0
.jpg)
Started By
Message
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:39 pm to 3down10
3down10 must refer to your IQ
Posted on 10/8/26 at 12:42 am to Night Vision
Please dude, that Didndonuffins AI pic is lame. You are better than this
Posted on 10/8/26 at 4:03 am to 3down10
quote:
I was just trying to have an honest conversation about the actions I saw
But you refuse to educate yourself on the actual events and just continue to wishcast like a little girl. Again, what is Sankey asking for in his lawsuit? That seems a logical starrting point for an "honest conversation".
Posted on 10/8/26 at 7:43 am to PGJ
Antitrust
Posted on 10/8/26 at 7:45 am to stitchop
Posted on 10/8/26 at 10:04 am to BigBrod81
quote:
You used nothing to back up your stance. No quotes, no links, no posts from X. It's people like you who have turned this board into what it currently is. A cesspool of stupidity.
Bingo.
Yet they will try to pretend it's everyone else.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 10:39 am to Night Vision
quote:
by Night Vision
Come on night vision, your two memes are really weak. And you just keep using the same two memes over and over. You are better than that
Posted on 10/8/26 at 10:47 am to shinerfan
quote:
Again, what is Sankey asking for in his lawsuit?
I'll answer this question.
Sankey asked for an injunction to protect a meeting the SEC never had, and to prevent LSU from rostering players that LSU never rostered.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:02 am to PGJ
quote:
What law was broken?
A TRO issued by a state court was violated hence the contempt of court filing by the plaintiff's lawyer. This discussion is obviously above your education level so it's probably best to bow out & just lurk.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:19 am to 3down10
SEC is trying to continue the case in federal court under the speculation that there unresolved issues remaining about LSU’s commitment to conference rules and governance, and LSU could try the same thing again.
Speculation about hypothetical future behavior is not enough to sustain a moot lawsuit in federal court.
There are specific elements to have standing in a case asking for injuctive relief, courts have rejected standing based on a speculative chain of possibilities without proof of a specific plan to engage in conduct.
Speculation about hypothetical future behavior is not enough to sustain a moot lawsuit in federal court.
There are specific elements to have standing in a case asking for injuctive relief, courts have rejected standing based on a speculative chain of possibilities without proof of a specific plan to engage in conduct.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:21 am to wadewilson
quote:
Antitrust
The Sherman Act to be exact. The NCAA was found to be in violation of the act which is why we have this day & age of NIL & Revenue Sharing to begin with. It's also why the NCAA had settle out in a class action lawsuit where they paid out millions to student athletes.
Judge Jorden was quoted saying going into the hearing saying that he felt the players & their lawyers didn't have legal standing for him to grant an injunction in their favor. That was until lawyer Downton presented Judge Jorden with an actual copy of the NCAA’s 5 for 5 rule. The NCAA screwed up in their legal wording of the rule opening the door for it be argued that the players technically had a year of eligibility left according to the language of the rule.
This post was edited on 10/8/26 at 11:44 am
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:27 am to stitchop
quote:
You are better than this
No he’s not. You should see the retarded shite that he posts on the poli board.
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:29 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
You should see the retarded shite
I went to the poli board once, I had to get a strong regiment of antibiotics for two weeks
Posted on 10/8/26 at 11:39 am to stitchop
quote:
SEC is trying to continue the case in federal court under the speculation that there unresolved issues remaining about LSU’s commitment to conference rules and governance, and LSU could try the same thing again.
Speculation about hypothetical future behavior is not enough to sustain a moot lawsuit in federal court.
There are specific elements to have standing in a case asking for injuctive relief, courts have rejected standing based on a speculative chain of possibilities without proof of a specific plan to engage in conduct.
Amen. The window for those of the 2022 class to gain eligibility under the current 5 for 5 rule will close or has closed. Only thing left them is to fight in court against the SEC for compensation especially since it appears the SEC openly violated a state TRO.
Posters keep bringing up basketball yet their is nothing concerning basketball in the SEC's federal lawsuit. While the LSU President, AD are specifically named in the suit, so is Lane Kiffin & specifics regarding football. Once the window closed for the 2022 class to seek their 5th year of eligibility for football by challenging the language of the 5 for 5 rule, the window also closed to see any future challenges pertaining to players who attended NFL mini or training camps.
Also, prior to the SEC amending their federal lawsuit, it was originally filed by the SEC to try to prevent LSU from being able to disrupt/interfere with the planned vote on expulsion. None of these tards spewing nonsense have ever stopped once to think that if the SEC presidents were so "aligned" to expel LSU that why would an injunction even be necessary to prevent perceived interference from LSU pertaining to the voting process?
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News