I think you are likely correct. They may be hoping to develop favorable evidence that could then be used by Ole Miss to fight the charges surrounding RR resulting in a conclusion that does not result in disassociation.

I suspect that most folks familiar with RR, as I am not, have already decided what they think about who is lying. Unless the defendants recant, the outcome of the case likely won't change many minds since it is basically he said/he said.

I suppose the plaintiff could be hoping for a home run judgment that could be enforced by garnishing the NFL salaries and bonuses of the athlete-defendants, assuming they do get NFL contracts. Presumably, the judgment would not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, since the injury, if proved, would have been willfully and maliciously caused.

This post was edited on 6/16/17 at 3:13 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by TOFTR

Tennissippi

Member since Jan 2016

2925 posts

Posted on 6/16/17 at 3:30 pm to tigerinridgeland

Why would anyone at Ole Miss think this litigation would be wrapped up before the NCAA fiasco? Ole Miss itself doesn't have too much to gain from this suit and likely isn't too pleased it was brought forth. However, disassociation would be a death blow for RR, both because of how much of their inventory could no longer be manufactured/sold (as exclusive vendors of proprietary Ole Miss-related clothing and memorabilia) and because fans like me would not be looking to support a store that so sloppily helped topple Ole Miss' house of cards, so it makes sense that they would take whatever steps necessary to protect their livelihood. Cannon Motors in Oxford, the loaner car dealership, has definitely seen a dip in business since the Tunsil fiasco, and they didn't even have to worry about how disassociation would affect their product base

2 ...

Report Post

SEC Rant - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board