primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:03 pm
It just shows you how poorly the NCAA has responded to NIL in its ability to regulate the impact it will have on its organization and activities. Not a shock, mind you. Gait Lacrosse is a legitimate business, but this is shady and the lack of guardrails is obvious. If I'm a coach (or a coach's family), is there anything to stop me from setting up a shell company, funding that entity with booster money, and then funneling that to recruits I want through a "NIL" deal? Maybe I'm missing something here?
you obviously haven't heard about texas a&m's $30 million deal with their next recruit class.
Hadn't heard that but not surprised. Just need to come up with an equitable way to pay athletes (see TLDs post) and alot of this goes away. Or, at least detection and enforcement of workarounds becomes a lot easier.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:03 pm
It just shows you how poorly the NCAA has responded to NIL in its ability to regulate the impact it will have on its organization and activities. Not a shock, mind you. Gait Lacrosse is a legitimate business, but this is shady and the lack of guardrails is obvious. If I'm a coach (or a coach's family), is there anything to stop me from setting up a shell company, funding that entity with booster money, and then funneling that to recruits I want through a "NIL" deal? Maybe I'm missing something here?
you obviously haven't heard about texas a&m's $30 million deal with their next recruit class.
Hadn't heard that but not surprised. Just need to come up with an equitable way to pay athletes (see TLDs post) and alot of this goes away. Or, at least detection and enforcement of workarounds becomes a lot easier.
primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:03 pm
It just shows you how poorly the NCAA has responded to NIL in its ability to regulate the impact it will have on its organization and activities. Not a shock, mind you. Gait Lacrosse is a legitimate business, but this is shady and the lack of guardrails is obvious. If I'm a coach (or a coach's family), is there anything to stop me from setting up a shell company, funding that entity with booster money, and then funneling that to recruits I want through a "NIL" deal? Maybe I'm missing something here?
you obviously haven't heard about texas a&m's $30 million deal with their next recruit class.
Hadn't heard that but not surprised. Just need to come up with an equitable way to pay athletes (see TLDs post) and alot of this goes away. Or, at least detection and enforcement of workarounds becomes a lot easier.
primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:00 pm
The way NIL is going it sure looks like it could be the laundering mechanism that enables this.
Why is it that companies can commercialize every and I mean every aspect of NFL/NBA/MLB etc. and that is OK but now that college athletics can start to do the same thing, it is "laundering"? (Unless there is some other definition of laundering other than the type used in "Money Laundering".)
Question: when is Spallina's NIL effective? To my knowledge, all of the state level NIL laws are specific to college athletes, and he's still in HS, yes?
primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:00 pm
The way NIL is going it sure looks like it could be the laundering mechanism that enables this.
Why is it that companies can commercialize every and I mean every aspect of NFL/NBA/MLB etc. and that is OK but now that college athletics can start to do the same thing, it is "laundering"? (Unless there is some other definition of laundering other than the type used in "Money Laundering".)
Specifically a mechanism for boosters to pay recruits through shell companies. That's the way this seems to be going. To my knowledge, boosters (or schools) paying athletes directly is still a violation. Hence, "laundering".
primitiveskills wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:00 pm
The way NIL is going it sure looks like it could be the laundering mechanism that enables this.
Why is it that companies can commercialize every and I mean every aspect of NFL/NBA/MLB etc. and that is OK but now that college athletics can start to do the same thing, it is "laundering"? (Unless there is some other definition of laundering other than the type used in "Money Laundering".)
Specifically a mechanism for boosters to pay recruits through shell companies. That's the way this seems to be going. To my knowledge, boosters (or schools) paying athletes directly is still a violation. Hence, "laundering".
here's the rule(s)ish:
a booster (individual) can't pay a player.
but a booster who is part of a "business" can.
also, can't pay to go to a school or to be on the team.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
That it’s not sustainable. It’s an opinion and I don’t believe the DOJ has opined on the long term sustainability of it. I didn’t mention legality or permissibility. I believe Kirby Smart and Saban are concerned with it long term but maybe they are just being disingenuous.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
That it’s not sustainable. It’s an opinion and I don’t believe the DOJ has opined on the long term sustainability of it. I didn’t mention legality or permissibility. I believe Kirby Smart and Saban are concerned with it long term but maybe they are just being disingenuous.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
That it’s not sustainable. It’s an opinion and I don’t believe the DOJ has opined on the long term sustainability of it. I didn’t mention legality or permissibility. I believe Kirby Smart and Saban are concerned with it long term but maybe they are just being disingenuous.
so you believe it's a mistake by doj?
No. Did I say that? Will the DOJ make a call on the long term viability of it? NOPE. Do you believe there won’t be a single change made to the way NIL interfaces with college sports? It’s baked and done? Print the books?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
That it’s not sustainable. It’s an opinion and I don’t believe the DOJ has opined on the long term sustainability of it. I didn’t mention legality or permissibility. I believe Kirby Smart and Saban are concerned with it long term but maybe they are just being disingenuous.
so you believe it's a mistake by doj?
No. Did I say that? Will the DOJ may a call on the long term viability of it? Do you believe there won’t be a single change made to the way NIL interfaces with college sports? It’s baked and done? Print the books?
lol. i am trying to get to the bottom of this and evidently failing miserably. it was a question, btw. not putting words in your mouth.
it's a mistake by somebody (your words... i think). who or what is it a mistake by?
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:05 pm
Then don’t worry about the Gait deal.
You can’t be ok with one, and clutch pearls at the other. NIL rules opened the free market.
Does Saban own Nike stock?
