It's just that, between the lines, something happened. Rashada and his handlers would not want to come out of this appearing to be untrustworthy. If we made a mistake where we offered something(our NIL), then could not or decided not to deliver, his side might have standing to get something in return for going away but not discussing the details or releasing statements about what actually happened. Obviously everyone wants to know. We might not want him to discuss it or release any statements or opinions.Why would we pay him hush money?
Seems likely. Rojas made promises that everyone else thought was excessive and would lead to escalating ruin.No one has brought this up, and I am curious. Eddie Rojas, founder of the Gator Collective, resigned just before Christmas. Could there be any correlation between that and this NIL debacle?
You might have answered your own question....Billy has a previous relationship with him being that he’s from Lafayette….
It’s the reason we did I didn’t like.How crazy is it that at one point we had Stokes and Rashada and now we have neither.
Monday morning QB here but at the time I did not like getting rid of Stokes. That decision might come back to bite us in the butt.
Not in Oregon.The answer is the high schooler and his parents thought 135000 was 13.5 million. Arithmetic is fundamental.
No one has brought this up, and I am curious. Eddie Rojas, founder of the Gator Collective, resigned just before Christmas. Could there be any correlation between that and this NIL debacle?
Perhaps that’s true. It fits, but who knows. It remains possible he left because our NIL is dysfunctional. But if we made a mistake- too large an offer- another reason, if true, we might have had to cut a deal to make him go away, quietly.Seems likely. Rojas made promises that everyone else thought was excessive and would lead to escalating ruin.
Perhaps that’s true. It fits, but who knows. It remains possible he left because our NIL is dysfunctional. But if we made a mistake- too large an offer- another reason, if true, we might have had to cut a deal to make him go away, quietly.
What if it turned out the mistake was a comma mistake in text or email, something informal that became expectation. Geez.
@Silverback Gator about the best explanation of what is thought to have happened I got from the Locked on Gators PC. In a nutshell the collective and attorney got a figure and approved by the NIL contributor. Then said attorney, collective, Rashada's got the offer. Somewhere in the drafting portion of the deal the number changed, possibly fees added, commissions and that number was never communicated to or approved by the NIL contributor. So the way I interpret that is the Rashada's and those drafting the deal changed it and never verified it with the contributor. Shame, shame. Upon getting the contract back the contributor was not going to pay that amount other than what was agreed to. That podcast gives pretty good sources and names those involved.Isn't it still true that we do not know which entity caused the issue that ultimately resulted in Rashada and UF to part ways? We would like to believe fault is on Rashada's side, but we have no real knowledge. Our NIL could have made offers that were not honored. I read we have to pay miami's NIL something? WTH! And even though we might have some leverage because of the LOI, using that could backfire on us. Maybe his side has been "corrupt" in their dealings with UF. But it really doesn't stand to reason that we offered a significant NIL agreement but his camp believes that instead of playing for a high profile school like UF, Colorado and some extra NIL promises are better for him, long term. I have a hard time believing most or all fault lies with Rashada, although I wish if that's the case, that it comes out eventually.
Yes, on pg 24 this thread, but of course no body is spilling the beans on a definitive connection between Rojas' resignation from the collective and the Rashada cluster fuchs. There are dots that seem connect though.No one has brought this up, and I am curious. Eddie Rojas, founder of the Gator Collective, resigned just before Christmas. Could there be any correlation between that and this NIL debacle?
It seems to me that Rashada’s entire argument would be that he’s decided not to enroll because we’ve decided not to pay him, which is still technically against the rules. I do agree that we have a lot more freedom to speak than his camp does because we’re not the ones breaking contract(NLI).
Isn't it still true that we do not know which entity caused the issue that ultimately resulted in Rashada and UF to part ways? We would like to believe fault is on Rashada's side, but we have no real knowledge. Our NIL could have made offers that were not honored. I read we have to pay miami's NIL something? WTH! And even though we might have some leverage because of the LOI, using that could backfire on us. Maybe his side has been "corrupt" in their dealings with UF. But it really doesn't stand to reason that we offered a significant NIL agreement but his camp believes that instead of playing for a high profile school like UF, Colorado and some extra NIL promises are better for him, long term. I have a hard time believing most or all fault lies with Rashada, although I wish if that's the case, that it comes out eventually.
It's just that, between the lines, something happened. Rashada and his handlers would not want to come out of this appearing to be untrustworthy. If we made a mistake where we offered something(our NIL), then could not or decided not to deliver, his side might have standing to get something in return for going away but not discussing the details or releasing statements about what actually happened. Obviously everyone wants to know. We might not want him to discuss it or release any statements or opinions.
@Deadspin: Jaden Rashada was sold a bill of goods, and Florida paid for it Jaden Rashada was sold a false bill of goods, and Florida suffered for it
How is it technically against the rules for the Gator Collective, or the other Gator NIL organization to pay him?
Our NIL Director: “It’s was just a text, not a binding agreement”