a larger piece of the NCAA’s multibillion-dollar pie.
I am not going to out the attorney in Department XI other than to say he might want to move his camera and mic back so it does not catch each emission.
So what can I say except you’re welcome
For the belch I let out in the court
There’s no need to glare, it’s just air
You’re welcome
Ha, I guess it’s just my way of showing flair
You’re welcome, you’re welcome!
I doubt that I would ever vote for Seaman for anything, but she is in the right here and Judge Ballou acted properly. Confidential means confidential. And having been involved in a few cases like this, the likelihood that the City actually paid anything is pretty slim. These public works contracts have rock-solid indemnity and additional insuring agreements.
Guest
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 11:55 am
NIL litigation is a growth industry.
Guest
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 2:23 pm
Anyone tracking 2:24-cv-397 in the USDC-NV? (board has been dull stirring the pot)
Fresh Mix, LLC v. Pisanelli Bice, PLLC, James P. Pisanelli, Debra L. Spinelli, Cohen Dowd Quigley PC, Ronald J. Cohen, Betsy Lamm, Daniel Quigley, Bruce A. Leslie, Chtd., Bruce A. Leslie, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Samuel A. Schwartz, Schwartz Law, PLLC, Zachariah Larson, Larson & Zirzow, LLC, Jenna Brownlee, Ava Marie Schaefer
It is long (and I read the whole thing). I think Matt Sharp may be biting off more than he can chew on this one.
Guest
Anonymous
September 25, 2024 3:20 pm
I’m currently in a mediation and already dealing with the ill effects of Amtrust North America v. Vasquez. When you have to plan on paying W/C liens dollar for dollar it takes a lot of the wiggle room out of these low 6 figure cases.
Horrible and misguided. 7/7 woefully out of touch individuals signed on to this piece of trash decision.
Guest
Anon Please
September 25, 2024 3:43 pm
I’m sorry, so we are going to jail people for sleeping outside? Has no one ever been an exhausted college student and fallen asleep under a tree? Is this just for the homeless? If I prove that I have a home, can I take a nap outside in the park? Something is truly wrong with this picture.
That was the approach they took in Southern California for many years. “It’s inhumane to not allow people to sleep in public!” But this was never an exhausted college student taking a power nap under a tree between study sessions. We all saw the situation deteriorate with our own eyes. Nobody wants to be inhumane. But society can’t function if we have homeless camps consuming a substantial portion of our public spaces like sidewalks and parks. Sidewalks are for walking, not camping or residing. Parks are for picnics, ball games, and leisurely strolls, not to house the homeless. If you’ve been to Southern California lately you’ll notice that they’ve started to clean out the homeless encampments, thank goodness.
So, does that mean you will support additional funding and resources to help prevent the causes of homelessness in the first place? Since it’s too high of a societal cost to have them on the sidewalks, surely this would be a net savings, yes?
this presumes that more spending on the “homeless” would (1) actually be used on preventing homelessness and (2) it would actually prevent homelessness. If so, San Fransisco would be your “poster child” for spending your way out of homelessness. Instead, it’s an example that “spending” and “funding” doesn’t always solve problems, in fact it sometimes makes them worse depending how you “spend” and “fund.”
You cannot “fund” or “spend” your way out of natural consequences to degeneracy.
Got it. You want to bitch and moan about the societal cost the homeless impose on fine, upstanding members of society, but are unwilling to do anything to mitigate that cost. Can’t see any answers but the jail cell so you’re totally willing to fund more prisons and more ordinances that the homeless can’t comply with. Tell me, is the cost to arrest, charge, and imprison the homeless more or less than the costs imposed on society by the homeless?
Didn’t Salt Lake City have a program to give homeless people homes, and didn’t it have like a massive success rate, until the optics and politics ended the program?
Yes. Salt Lake had effectively ended unintentional homelessness. They also provided services to those receiving housing. Basically they turned the current model upside down. Instead of requiring people to go to treatment, job training, etc while homeless, they gave them homes and then provided the services. It was hugely successful until the legislature had some turnover and the party that follows the words of christ defunded the program because WWJD. Also, the program was way cheaper than jails and ERs.
No, its a nuanced issue. There’s no way to “end” homelessness. How do you prevent people from making decisions that lead to homelessness? Many homeless people may have bad luck, etc., but a majority of the homeless are drug addicts. How do you rehabilitate them permanently? How do you get them to want to make more of themselves? It’s nuanced.
The only way to end homelessness is to suspend the constitution. Forcibly take them off the street, take them out to a facility and keep them on lock down for six months. Get them sober, get them on meds and let those meds take effect. And let them make meaningful choices about their future once they’re not crippled by substances and mental illnesses. But we can’t do that because of the fourth amendment so things will just continue to get worse.
