- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:29 pm to Salviati
Have you looked into the state of Washington’s anti-noncompete laws beyond just the federal? I’m no expert but I believe they extend to non-employee and contractors as well. And they cannot make you pay back any previously earned money, only withhold unearned money from what I heard. If the contract was a blanket Big10 template, I’m guessing it probably only accounts for federal law and not stricter state laws in Washington state.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:32 pm to GeauxldMember
quote:
If this is an excerpt from the actual contract, it looks like the agreement is that the player and/or transfer school would be responsible to pay liquidated damages of the prorated amount of the agreement. In this case, if no payment had yet been made, that would be the entire amount. This is the clawback OP referred to, and it would be up to the courts to determine if this could be enforced.
Clause 3(a) is the claw-back clause. Clause 3(b) is the stipulated damages clause.
I don't think a court would enforce a stipulated damages clause in the amount of the stated payment. Just sign another QB. The damages, if any, would be the value of the difference between the performances of the two QBs.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:38 pm to Salviati
quote:
A revenue-sharing liquidated damages clause functions like a non-compete agreement by deterring departure through financial penalties.
Liquidated damages cannot be punitive. Any half decent lawyer will be able to argue its punitive if its 4 days after he originally signed and they already acquired a replacement. QB
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:42 pm to Salviati
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. quote:
Two key items in Demond Williams’ signed Washington contract as he attempts to enter the portal and transfer. Washington continues to pursue legal options to enforce the contract, per ESPN sources.
1) The buyout in the contact reads the cost of the buyout is in the “sole discretion” of Washington.
2) The contract specifically states that “the institution is not obligated to enter the Student-Athlete into the transfer portal or otherwise assist or facilitate the Student-Athlete’s transfer to another college or university.”
Washington/B10 isn't winning this one. At least not anytime soon. Sign the guy.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:45 pm to Salviati
quote:
Clause 3(a) is the claw-back clause. Clause 3(b) is the stipulated damages clause.
Yep. I guess I cut the statement I was referring to before I hit submit. Will edit to correct.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:45 pm to Salviati
Why Clause 3(b) likely isn’t enforceable in Washington:
Washington law does not allow liquidated damages that function as a penalty rather than compensation. Under RCW 62A.2-718(1), liquidated damages must be reasonable in light of anticipated or actual harm; amounts that are unreasonably large are void as penalties. Clause 3(b) requires payment of the entire unpaid future amount simply for entering the transfer portal, money UW never paid and losses based on speculative future value, which makes it punitive rather than a reasonable estimate of harm.
Washington law does not allow liquidated damages that function as a penalty rather than compensation. Under RCW 62A.2-718(1), liquidated damages must be reasonable in light of anticipated or actual harm; amounts that are unreasonably large are void as penalties. Clause 3(b) requires payment of the entire unpaid future amount simply for entering the transfer portal, money UW never paid and losses based on speculative future value, which makes it punitive rather than a reasonable estimate of harm.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:45 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:
The contract specifically states that “the institution is not obligated to enter the Student-Athlete into the transfer portal or otherwise assist or facilitate the Student-Athlete’s transfer to another college or university.”
So they think you can just write a contract to circumvent NCAA compliance.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:52 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
A “buyout in the sole discretion of Washington” is a problem under RCW 62A.2-718(1), which voids liquidated damages that are unreasonably large or operate as penalties. Giving UW unilateral discretion to set the buyout is the opposite of a reasonable pre-estimate of harm. It’s arbitrary by design, which WA law does not allow.
The portal language doesn’t save them either. Saying UW is “not obligated to assist or facilitate” a transfer is fine, but it does not give them authority to block portal entry. That strengthens the argument this contract functions as a mobility restraint, which Washington public policy strongly disfavors under RCW 49.62. UW can stop paying and maybe claw back unearned money already paid, but discretionary buyouts + blocking portal entry is exactly the kind of overreach Washington law is hostile to.
The portal language doesn’t save them either. Saying UW is “not obligated to assist or facilitate” a transfer is fine, but it does not give them authority to block portal entry. That strengthens the argument this contract functions as a mobility restraint, which Washington public policy strongly disfavors under RCW 49.62. UW can stop paying and maybe claw back unearned money already paid, but discretionary buyouts + blocking portal entry is exactly the kind of overreach Washington law is hostile to.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:59 pm to Salviati
Great thread. Seems like the TD law section has figured this out.
Sign the kid and let's win some NCs!
Sign the kid and let's win some NCs!
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:10 pm to catfish 62
quote:
Kind of surprised that poster with 800k posts that claims to be a lawyer hasn’t dropped in here to pontificate
Gotta let the arguments crystallize first. That's contrarianism 101.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:11 pm to Salviati
quote:
The damages, if any, would be the value of the difference between the performances of the two QBs.
Impossible to quantify. Too many variables.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:19 pm to CoatesHall
I'm glad our nation is founded on contract law but frick these guys and I'm glad I'm not an attorney :eyes bleed:
Posted on 1/7/26 at 2:30 pm to Havoc
quote:
Impossible to quantify. Too many variables
From what I've been reading about it. (Not much). Assigning a value to hard to quantify variables is the main point of liquidized damages sections. But it also seems like the amount is supposed to be reasonable and defined. Not determined at the discretion of one party and up to the entire amount.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:14 pm to Havoc
quote:Not impossible.quote:Impossible to quantify. Too many variables.
The damages, if any, would be the value of the difference between the performances of the two QBs.
Every day, judges and juries quantify many things that are difficult to quantify: pain and suffering, loss of a loved one, loss of mobility, loss of function, etc.
The point is that liquidated damages should be reasonably related to the actual damages they are attempted to approximate.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:41 pm to Salviati
Isn’t the contract clause that states he can’t enter the portal the biggest issue at this point? Is that enforceable?
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 3:56 pm to KamaCausey_LSU
Washington allows liquidation damages that are reasonable to compensate the party for break for damages that are hard to calculate at the time of signing the contract.
i would make an argument that there are no damages because he left during the transfer portal period which means.
1. Washington has time to get another QB.
2. Washington has time to use his share of the revenue split with other players.
If he did this way after the portal washington could argue that they could have spend that Revenue Share money on other players and effectively they are without X dollars with of players.
But besides not having Williams as a QB what is Washington’s actual monitary damages?
i would make an argument that there are no damages because he left during the transfer portal period which means.
1. Washington has time to get another QB.
2. Washington has time to use his share of the revenue split with other players.
If he did this way after the portal washington could argue that they could have spend that Revenue Share money on other players and effectively they are without X dollars with of players.
But besides not having Williams as a QB what is Washington’s actual monitary damages?
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 4:00 pm to Coonass
It will be interesting to see how a court would rule on the locality portion of non-competes here. Would “local” be in state, within conference or nationwide. I can’t see a nationwide clause standing up even with the argument of nationwide means NCAA.
I’m also interested in how the courts would parse the clawback addendum when nothing has been payed out. In theory, that would mean a player was paid nothing but would still owe money to a collective for a school he won’t play for. Seems like a double whammy that’s courts don’t usually view fondly.
The answer is the fix the transfer portal, obviously. Allow 1 transfer then force them to sit a year if they transfer again. Exceptions can be made for when coaches leave or graduate students.
I’m also interested in how the courts would parse the clawback addendum when nothing has been payed out. In theory, that would mean a player was paid nothing but would still owe money to a collective for a school he won’t play for. Seems like a double whammy that’s courts don’t usually view fondly.
The answer is the fix the transfer portal, obviously. Allow 1 transfer then force them to sit a year if they transfer again. Exceptions can be made for when coaches leave or graduate students.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News