-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Gamebreaker
- Start date
daddyphatsacs
Let the cards fall...
I have a serious question about the landscaping gig that all the players did. Even if they were paid thousands of dollars (which I doubt) for the work that they did, how is it illegal? I could get a job with someone that decides to pay me 1000 dollars and hour, and it would not be illegal. Just a question.
Upvote
0
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
daddyphatsacks
There is nothing wrong with a fair days wage for a fair days labor. The damaging claim made is that they were paid money to do nothing.
So perhaps clearer scenarios are like this:
The McNutt Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ GroundsCorp to give McNutt a job. XYZ GroundsCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. McNutt and XYZ GroundsCorp live up to the respective parts of their contract, McNutt shovels dirt, XYZ pays McNutt a fair wage for a fair days labor. Later McNutt comes out and confirms that he did shovel sh*t, in the face of allegations to the contrary.
The NCAA has no grounds for complaint here.
An MoC Lies Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ GroundsCorp to give OSU Players a job. XYZ GroundsCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. OSU Player and XYZ GroundsCorp live up to the respective parts of their contract, OSU Player shovels dirt, XYZ pays OSU Player a fair wage for a fair days labor. Later OSU Player (i.e. MoC) comes out and says it wasn't like that - that he got paid for doing damned little.
The NCAA has something to investigate - but in the end all parties except Clarett agree on what happened.
The Clarett Retracts Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ DirtCorp to give MoC a job. XYZ DirtCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. MoC and XYZ DirtCorp do not live up to the respective parts of their contract, MoC does not shovels dirt and XYZ does not give a sh*t, XYZ pays MoC a wage without MoC doing a lick of work. XYZ tells tOSU Football Office that MoC did get paid for doing a fair days work. Later MoC comes out and tells it differently.
If true this is cause for sanctions or worse by the NCAA.
The amount of money (within reason) is not the real issue.
There is nothing wrong with a fair days wage for a fair days labor. The damaging claim made is that they were paid money to do nothing.
So perhaps clearer scenarios are like this:
The McNutt Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ GroundsCorp to give McNutt a job. XYZ GroundsCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. McNutt and XYZ GroundsCorp live up to the respective parts of their contract, McNutt shovels dirt, XYZ pays McNutt a fair wage for a fair days labor. Later McNutt comes out and confirms that he did shovel sh*t, in the face of allegations to the contrary.
The NCAA has no grounds for complaint here.
An MoC Lies Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ GroundsCorp to give OSU Players a job. XYZ GroundsCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. OSU Player and XYZ GroundsCorp live up to the respective parts of their contract, OSU Player shovels dirt, XYZ pays OSU Player a fair wage for a fair days labor. Later OSU Player (i.e. MoC) comes out and says it wasn't like that - that he got paid for doing damned little.
The NCAA has something to investigate - but in the end all parties except Clarett agree on what happened.
The Clarett Retracts Version
tOSU Football Office arranges with Landscaper XYZ DirtCorp to give MoC a job. XYZ DirtCorp is read the rules by Football Office at tOSU. MoC and XYZ DirtCorp do not live up to the respective parts of their contract, MoC does not shovels dirt and XYZ does not give a sh*t, XYZ pays MoC a wage without MoC doing a lick of work. XYZ tells tOSU Football Office that MoC did get paid for doing a fair days work. Later MoC comes out and tells it differently.
If true this is cause for sanctions or worse by the NCAA.
The amount of money (within reason) is not the real issue.
Upvote
0
daddyphatsacs said:
I can't give you the exact wording, but the NCAA has that angle covered also. Athletes cannot receive different pay scales than employees of the same stature, they cannot receive positions they are not qualified for (executive positions), and their company perks are slim to none.
Upvote
0