Started By
Message
re: Lane is about make OM pay
Posted on 7/30/26 at 11:03 am to RebelExpress38
Posted on 7/30/26 at 11:03 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
Yes. Miami paid him more money to help him pay the buyout.
If you do mental gymnastics hard enough you can rationalize that this doesn’t count as Miami paying the buyout. However you need to spin it.
Maybe, but the distinguishing factor regarding both matters is that Duke was actively paying Mensah and Ole Miss had not distributed payments to Umanmielen and Harper.
As you have speculated, and are most likely correct, Miami funded deal to cover buyout.
It is also believed, based on Ole Miss’ lawsuit seeking early termination penalties, that Princewell and Devin were not paid.
0
Posted on 7/30/26 at 11:52 am to geauxcoco
quote:
Lane is about make OM pay
At least they have the money.....
Too soon?
.png)
Posted on 7/30/26 at 12:03 pm to geauxcoco
this thread is awesome 
Posted on 7/30/26 at 12:36 pm to geauxcoco
For those who were wondering, Ole Miss alleges that the contract required an "early termination payment" if the player left the school within 90 days of signing. There are no allegations that any payments were made to Umanmielen. You can read the complaint here.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 12:43 pm to Jebadeb
quote:
The agreements themselves were not included with the lawsuits. Ole Miss said their terms are confidential and disclosed only the portions it considered necessary to make its breach-of-contract claims.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 12:45 pm to Jebadeb
quote:
There are no allegations that any payments were made to Umanmielen.
We’ve been trying to tell you Baws it doesn’t matter if there was payment made or not. It’s a liquidated damages clause dispute not a “pay me back” dispute
Posted on 7/30/26 at 12:56 pm to Goldingera
quote:
liquidated damages
What were the liquidated damages associated with the contract? Something like Ole Miss having a loss of revenue due to the athletes withdrawing from contracts or something? Did Ole Miss incur more costs due to them leaving?
I do not know, not trying to troll.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:05 pm to JTM72
quote:
What were the liquidated damages associated with the contract? Something like Ole Miss having a loss of revenue due to the athletes withdrawing from contracts or something? Did Ole Miss incur more costs due to them leaving?
My understanding is the NCAA bylaws count the money promised to them in the rev share deal against the “cap” regardless. The damages are a couple of things.
1. Having their pay count against the cap without them playing
2. Having to replace them with a portal that was either closed or closing
3. Loss of opportunity type damages, like anyone we could have brought in we chose not to
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:07 pm to JTM72
quote:
I do not know, not trying to troll.
Building a roster under a soft salary cap. You have 2 players signed and assumed locked in for the roster for 26. 2 weeks later they back out. You have to go find players and probably pay more than you would have to replace them.
Not apples to apples but it’s like signing and old school NLI in December then in February signs with another team. The original team could hold that players NLI for 12 months.
This is an attempt to get back to that to have some guard rails. When you are signed you are locked in. Everyone wants Ole Miss to win to set precedent that these Rev Share contracts are enforceable.
Only LsU fans are so biased they can’t see the forest for the trees because it is their players.
This post was edited on 7/30/26 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:24 pm to Goldingera
quote:
My understanding is the NCAA bylaws count the money promised to them in the rev share deal against the “cap” regardless. The damages are a couple of things.
1. Having their pay count against the cap without them playing
2. Having to replace them with a portal that was either closed or closing
3. Loss of opportunity type damages, like anyone we could have brought in we chose not to
I don't doubt it was a legal contract, and I could be entirely wrong, but I don't see a court siding with OM here. I think a half million dollar penalty for breach of contract just 10 days into it while the portal was still open and no payments were made at all will be deemed excessive.
Do courts lower the penalty? Do they throw it all out since it was excessive? Who knows, but I don't expect the full penalty to hold as I think most people would look at it as excessive.
I can't imagine any employer giving a contract to someone and then asking them to pay the company half a million dollars if they leave in the first 3 months(without any payments too).
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:35 pm to Tigers0918
quote:
don't doubt it was a legal contract, and I could be entirely wrong, but I don't see a court siding with OM here. I think a half million dollar penalty for breach of contract just 10 days into it while the portal was still open and no payments were made at all will be deemed excessive.
Another unique thing about LD clauses is they’re analyzed at the time of formation not the time of breach. Ole Miss just has to prove they were reasonable or rationally based on anticipated damages at the time the contract was made.
Pretty easy to get to 500k or so for a new defensive end when the only eligible portal players are coming from playoff teams in the extended portal window
quote:
can't imagine any employer giving a contract to someone and then asking them to pay the company half a million dollars if they leave in the first 3 months(without any payments too).
Remind me, what was CWJ’s buyout if he left LSU prior to March?
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:42 pm to geauxcoco
Sure thing
Your coach is a huge fig btw
Your coach is a huge fig btw
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:15 pm to Goldingera
quote:
Pretty easy to get to 500k or so for a new defensive end when the only eligible portal players are coming from playoff teams in the extended portal window
Setting aside the liquidated damages issue -
If we are calculating actual damages, shouldn't it be the difference?
For example, if you and I contract that you to peform work for $100. You tell me you decided not to do it, and I didn't pay you yet. I hire someone else to do it for $150. If I sue you, then I could collect $50, not $150.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:22 pm to Jebadeb
quote:
For example, if you and I contract that you to peform work for $100. You tell me you decided not to do it, and I didn't pay you yet. I hire someone else to do it for $150. If I sue you, then I could collect $50, not $150.
That’s why I mentioned the “cap” implications. Even if ole Miss didn’t pay the players, I believe it counted the same for cap purposes. So in this instance you’d still “spend” the first 100 dollars
I also was saying 500k in excess of the signed players. Obviously no one except players and staff actually know what the numbers are but I wouldn’t be shocked to hear a late window portal player is 500k+ more than retaining a guy of similar skill
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:23 pm to cyarrr
I wouldn't expect a guy in Mississippi to understand anything about legally binding contracts. Maybe this guy is a wannabe architect, they love putting unenforceable bs into contract documents thinking they're slick, then they get steamrolled in court and owe millions.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:29 pm to dalefla
Half of your fanbase already gave up on football and the season hasn't even started yet
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:33 pm to 03 West CoChamps
The funny part is, not one person on this entire forum has seen the contract and continues to act like they're a seasoned litigation attorney. Most of you have less teeth than fingers.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:34 pm to Goldingera
quote:
Remind me, what was CWJ’s buyout if he left LSU prior to March?
You don't see a difference for breach of contract for getting back part of when you have paid already and a contract where nothing was paid yet and was still done during the transfer portal window?
I don't know if they will fight it all the way, but I'd be very interested in how this would turn out in an unbiased court(not MS or LA) but that isn't going to happen.
They could just as easily argue they signed under pressure since they signed before their season had ended and they could argue they felt they would lose playing time if they didn't sign.
It is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:34 pm to CJ786
We have attorneys coming out of our a-hole in Mississippi
Posted on 7/30/26 at 5:37 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
So yall believe a player transferred knowing he’s very likely going to be in the hook for a big buyout, and didn’t negotiate an increased NIL payout to make up for the settlement? Just paid out of his own pocket because he was sold on Miami’s academics or something?
Ole Miss seem to believe that about the two players in question.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News