ESPN article only mentions Princewill

Prince 5 sacks Saturday

We'll get the last laugh after an arse whooping and Kiffin jokingly bringing it up in the postgame

I hope you’re right. I’ve been let down soo many times by LSU in big games. I wouldn’t be surprised if the refs spot Ole Miss 14 points

Ole Miss has successfully found Princewill's Beat Mode button.

quote:

---

shite if you listen to Ole Miss fans and media they love it. They say they're going to run at Prince all game with a lot of success

---

They have the 93rd ranked rushing offense in the country

quote:

---

DUI pete not much of a chess guy.

---

I don't think Pete is driving that bus, TBH.

quote:

---

They say they're going to run at Prince all game with a lot of success that he won't have any ability to pass rush because he will be ran at all night.

---

Same people that hung a banner for SEC West Champs in 2003 when they, indeed, were not SEC West Champs in 2003? Yep. Checks out.
I've never seen a more pathetic group of people.

quote:

---

DUI pete not much of a chess guy.

---

He is probably pissed off at the admins for pulling this stunt. I hope Princewill gets 6 sacks and a pick-6 against the 6-year veteran QB who should be ineligible.

quote:

---

I just don't see how they thought pissing off the guy with 5 sacks through 2 games 3 days before you have to play him was the play here, especially considering their tackle play has been shaky thus far. DUI pete not much of a chess guy.

---

If he played, Pete Golding would be an Englund Gambit guy

According to the info I can find, he didn't sign a Rev Share deal with Clempson. Only financial aid agreement.

Ole Miss is going after money from a buyout clause and no money that was paid to the players and now they want it back.

Now someone with contract law experience can chime in, but i think a judge can look at the number Ole Miss threw out and say that its no worth that and bring it down or eliminate it completely.

Can a judge say there are no damages and void the clause like that?

ETA: AI Search

In contract law, for a liquidated damages clause (like a $550,000 buyout) to be legally binding, it cannot simply be an arbitrary penalty meant to punish a player for leaving. It must be a reasonable estimate of actual, foreseeable losses.A judge could strike down the buyout based on a few specific legal arguments:1. The "No Loss" DefenseIf Ole Miss went into the transfer portal and immediately replaced the departing player with an equivalent or better talent at a lower or equal cost, a judge may rule that the university suffered no real financial harm. If the program’s ticket sales, media revenue, and donor contributions remained entirely unaffected by the transfer, the court can decide that enforcing a $550,000 fee constitutes an unjust windfall for the university rather than compensation for a loss.2. The Clause is an Impermissible PenaltyUnder Mississippi contract law, if the court determines that the $550,000 figure was not a good-faith estimate of damages but was instead explicitly designed as a financial hammer to terrorize players into staying, the judge will strike it down as an unenforceable penalty. Defense attorneys will likely demand discovery on how Ole Miss calculated the $550,000 and $400,000 figures to prove the school just picked large numbers out of thin air to restrict player movement.