0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ole Miss Files Breach-of-Contract Lawsuits Against Devin Harper & Princewill Umanmielen
Posted on 7/28/26 at 10:22 pm to iPad
Posted on 7/28/26 at 10:22 pm to iPad
This is just glorious.
A year ago at this time the Lane Train was full speed ahead, tearing up the tracks. There was a constant media buzz around program.
Now the only media attention they get is when they're talking about suing players...lol!
A year ago at this time the Lane Train was full speed ahead, tearing up the tracks. There was a constant media buzz around program.
Now the only media attention they get is when they're talking about suing players...lol!
Posted on 7/28/26 at 10:29 pm to Henry Jones Jr
The question is:
1. Were they paid rev share payouts? Notice the timeline doesn’t say. If not see 4.
2. When were they paid. If before they entered the portal, then the players legally probably have to pay that back.
3. If AFTER they entered the portal, that’s just dumb OM crap. Why pay a guy who has declared they are leaving, could be legal grey area as rev share is implied that you are part of the team. (Or were they paid rev share for the 25 season? Again, creates interesting legal interpretation)
4. (No payment) What possible damages did OM incur, hurt pride? If this is the case, then it’s just a PR stunt.
I think, more than anything, this is OM’s Hail Mary to stop the juggernaut festering in Baton Rouge.
1. Were they paid rev share payouts? Notice the timeline doesn’t say. If not see 4.
2. When were they paid. If before they entered the portal, then the players legally probably have to pay that back.
3. If AFTER they entered the portal, that’s just dumb OM crap. Why pay a guy who has declared they are leaving, could be legal grey area as rev share is implied that you are part of the team. (Or were they paid rev share for the 25 season? Again, creates interesting legal interpretation)
4. (No payment) What possible damages did OM incur, hurt pride? If this is the case, then it’s just a PR stunt.
I think, more than anything, this is OM’s Hail Mary to stop the juggernaut festering in Baton Rouge.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 10:37 pm to LSURulzSEC
quote:Its in a mississippi court room with ole miss alumni. So yes, it will most likely turn out how they think.
This is not going to turn out like they think its going to.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 11:42 pm to friendlyobservation
quote:
Why would you not just go behind the scenes and ask talk to LSU about this?
Because LSU stole their coach, and their (our) coach left his playoff running team mid-stride.
Tough titty! To them and to us (potentially).
Like getting a girlfriend who is cheating on her boyfriend. If she cheats on him, your time will come.
Aside from that, Geaux Tigers!
Posted on 7/29/26 at 2:38 am to friendlyobservation
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/29/26 at 2:51 am
Posted on 7/29/26 at 3:58 am to Sterling Archer
The obligation of contracts shall not be impaired.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 4:04 am to Datbayoubengal
quote:LSU can choose to pay and make it part of the negotiations, but they are not obligated. LSU didn’t pay Dinardo’s. He got sued by Vandy, lost, and had to pay it with interest. Saban paid his to Michigan St. LSU paid Kiffin’s 3 million to Ole Miss plus buyouts for assistant coaches. Miles and Kelly had no buyouts.
SCHOOLS should….We literally turned down getting Demond Williams because we weren't going to pay a 4 mill buyout.
William’s would have owed Washington @ 1 million. Washington informed him they were going after the money if he left, so he decided to stay. That tends to speculate LSU chose not to make it more lucrative for him to leave.
Contracts signed between players or coaches do not involve other universities and they have zero obligation to pay the penalties.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 4:44 am to friendlyobservation
quote:
Trying to make Lane, LSU, and the players look bad. That's all it's about.
This, Ole Miss may be the most gay college in america even more so than the California schools.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:35 am to Pipes9870slu
quote:
Its in a mississippi court room with ole miss alumni. So yes, it will most likely turn out how they think.
So? Countersue in Louisiana with LSU alumni. Isn't that how it's done now?
Posted on 7/29/26 at 5:48 am to iPad
The two individuals are “talent” in the professional entertainment business.
They have agents/ managers to advise them.
They are voluntarily choosing to enter a binding agreement in exchange for payment.
That basis forms a contract. They should’ve employed contract attorneys.
Pay that man his money
They have agents/ managers to advise them.
They are voluntarily choosing to enter a binding agreement in exchange for payment.