Let me keep my money and give it to my church and nonprofits; the government is demonstrably useless dealing with poverty. But many nonprofits actually do decent work.
I suggest that, before posting, you do about 10 seconds of research. The Clark County ordinance would be based on the existing LV ordinance – which prohibits “sitting, lying or camping on a public right of way, including sidewalks”. Long story short, an exhausted collect student sleeping under a tree would not be jailed…
Homelessness: Former Mayor Oscar put it best. If you allow the homeless to take over a City park, then you deprive the use of the park by citizens that it was intended for. Many homeless won’t go to shelters even if offered or moved. Years algo they called these folks “bums”. They use to ride trains and hide in wooded areas. If you feed the homeless you will have more homeless. I was in LA for a long period of time. Even in Santa Monica you could not eat at McDonald’s without dealing with the homeless. One homeless guy before me tried to use expired and maxed out cards. I wound up paying for his “Happy Meal”.
Speaking of Santa Monica, a couple of years ago, the wife and I went out for a stroll while on a weekender there. We passed Tongva Park and though, let’s walk through it. We made it about three steps in and saw that the entire park was a homeless encampment. There were people with serious mental issues just walking around and yelling to no one in particular. There were needles everywhere. We left and went to the pier. Here is what was a beautiful park on expensive real estate. It probably cost millions to build. Yet the public can’t use it because its been taken over as a homeless encampent full of drugs, needles and dangerous people. How is any of that defensible? Why are there people ok with tthis?
Uh huh. You can use that argument when Huntridge Circle Park is reopened. Yeah, the park that the City was so afraid the homeless might continue to use, that they fenced off the entire thing for like the last decade.
I would like to think that LEO discretion would not lead to that result. But then I get a video after video across Facebook and X feeds showing cops who show no discretion and enflame issues. If we could be certain that it is serial loiterers and not the person who happened to fall asleep on the park bench then my angst would lessen.
The UNLV NIL situation is quite interesting. It will be interesting to watch if it turns to litigation. It seems that it also has the potential to harm UNLV beyond this season. Right now, UNLV is in the middle of a conference realignment. Plus, UNLV doesn’t want to be known as a program with NIL sponsors that don’t honor their commitments. Bad for recruiting.
Bad look for the supposed leader of a team that finally gets a taste of success and blows up a program and posts nebulous reasons for it all. Selfish and self-centered response by that kid. Spoiled and entitled.
What?! You’re a lawyer. There was an agreement. One side did not meet it.
One side has *said* there was an agreement. There’s a difference.
Partial performance/detrimental reliance. The antidote to the Statute of Frauds.
He has his degree. He transferred to UNLV for the cash, not because we’re such a storied and rock-solid team. He’s not getting the cash. No pay, no play. Whether he’s good enough to go NFL is questionable. His best shot at getting paid is either to get paid here, or, now that he’s shown his value in leading UNL-freaking-V to a 3-0 start, he can get paid elsewhere next year.
No disrespect to the kid, but there is no question that he is not good enough to go to the NFL.
While he’s a great runner, he’s a subpar passer (that’s putting it generously)
Agreed…300 yards over 3 games with a 46% pass completion is not exactly top tier. Good luck on finding a team that will take him next year….
Is it a bad look? Yes.
However, he has advantage considering the timing is impeccable with all the realignment talks happening and now that UNLV is ranked. UNLV better shut this story down quick.
Sounds like it’s going to work out for him. I hope UNLV has some capable and contented backup QBs.
What a blunder from the football program. They tried to lie to a player and got called out for it at the worst possible time.
UNLV may have a black eye, but the more information that comes out the worse it looks for this QB and his agent. He apparently expected $100k from the collective, but didn’t have anything in writing. He demanded payment from the University, which is illegal and prohibited by the NCAA. MAybe he was orally promised $100k, but that seems not credible to me.
UNLV’s side of the story sounds pretty strong to me. I hope the backup QB has the game of his life. Here’s your chance, kid.
I think UNLV screwed the kid. I remember when he was shopping around from College of the Holy Cross and he had NIL offers from Power 4 conference schools. Should he have gotten it in writing? How often do we tell clients that. But what do I think went down? They offered him $100,000 in value and he bit on it and then UNLV’s Collective did not come up with the cash.
Maybe. The problem with NIL is that the people recruiting (UNLV) are not the people who make the payments (the Collective). That’s a formula rife for genuine misunderstanding, but also for lies. It’s hard to know what happened here. It doesn’t help that none of it is in writing, which is especially inexcusable because this kid was apparently represented.
College football is now pro football, only with zero restriction on free agency and no salary cap. Its nominal connection with educational institutions is merely incidental, and almost entirely meaningless. At one time, not so long ago, athletic scholarships were a means for athletically talented young people to obtain a college degree that would have otherwise been out of their reach and then move up in socioeconomic status as the result of having received that degree. What exists now bears not even a passing resemblance to that ideal.
