Started By
Message
re: Ole Miss Isn't Breaking New Ground on Contract Enforcement
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:54 am to stopitnow1
Posted on 7/15/26 at 7:54 am to stopitnow1
quote:
Its getting weird at this point. Your last 5 posts are about LSU and/or Kiffin. You are patient 0 for KDS and LDS. Please seek help.
Please show me where I mentioned LSU or Kiffin in this post?
You guys are on edge... Chill out.
1
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:07 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
I never mentioned lsu in this post. Not everything’s about you
Not in this post, but your thread from yesterday regarding same topic absolutely did.
LSU money woes, posted by Insurancerebel 7/13/26 at 9:36 am:
“LSU owes money to OM for buyouts, LSU won't pay or can't pay?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:21 am to Insurancerebel
Could Ole Miss be more of a little bitch? I’ve never seen anything like it. Whining 24/7. Act like you’ve been there before. Oh…wait…
Get over it. Your boyfriend picked the better looking, more popular, wealthier girl. Move on! ??????
Get over it. Your boyfriend picked the better looking, more popular, wealthier girl. Move on! ??????
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:23 am to Gifman
quote:All Ole Miss, all the time
Gifman
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:36 am to cyarrr
quote:
Not in this post
Exactly. Nothing on this thread has anything to do with LSU.
Go comment on that one.. This one is about Ole Miss
Thank you
Posted on 7/15/26 at 8:53 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
LSU owes money to OM for buyouts, LSU won't pay or can't pay?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 9:23 am to stopitnow1
This is another one of those gray areas that screams the need for legislation to creates rules for all parties. On the one hand, in a normal situation you sign a guy to a contract and he then leaves then he would owe back the money given for said contract. But this is not a normal situation. If you sign kids to rev share deals and claim that such a deal is a "grant of rights" for that kid's transfer portal access and those rights must be bought back to be exercised, that would seem to violate both the spirit and the letter of the transfer portal rules. Plus it goes against the trends in the courts (local and federal, multiple jurisdiction including the US Supremes) in favor of player rights.
I think this is an unenforceable provision which is why most schools have not enforced it. It might weaken schools further if this goes to court and the courts rules against OM which is another reason schools have not tried to collect.
I think this is an unenforceable provision which is why most schools have not enforced it. It might weaken schools further if this goes to court and the courts rules against OM which is another reason schools have not tried to collect.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 9:45 am to bstaceyau19
quote:
This is another one of those gray areas that screams the need for legislation to creates rules for all parties. On the one hand, in a normal situation you sign a guy to a contract and he then leaves then he would owe back the money given for said contract. But this is not a normal situation. If you sign kids to rev share deals and claim that such a deal is a "grant of rights" for that kid's transfer portal access and those rights must be bought back to be exercised, that would seem to violate both the spirit and the letter of the transfer portal rules. Plus it goes against the trends in the courts (local and federal, multiple jurisdiction including the US Supremes) in favor of player rights.
I think this is an unenforceable provision which is why most schools have not enforced it. It might weaken schools further if this goes to court and the courts rules against OM which is another reason schools have not tried to collect.
The House settlement didn't eliminate contract law. In fact, it contemplated schools entering into direct revenue-sharing agreements with student-athletes.
I think there's also some confusion between NCAA rules and contract law. The NCAA's ability to enforce certain eligibility or transfer restrictions has been significantly limited by the courts. But that's not what we're talking about here. This isn't the NCAA trying to punish a player—it's a university seeking to enforce a contract that was negotiated, drafted by experienced attorneys, and voluntarily signed by both parties. Those are two very different legal questions.
If these provisions are so obviously unenforceable, why are schools continuing to include them? Why did Washington threaten legal action against Demond Williams? Why did Georgia sue Damon Wilson? Why did Duke seek an injunction against Darian Mensah? Why did Wisconsin sue Miami over Xavier Lucas? Those schools clearly believe they have enforceable contractual rights worth protecting.
As for your claim that "most schools haven't enforced them," what's your evidence for that? Revenue-sharing agreements have only existed since the House settlement took effect. Before that, there were already disputes involving NIL contracts. We're only now seeing the first wave of revenue-sharing cases reach the courts. Several have already become public, and there are likely others that were resolved privately and never made the news.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:05 am to Insurancerebel
Melt day 228 - learning how contracts work
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:11 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
Go comment on that one..
I did.
quote:
Nothing on this thread has anything to do with LSU.
It has everything to do with LSU based on the current situation involving Ole Miss transfers and the false narrative you posted yesterday.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:13 am to REBEL5 AC
quote:
This doesn't look good for LSU, that's for sure.
How so?
I hope OM goes after them. Please sue them. See how it works out.
More sour grapes out of Oxford.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:19 am to billjamin
quote:
learning how contracts work
Are you assuming these revenue-sharing contracts don't include default and remedy provisions that address what happens if either party breaches the agreement? Especially ones drafted by the schools' attorneys?
If a sitting athletic director publicly says the school is considering legal action over a breached revenue-sharing contract, I'm inclined to believe the school thinks the contract contains enforceable provisions worth pursuing.
If you're so curious, file a FOIA request and find out.
The schools these players are transferring to have deep pockets. Some are paying former coaches $50 million or more not to coach. If they really want a player badly enough, what's another $1 million to help resolve a contractual dispute?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:26 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
Are you assuming these revenue-sharing contracts don't include default and remedy provisions that address what happens if either party breaches the agreement? Especially ones drafted by the schools' attorneys?
