Started By
Message
re: Ole Miss files lawsuit against two LSU players
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:46 pm to HailFreezusOver
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:46 pm to HailFreezusOver
Rev share isnt paid out right away. Its paid in monthly installment. Since they left within a month there is a minimal amount of money paid out, but old piss wants the full mil lol. It won't hold up in court. It sucks that your team is so broke they have to sue prior athletes.
1
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:53 pm to 03 West CoChamps
Hahaha, your broke arse school hasn't even paid out 1 mil to both those players because rev share agreements aren't paid out in one lump sum. They are suing for money they haven't even given. Since you know so much tell me about the exact language in the contract. You little cuck boys need to calm down before you kill any chance of other players coming to your school. They already know the majority of your fanbase is involved in the KKK. Once they learn you will sue prior athletes your fake money won't be a factor and your team will be worse than FAU was before CLK got there. Simmer down little boy.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 9:48 pm to Victor R Franko
Welcome to the club?
Posted on 7/30/26 at 6:46 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
It was Rev share contracts. It is legal salary. Every school gets 20.5 million to pay salary. These signed rec share contracts with ole Miss. the contracts had buyouts. They broke the contract and haven’t paid the buyout. They are legally required too. Stop complicating this. It’s cut and dry.
Debt slavery has been illegal in the United States in some form, since its founding. The passage of the 13th Amendment codified it into the Constitution. It is indeed cut and dry. Just maybe not as cut and dry in the direction you want it.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 6:49 am to stopitnow1
quote:
So, they paid them to play, because you can't force someone stay at a school unless they are an employee that signed a contract.
You can't force them to stay at the school even if they are employees who signed a contract. Slavery, even by contract, has loooong since been illegal in the United States. This is not negotiable, nor is it up for debate.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 7:27 am to stopitnow1
quote:
Rev share isnt paid out right away. It’s paid in monthly installment. Since they left within a month there is a minimal amount of money paid out, but old piss wants the full mil lol. It won't hold up in court. It sucks that your team is so broke they have to sue prior athletes.
For the 100th time retard it isn’t getting money back. It is a buyout clause. The contract states if you leave and not fulfill the players end of the contract then they owe “x” amount of dollars. They broke the contract and haven’t paid the buyout. Has zero to do with how much they were paid.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 7:31 am to ouflak
quote:
Debt slavery has been illegal in the United States in some form, since its founding. The passage of the 13th Amendment codified it into the Constitution. It is indeed cut and dry. Just maybe not as cut and dry in the direction you want it.
Bro don’t ever give up on trying to shoehorn the 13th Amendment into this argument.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 7:40 am to stopitnow1
quote:
You little cuck boys need to calm down before you kill any chance of other players coming to your school.
LSU will look great to future recruits when they are on the record refusing to pay rev share agreement buy outs for their players. Im sure these players love all the extra attention they are getting in the news completely unrelated to their actual football ability. Not distracting at all!
Posted on 7/30/26 at 7:44 am to ouflak
quote:
Debt slavery has been illegal in the United States in some form, since its founding. The passage of the 13th Amendment codified it into the Constitution. It is indeed cut and dry. Just maybe not as cut and dry in the direction you want it.
“I don’t like the employment terms I agreed to, and that’s actually slavery. I’m smart”
Posted on 7/30/26 at 8:17 am to Landmass
Whoa, good one! You live in Mississippi, enough said ya broke hillbilly.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 9:32 am to RebelExpress38
quote:
“I don’t like the employment terms I agreed to, and that’s actually slavery. I’m smart”
They're not employment terms, players aren't classified as employees.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 9:36 am to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
The contract states if you leave and not fulfill the players end of the contract then they owe “x” amount of dollars. They broke the contract and haven’t paid the buyout. Has zero to do with how much they were paid.
What did Ole Miss do to fulfill their end of the contract?
You can't trap someone in a one sided, exclusivity contract with zero consideration. Many Ole Miss fans are just completely overlooking that fact and jumping to conclusions because they desperately need Lane to look bad.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 9:49 am to SidewalkTiger
quote:
You can't trap someone in a one sided, exclusivity contract with zero consideration.
It may run contrary to public policy, similar to a Non Compete Agreement which can be difficult to enforce depending on circumstances.
This post was edited on 7/30/26 at 9:52 am
Posted on 7/30/26 at 10:13 am to cyarrr
Based on the lawsuit itself, the buyout terms were one-sided.
LINK
To qualify for payments, tt required the players to:
- remain enrolled at Ole Miss
- remain in good standing with the team (whatever that broad term means)
- have an active Athletic Financial Aid Agreement (assume this means an athletic scholarship)
If the players terminated the agreement within the first 90 days, it required a lump sum buyout of $550,000 which, according to Ole Miss, represented the financial harm caused to the university by the player's departure.
There is nothing mentioned as to what Ole Miss would owe the player if they chose to terminate the agreement and/or pulled the player's scholarship, or determined that the player didn't "remain in good standing" with the team.