To be clear, I believe the issue is NIL itself. Why not just pay the student-athletes? Whenever you set up a facade (NIL) to justify what you really want to do (pay athletes), it becomes rife for abuse. It is analogous to "medical marijuana" as a facade to legalize cannabis.
Bottom line- just pay the athletes and you won't have to worry about all the shady nonsense.
I believe the NIL is a mistake. Pay the players a stipend and set up a trust and some other benefits. I believe the players should share some of the pie. This NIL as constructed isn’t sustainable.
do nil and transfer portal now, do it right or we will do it for you.
- doj
How does the DOJ disagree?
they clearly have told the nc$$ they won't be limiting nil in anything but the narrowest of ways.
and the idea is a stipend and a trust? that is simply not flying.
Did I say they did?
what is the idea that i'm not getting? maybe rephrase the above?
the nil is a mistake... by whom? players?
the nil isn't sustainable... who is going bankrupt on this? boosters or athletic departments? what choice do they have? collude with each other to keep funnelling $$ to the school instead and the school will divvy it out?
i don't understand maybe what you're getting at.
That it’s not sustainable. It’s an opinion and I don’t believe the DOJ has opined on the long term sustainability of it. I didn’t mention legality or permissibility. I believe Kirby Smart and Saban are concerned with it long term but maybe they are just being disingenuous.
so you believe it's a mistake by doj?
No. Did I say that? Will the DOJ may a call on the long term viability of it? Do you believe there won’t be a single change made to the way NIL interfaces with college sports? It’s baked and done? Print the books?
lol. i am trying to get to the bottom of this and evidently failing miserably. it was a question, btw. not putting words in your mouth.
it's a mistake by somebody (your words... i think). who or what is it a mistake by?
Mistake by Colleges and universities implementing it with no real thought.
“Name, image and likeness is a positive thing for players. They’ve got the opportunity to earn money. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. What is concerning is how is that’s used to get players to decide where they’re going to school. I don’t think that was the intention,” Saban said, per Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger.
I agree with Nick…..maybe if you are a recruited athlete you can’t have an NIL discussion until you land on campus….who knows. I wonder if payers were paid something if that would come after the player enrolled or before? My guess is before because in most professions, people get paid before they work.
SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 12:33 pm
As long as Gary has no ownership issue in Gait Lacrosse I'm not seeing the issue at all, and even then I'm not sure there's an issue. It's just another equipment provider signing a student to a NIL contract.
You don't see any issues with the possibility of a coach laundering money to players and recruits? None? Or a coach himself profiting financially as the result of a company's partnership with a player? (Not saying that is what Gary Gait is doing, but this could set a certain precedent, no?)
Student-athletes should be able to profit off their NIL — so long as they're not making deals with their own coaches. Feel like that's pretty basic stuff. If Gary has absolutely nothing to do with Gait Lacrosse anymore then I guess it's fine? But what are the chances of that? At the very least it seems like something the school or brand, or ideally both, would want to come out and address head on to prevent speculation. "Coach Gait has no financial interest in the Gait Lacrosse brand, which is fully owned and operated by Paul Gait" or something along those lines. If there was a lacrosse media that actually cared instead of just carrying water for programs, these are the kinds of questions they'd be asking, and it's perfectly fair to ask them.
The real question is if he has any small indirect interest still. Some type of tail like a earn out or trail/points on some revenue stream etc. Leas obvious might be his signature on some legacy debt that he couldn’t get the lenders to relieve him of when he did exit his interest.
Unless it’s structured to be abnormally by market terms I don’t see the above examples as egregious enough to make any issue of this. Perhaps the trail/point structure on a lien fo revenue that could directly benefit. Then look to how much it means. One kid who’s unknown at the college level is worth what an incremental few hundred grand a year in revenue somehow. And he gets 1-15% of that so $2-3k to at most maybe $20-$30k to Gary. It’s maybe a little greasy but if that’s what he structured em when he exited and now the rules allow this and no one kid can profoundly generate the dollars to make a coach alter/influence his decision making for the program then it’s just for now a small nice arbitrage opportunity. Bound to come up when rules change or are created.
Same sword they knight you they gon' good night you with
Thats' only half if they like you
That ain't even the half what they might do
Don't believe me, ask Michael
See Martin, Malcolm
See Jesus, Judas; Caesar, Brutus
See success is like suicide
wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:56 pm
so you believe it's a mistake by doj?
No. Did I say that? Will the DOJ may a call on the long term viability of it? Do you believe there won’t be a single change made to the way NIL interfaces with college sports? It’s baked and done? Print the books?
lol. i am trying to get to the bottom of this and evidently failing miserably. it was a question, btw. not putting words in your mouth.
it's a mistake by somebody (your words... i think). who or what is it a mistake by?
Mistake by Colleges and universities implementing it with no real thought.
“Name, image and likeness is a positive thing for players. They’ve got the opportunity to earn money. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. What is concerning is how is that’s used to get players to decide where they’re going to school. I don’t think that was the intention,” Saban said, per Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger.
I agree with Nick…..maybe if you are a recruited athlete you can’t have an NIL discussion until you land on campus….who knows. I wonder if payers were paid something if that would come after the player enrolled or before? My guess is before because in most professions, people get paid before they work.
i am with saban here on his actions, not his words. if saban runs things differently the way he thinks is best for student athletes?
i'll believe him. he runs that fiefdom down there like no one else. he can do anything he wants, tell his boosters to do it any way he wants. one of the most powerful men in the whole landscape.
It sure sounds like Syracuse was caught off guard by this whole thing.
The article says that the school's associate AD reached out to Gait Lacrosse for information AFTER the announcement. And now Gait says he's "gathering information and getting more details." Did...did they not tell Cuse that this was happening? Was it not run by compliance at all?