Personally, I’m more annoyed/troubled by the promiscuity of head coaches freely jumping from job to job, and schools jumping from conference to conference. If they’re allowed to test the free market, why can’t the “student-athletes”? It’s such hypocrisy. How many big time programs are still paying tens of millions of dollars in “dead money” to head coaches they fired for not living up to their alumni/boosters’ win-at-all-cost expectations? What a waste.
Amateurism is overrated, especially if a student-athlete gets injured and face losing their scholarships as a result. I want to see elite athletes play ball, and I honestly don’t care if they’re taking endorsement money from a local car dealership or Nike. Meanwhile, under the old system, otherwise compliant student-athletes and coaches were often punished with stripped banners and postseason bans whenever a star athlete gets paid a little bit of money under the table to help them and their family pay bills and buy nice things for their efforts on the field/court (see, Jerry Tarkanian, Chris Webber, Reggie Bush, etc.). Still, reform and regulation of NIL and student compensation will be necessary to stabilize things going forward.
The pending antitrust litigation/settlement is a good start College athletes in all sports (but especially the profitable ones–e.g., football, basketball) should have the ability to make a living above and beyond their scholarship–especially if the scholarship doesn’t cover reasonable living expenses. Their hands shouldn’t be arbitrarily tied. I’d like to see some hybrid of the old system and the new system, that incentivizes players to remain with their program (e.g., losing a year of eligibility if they enter the transfer portal), while also giving these athletes a larger piece of the NCAA’s multibillion-dollar pie.
“Amateurism is overrated”
Amateurism died when college athletes started getting paid.
To the attorney who burped his way through his argument this morning, BRAVO!
Someone specific? Or just a general shout out?
I am not going to out the attorney in Department XI other than to say he might want to move his camera and mic back so it does not catch each emission.
So what can I say except you’re welcome
For the belch I let out in the court
There’s no need to glare, it’s just air
You’re welcome
Ha, I guess it’s just my way of showing flair
You’re welcome, you’re welcome!
Maui? z’at you?
I doubt that I would ever vote for Seaman for anything, but she is in the right here and Judge Ballou acted properly. Confidential means confidential. And having been involved in a few cases like this, the likelihood that the City actually paid anything is pretty slim. These public works contracts have rock-solid indemnity and additional insuring agreements.
NIL litigation is a growth industry.
Anyone tracking 2:24-cv-397 in the USDC-NV? (board has been dull stirring the pot)
This is actually really fkg juicy.
Not even remotely surprised by the double dealing of some of these attorneys. And for one, in particular, its actually par for the course.
Anytime you get a heading that reads “[X] Sues (Nearly) Everyone” it’s going to be juicy.
Fresh Mix, LLC v. Pisanelli Bice, PLLC, James P. Pisanelli, Debra L. Spinelli, Cohen Dowd Quigley PC, Ronald J. Cohen, Betsy Lamm, Daniel Quigley, Bruce A. Leslie, Chtd., Bruce A. Leslie, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, Samuel A. Schwartz, Schwartz Law, PLLC, Zachariah Larson, Larson & Zirzow, LLC, Jenna Brownlee, Ava Marie Schaefer
Juicy, indeed
*alleged double dealing.
It is long (and I read the whole thing). I think Matt Sharp may be biting off more than he can chew on this one.
I’m currently in a mediation and already dealing with the ill effects of Amtrust North America v. Vasquez. When you have to plan on paying W/C liens dollar for dollar it takes a lot of the wiggle room out of these low 6 figure cases.
Horrible and misguided. 7/7 woefully out of touch individuals signed on to this piece of trash decision.
I’m sorry, so we are going to jail people for sleeping outside? Has no one ever been an exhausted college student and fallen asleep under a tree? Is this just for the homeless? If I prove that I have a home, can I take a nap outside in the park? Something is truly wrong with this picture.
That was the approach they took in Southern California for many years. “It’s inhumane to not allow people to sleep in public!” But this was never an exhausted college student taking a power nap under a tree between study sessions. We all saw the situation deteriorate with our own eyes. Nobody wants to be inhumane. But society can’t function if we have homeless camps consuming a substantial portion of our public spaces like sidewalks and parks. Sidewalks are for walking, not camping or residing. Parks are for picnics, ball games, and leisurely strolls, not to house the homeless. If you’ve been to Southern California lately you’ll notice that they’ve started to clean out the homeless encampments, thank goodness.
To say nothing of the trash and excrement!
