‘23 CA QB Nicholaus Iamaleava (Tennessee)

Doesn't sound like this guy Caspirino allowed that kind of BS in this particular kid's contact, nor would any remotely decent lawyer. As I said at more length above basically Mandel's article is telling kids to lawyer up and giving them Caspirino's business card.
It's all conjecture at this point. If Spyre gave the kid $350K with no strings attached, it's gross incompetence, imo. If that's the case, well have a bunch of highly ranked recruits lined up for the hand outs with little or no intention of signing with the Vols. I suspect, there are strings. I suspect he can get out of the agreement by giving back the $350K. I suspect another school's NIL team/organization would just pay it for him to sign another NIL. I guess I just have a high expectation that the folks at Spyre are smarter than that.
 
It's been proposed that Spyre may bind him to the area, which would effectively bind him to UT.
My only contention in this discussion based on information available to everyone is that to collect the $8 mil he needs to be at UT. The $350k is his…no strings.
 
My only contention in this discussion based on information available to everyone is that to collect the $8 mil he needs to be at UT. The $350k is his…no strings.
I haven't seen anything that says that the $350k is his, no strings. Not saying that I just didn't miss it.
 
From what I saw in the article, it just said "there is an element of trust" about where he will sign? Or did I miss something? That in no way states that the 350k is his free and clear.
 
From what I saw in the article, it just said "there is an element of trust" about where he will sign? Or did I miss something? That in no way states that the 350k is his free and clear.
What are they TRUSTING his family with?
 
It's been proposed that Spyre may bind him to the area, which would effectively bind him to UT.
Generally you can't play games like that if something is illegal, whether you admit you are doing something prohibited or not. Say you lived in a town with 3 restaurants, a McDonald's, a Burger King and a Wendy's, with the McDonald's on one side of the railroad tracks (the Northside) and the other two on the Southside. If it's illegal to require a person to eat at McDonald's, it's also going to be illegal to require someone to eat "only at restaurants on the Northside of the railroad tracks". Judges aren't stupid, and if any of these kids get experienced lawyers, they aren't going to be stupid either. The fact that this contract was drawn up to be clear he doesn't have to go to a particular school tells me that's a legit limitation on these deals. It's most likely that the incentive is that if he doesn't follow through and commit, he simply doesn't get the 7.65 million on the back end of the contract. He can get it somewhere else though. This lawyer in this article says he's not going to allow his clients to sign anything which would purport to have the collective retain NIL rights to a player after the relationship is over.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: eroller1141@gmail
What are they TRUSTING his family with?
It's completely possible that the article was phrased that way to alleviate the perception that he was induced to sign at UT, especially considering the earlier context of the blurb that makes that blatant.

i.e. "You just signed your LOI rights to us. Here's #350k to get you started. The contract merely says that you must play NCAA football and we can't tell you where to sign. (But you signed a LOI contract with a regional sponsor collective, and those regional sponsorship caveats will have you so tied to Knoxville that it won't make sense you to try to play elsewhere.) In any event, again... Here's your first $350. We own your contract now."

And to the public: "We didn't induce him to sign with UT. There's a certain level of trust that he won't sign elsewhere."

But again... There is NOTHING in that that says, "We gave him 350k earnest money with no strings attached or any contract where we own his rights."
 
Generally you can't play games like that if something is illegal, whether you admit you are doing something prohibited or not. Say you lived in a town with 3 restaurants, a McDonald's, a Burger King and a Wendy's, with the McDonald's on one side of the railroad tracks (the Northside) and the other two on the Southside. If it's illegal to require a person to eat at McDonald's, it's also going to be illegal to require someone to eat "only at restaurants on the Northside of the railroad tracks". Judges aren't stupid, and if any of these kids get experienced lawyers, they aren't going to be stupid either. The fact that this contract was drawn up to be clear he doesn't have to go to a particular school tells me that's a legit limitation on these deals. It's most likely that the incentive is that if he doesn't follow through and commit, he simply doesn't get the 7.65 million on the back end of the contract.
If you sign your sponsorship rights to a regional sponsorship collective, I'm not sure it's illegal to expect him to be in that region to meet the demands of those regional sponsors.
 
If you sign your sponsorship rights to a regional sponsorship collective, I'm not sure it's illegal to expect him to be in that region to meet the demands of those regional sponsors.
We are assuming terms, but there is also an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing in contracts. You can't say "this isn't tied to a school" and then in the setting of obligations make it impossible for the contract to be fulfilled practically at any other school. Courts see right through that kind of BS.
 

VN Store



Back
Top