Ole Miss also alleges that the terms of the contract are confidential, so none of the other details of the contract are disclosed in the lawsuit filed.
I don't think this lawsuit is as black and white as a lot of people on here think it is. You have a lot of issues at play here
- how one-sided the contract is
- pay for play being a pre-requisite to the contract. Mississippi law still does not provide for compensation conditioned on remaining enrolled at school and/or on the team. They do allow for revenue sharing, but that only pertains to a school being able to compensate a player for their publicity rights through revenue sharing. State law does not permit schools to demand enrollment at the school as a condition
The Mississippi Intercollegiate Athletics Compensation and Publicity Rights Act explicitly deals with a schools ability to compensate players for publicity rights. NCAA bylaws still restrict NIL agreements and revenue sharing deals from being contingent to enrolling in school and/or participating in athletics. That's why these state laws pertaining to revenue sharing are framed how they are. They are tied to publicity rights, not enrollment at the school. If the lawsuit is accurate that it required these players to remain enrolled at Ole Miss, there are certainly going to be some issues Ole Miss faces. And then you have the unconscionable terms that only protect one side if the agreement is terminated. If you want to compare them to coaching contracts, the termination clauses cut both ways. They're also employment contracts, and revenue sharing deals are not.
LINK
To qualify for payments, tt required the players to:
- remain enrolled at Ole Miss
- remain in good standing with the team (whatever that broad term means)
- have an active Athletic Financial Aid Agreement (assume this means an athletic scholarship)
If the players terminated the agreement within the first 90 days, it required a lump sum buyout of $550,000 which, according to Ole Miss, represented the financial harm caused to the university by the player's departure.
There is nothing mentioned as to what Ole Miss would owe the player if they chose to terminate the agreement and/or pulled the player's scholarship, or determined that the player didn't "remain in good standing" with the team.
Ole Miss also alleges that the terms of the contract are confidential, so none of the other details of the contract are disclosed in the lawsuit filed.
I don't think this lawsuit is as black and white as a lot of people on here think it is. You have a lot of issues at play here
- how one-sided the contract is
- pay for play being a pre-requisite to the contract. Mississippi law still does not provide for compensation conditioned on remaining enrolled at school and/or on the team. They do allow for revenue sharing, but that only pertains to a school being able to compensate a player for their publicity rights through revenue sharing. State law does not permit schools to demand enrollment at the school as a condition
The Mississippi Intercollegiate Athletics Compensation and Publicity Rights Act explicitly deals with a schools ability to compensate players for publicity rights. NCAA bylaws still restrict NIL agreements and revenue sharing deals from being contingent to enrolling in school and/or participating in athletics. That's why these state laws pertaining to revenue sharing are framed how they are. They are tied to publicity rights, not enrollment at the school. If the lawsuit is accurate that it required these players to remain enrolled at Ole Miss, there are certainly going to be some issues Ole Miss faces. And then you have the unconscionable terms that only protect one side if the agreement is terminated. If you want to compare them to coaching contracts, the termination clauses cut both ways. They're also employment contracts, and revenue sharing deals are not.
This post was edited on 7/30/26 at 10:17 am
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:32 pm to Tiger in the Sticks
Zero impact on eligibility[/quote]
Posted on 7/30/26 at 1:55 pm to stopitnow1
quote:
know the majority of your fanbase is involved in the KKK
This post was edited on 7/30/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:23 pm to ouflak
quote:
You can't force them to stay at the school even if they are employees who signed a contract
I dont think anyone has stated they were barred from transfer by signing the contract. Only that if they signed the contract and transferred thereafter a breach of contract penalty clause is triggered.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:36 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
LSU will look great to future recruits when they are on the record refusing to pay rev share agreement buy outs for their players. Im sure these players love all the extra attention they are getting in the news completely unrelated to their actual football ability. Not distracting at all!
LSU never agreed to pay it, so again it just looks bad for Old Piss. Have fun back at tge bottom of the SEC. The only games you guys will be competitive in after this year is going to be against teams like Vandy and Moo St.
This post was edited on 7/30/26 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:40 pm to 03 West CoChamps
quote:
or the 100th time retard it isn’t getting money back. It is a buyout clause. The contract states if you leave and not fulfill the players end of the contract then they owe “x” amount of dollars. They broke the contract and haven’t paid the buyout. Has zero to do with how much they were paid.
I work one of the highschool camps. Theres already been rumors of kids thinking about decomitting from old piss because of this. You dumbass cucks are about to be worse than moo state and vandy, lol.
Posted on 7/30/26 at 2:41 pm to stopitnow1
quote:
LSU never agreed to pay it, so again it just looks bad for Old Piss.
If LSU recruited these guys and told them to not worry about the buyout, and have no interest or intention of paying, that will come back to bite hard. Any kid who has a deal in place will be told the cautionary tale of the 2 guys who went there and had to pay buyouts out of their own pockets.
Hope the head in the sand ignore the lawyers strategy works for LSU!
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News