So, does that mean you will support additional funding and resources to help prevent the causes of homelessness in the first place? Since it’s too high of a societal cost to have them on the sidewalks, surely this would be a net savings, yes?
this presumes that more spending on the “homeless” would (1) actually be used on preventing homelessness and (2) it would actually prevent homelessness. If so, San Fransisco would be your “poster child” for spending your way out of homelessness. Instead, it’s an example that “spending” and “funding” doesn’t always solve problems, in fact it sometimes makes them worse depending how you “spend” and “fund.”
You cannot “fund” or “spend” your way out of natural consequences to degeneracy.
Got it. You want to bitch and moan about the societal cost the homeless impose on fine, upstanding members of society, but are unwilling to do anything to mitigate that cost. Can’t see any answers but the jail cell so you’re totally willing to fund more prisons and more ordinances that the homeless can’t comply with. Tell me, is the cost to arrest, charge, and imprison the homeless more or less than the costs imposed on society by the homeless?
Didn’t Salt Lake City have a program to give homeless people homes, and didn’t it have like a massive success rate, until the optics and politics ended the program?
didn’t SLC *actually* provide one-way bus tickets out of town to the homeless prior to hosting the winter olympics? That would work!
Yes. Salt Lake had effectively ended unintentional homelessness. They also provided services to those receiving housing. Basically they turned the current model upside down. Instead of requiring people to go to treatment, job training, etc while homeless, they gave them homes and then provided the services. It was hugely successful until the legislature had some turnover and the party that follows the words of christ defunded the program because WWJD. Also, the program was way cheaper than jails and ERs.
Imagine the goodwill generated if the top 100 grossing churches in the world took 10% of thier cash holdings and used that model. I bet it would work.
Many of those churches go far beyond 10% already.
No, its a nuanced issue. There’s no way to “end” homelessness. How do you prevent people from making decisions that lead to homelessness? Many homeless people may have bad luck, etc., but a majority of the homeless are drug addicts. How do you rehabilitate them permanently? How do you get them to want to make more of themselves? It’s nuanced.
Jails at least keep them from doing more damage.
. . . . and out of the damn parks.
The United States continues its wars against abstract nouns.
The only way to end homelessness is to suspend the constitution. Forcibly take them off the street, take them out to a facility and keep them on lock down for six months. Get them sober, get them on meds and let those meds take effect. And let them make meaningful choices about their future once they’re not crippled by substances and mental illnesses. But we can’t do that because of the fourth amendment so things will just continue to get worse.
That pesky constitution and damn personal freedoms.
Let me keep my money and give it to my church and nonprofits; the government is demonstrably useless dealing with poverty. But many nonprofits actually do decent work.
That’s not true at all. There are lots of charities that are set up as tax write-offs and spend the vast majority of their funding on staff salaries.
4:05 PM here. No, I would not support that. Go read up on LA Mayor Karen Bass.
The more government tries to cure poverty, the worse poverty gets.
I suggest that, before posting, you do about 10 seconds of research. The Clark County ordinance would be based on the existing LV ordinance – which prohibits “sitting, lying or camping on a public right of way, including sidewalks”. Long story short, an exhausted collect student sleeping under a tree would not be jailed…
Sitting on a sidewalk would be banned? Yeah, fuck that.
fuck you for blocking the sidewalk
Homelessness: Former Mayor Oscar put it best. If you allow the homeless to take over a City park, then you deprive the use of the park by citizens that it was intended for. Many homeless won’t go to shelters even if offered or moved. Years algo they called these folks “bums”. They use to ride trains and hide in wooded areas. If you feed the homeless you will have more homeless. I was in LA for a long period of time. Even in Santa Monica you could not eat at McDonald’s without dealing with the homeless. One homeless guy before me tried to use expired and maxed out cards. I wound up paying for his “Happy Meal”.
Speaking of Santa Monica, a couple of years ago, the wife and I went out for a stroll while on a weekender there. We passed Tongva Park and though, let’s walk through it. We made it about three steps in and saw that the entire park was a homeless encampment. There were people with serious mental issues just walking around and yelling to no one in particular. There were needles everywhere. We left and went to the pier. Here is what was a beautiful park on expensive real estate. It probably cost millions to build. Yet the public can’t use it because its been taken over as a homeless encampent full of drugs, needles and dangerous people. How is any of that defensible? Why are there people ok with tthis?
Uh huh. You can use that argument when Huntridge Circle Park is reopened. Yeah, the park that the City was so afraid the homeless might continue to use, that they fenced off the entire thing for like the last decade.
I would like to think that LEO discretion would not lead to that result. But then I get a video after video across Facebook and X feeds showing cops who show no discretion and enflame issues. If we could be certain that it is serial loiterers and not the person who happened to fall asleep on the park bench then my angst would lessen.
Until mental health and addiction issues are addressed, homelessness will continue to grow