They probably do. Why not post the actual contract terms and stop speculating and melting? Also maybe take a quick lap through the LD laws in MS to familiarize yourself with concept of reasonability and restrictions on punitive penalties.
quote:
If a sitting athletic director publicly says the school is considering legal action over a breached revenue-sharing contract, I'm inclined to believe the school thinks the contract contains enforceable provisions worth pursuing.
You guys hanging on a couple quotes from him and starting all these threads about is the most hilarious part of all of this while having zero clue about the content of the relevant contracts.
quote:
If you're so curious, file a FOIA request and find out.
I figured the guys who are melting about this would be the ones who are most interested. But reality might interrupt the melt, so we can't have that.
quote:irrelevent
The schools these players are transferring to have deep pockets.
quote:irrelevant
Some are paying former coaches $50 million or more not to coach.
quote:irrelevant
If they really want a player badly enough, what's another $1 million to help resolve a contractual dispute?
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:38 am to Insurancerebel
lol you are one of the poster children on this board for LSU/Kiffin Derangement syndrome 
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:48 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
As for your claim that "most schools haven't enforced them," what's your evidence for that?
The original story in the Jackson Clarion Ledger specifically talks about that.
As far as the rest of your comments go, you can't possibly look at how the courts have been ruling on these situations and think that they will say that revenue-sharing contracts nullifies the transfer portal. I know it's a different situation, but all the enabling legislation regarding NIL specifically says that no NIL deal ties an athlete to any specific institution, and until some governing body writes law that covers rev sharing in college sports, this is the closest thing to any kind of controling authority.
You're looking at things too legalistically. Judges are making shite up as they go here and when they are not are going on what little that have to go on.
This is again why the Senate bill needs to be passed, warts and all. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly helpful.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 10:59 am to billjamin
quote:
Why not post the actual contract terms and stop speculating
If a school believes it may have to enforce the agreement, the last thing it's going to do is voluntarily release the contract. Continuing to demand that they publish it before litigation makes no sense.
quote:
Also maybe take a quick lap through the LD laws in MS to familiarize yourself with concept of reasonability and restrictions on punitive penalties.
"Punitive penalties?" Do you mean punitive damages? Those aren't the same thing as liquidated damages or contractual remedies. You're mixing different legal concepts.
quote:
The schools these players are transferring to have deep pockets.
irrelevent
quote:
Some are paying former coaches $50 million or more not to coach.
irrelevant
quote:
If they really want a player badly enough, what's another $1 million to help resolve a contractual dispute?
irrelevant
Is it?
If a school is willing to spend tens of millions buying out coaching contracts, it isn't much of a stretch to think it would spend money to help land or retain a player it views as a difference-maker. Whether that happens in any particular case is another question, but the financial incentive certainly isn't irrelevant.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 11:07 am to bstaceyau19
quote:
You're looking at things too legalistically. Judges are making shite up as they go here and when they are not are going on what little that have to go on.
I disagree. While revenue-sharing contracts may be new, contract law isn't. Courts have decades of precedent on contract formation, breach, damages, discovery, injunctive relief, and contract interpretation. A judge doesn't have to invent an entirely new body of law to decide a dispute over a revenue-sharing agreement.
And if the case is filed in Oxford—which is where I'd expect both the state and federal venue to be—Ole Miss gets the advantage of litigating in its home forum. The judges there have Ole Miss ties, and while they're obligated to be impartial, venue is still a strategic advantage in any lawsuit. If there are close questions about how existing contract principles apply to these new agreements, I'd much rather be Ole Miss than the defendant.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 11:10 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
If these provisions are so obviously unenforceable, why are schools continuing to include them? Why did Washington threaten legal action against Demond Williams? Why did Georgia sue Damon Wilson? Why did Duke seek an injunction against Darian Mensah? Why did Wisconsin sue Miami over Xavier Lucas? Those schools clearly believe they have enforceable contractual rights worth protecting.
Nobody knows if they are enforceable or not yet because the courts haven't weighed in. But I could easily see courts in some states (particularly those that already severely restrict non-compete clauses in employment contracts) finding that these provisions are not enforceable. That's essentially what this provision is, a non-compete.
And the idea that if OM doesn't enforce this buyout provision then the revenue sharing agreements are meaningless is hogwash. OM hasn't paid a dime under either of these contracts. The buyout provision is simply a mechanism to try to prevent a player from transferring to another school.
Posted on 7/15/26 at 11:23 am to Insurancerebel
quote:
If a school believes it may have to enforce the agreement, the last thing it's going to do is voluntarily release the contract. Continuing to demand that they publish it before litigation makes no sense.
The only reason to prevent release of the contract is if you're scared of whats in it or you want to feed you fanbases melt. Anyone who, as you pointed out, wants to file for it's release can do so and end all your melty speculation.
quote:
"Punitive penalties?" Do you mean punitive damages? Those aren't the same thing as liquidated damages or contractual remedies. You're mixing different legal concepts.
You can trip yourself up with terminology all you want but this will get tested under MS UCC, which is exactly what i'm referencing.
quote:
Is it?
Yes
Posted on 7/15/26 at 12:16 pm to billjamin
quote:
this will get tested under MS UCC, which is exactly what i'm referencing.
Which article of the Mississippi UCC are you referring to? Article 2 governs sales of goods, and a revenue-sharing agreement doesn't appear to be a sale of goods.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News