That basis forms a contract. They should’ve employed contract attorneys.
Pay that man his money
This post was edited on 7/29/26 at 5:50 am
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:15 am to friendlyobservation
quote:
Morons. This is funny because it just hurts them more than it helps. If anything, it works against them in recruiting.
Not necessarily. It could make LSU look bad. Folks will create a narrative that LSU didn't stand by the players it recruited from the portal or failed to let the players know that they would be responsible without help from LSU or its collective and they were misinformed.
I don't see this as Ole Miss looking bad at all. I despise Ole Miss and their fans but they are not wrong in this. Programs have to enforce the buy out provisions.
Ole Miss has it's own problems with the tampering crap.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:28 am to iPad
Have legit claim against these two players but LSU has no liability or legal responsibility in this suit.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 6:39 am to LafTiger
quote:
1. Were they paid rev share payouts? Notice the timeline doesn’t say. If not see 4.
Random question….NIL technically does not involve the school, however, Rev Sharing would (assumption). The rev sharing part of this must be the only way that “Ole Miss” is involved in these contracts.
Is this remotely accurate?
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:15 am to iPad
Did they ever actually pay the players money that is owed back?
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:32 am to JohnnyU
quote:
Not necessarily. It could make LSU look bad. Folks will create a narrative that LSU didn't stand by the players it recruited from the portal or failed to let the players know that they would be responsible without help from LSU or its collective and they were misinformed.
I have no doubt that's the picture that Ole Miss will try to paint.
quote:
I don't see this as Ole Miss looking bad at all. I despise Ole Miss and their fans but they are not wrong in this. Programs have to enforce the buy out provisions.
Did they even make a single revenue share payment to either of these players, or are they just trying to cash in on an early termination fee because they're still pissed about Kiffin?
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:38 am to iPad
I wonder if there was actually money that changed hands or this is simply "damages"? I'm not a lawyer, but to me it seems if that full amount of money didn't change hands, then essentially what is going on here is a de facto non-compete agreement. I generally hate the idea of non-competes, but understand companies wanting to recoup hiring or on-boarding costs, protecting financial interests during a time an employee is producing at a perceived or real value less than they are being paid while establishing themselves or perhaps protecting intellectual property, but in general I find them more of a punitive nature, and I think that is what OM is going for here.
Seems like to me if they received the full amount OM is asking for, the "right thing to do" would be to be to give back the prorated amount money representing the time of the contract that was not fulfilled. If they were being paid in installments and only received say one incremental portion of the payment, one could even argue that if they were fulfilling their obligation to the program during the time between the incremental payment and them leaving then they would be good. I guess OM would argue for "damages"?
TLDR: Looks like to me this is a non-compete type of argument and if the full amount of money OM is asking for didn't change hands then they are being dickish for going after it
Seems like to me if they received the full amount OM is asking for, the "right thing to do" would be to be to give back the prorated amount money representing the time of the contract that was not fulfilled. If they were being paid in installments and only received say one incremental portion of the payment, one could even argue that if they were fulfilling their obligation to the program during the time between the incremental payment and them leaving then they would be good. I guess OM would argue for "damages"?
TLDR: Looks like to me this is a non-compete type of argument and if the full amount of money OM is asking for didn't change hands then they are being dickish for going after it
Posted on 7/29/26 at 7:48 am to coonass27
quote:
I’m no lawyer but just a breach of contract with no money exchanged 10 days after signing
Do you know if money was exchanged or not? Players should pay it back if so. NIL has come into existence in an unprofessional manner and needs operational rules and guidelines. Is there any value coming from the ncaa? It seems like the answers will come from courtrooms and is a mess.
Posted on 7/29/26 at 8:20 am to Pipes9870slu
quote:
Its in a mississippi court room with ole miss alumni. So yes, it will most likely turn out how they think.
Is there a reason I am not aware of where it wouldn't be removed to Federal Court? Diversity jurisdiction, amounts in controversy over 75K
Posted on 7/29/26 at 8:23 am to iPad
Wack
Posted on 7/29/26 at 9:02 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
Is there a reason I am not aware of where it wouldn't be removed to Federal Court? Diversity jurisdiction, amounts in controversy over 75K
I am sure it will be but unfortunately for the good guys the federal court there is about 2 blocks off the square in Oxford!!!!!!!!
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News