re: Dellenger: SEC will comply with court orders, paving the way for signings

Come on man...you realize you can't penalize someone for following the law correct. If rule changes down the road then anything AFTER rule change.

We are doing away with inspection stickers correct? A year from now they change the rule back to having to have them...they csnt retroactively penalize you for not having one during that period. Geez

Federal court.
Rico
Anti-trust
Collusion
Treble damages
Attorney Fees
Putative damages.

Media should be sued too.

Trillion dollar defendants ….

quote:

---

you realize you can't penalize someone for following the law correct.

---

There are no laws involved here. This is a civil matter concerning membership rules within a non-public organization. One of our tRant lawyers should chime in to verify if this is correct, but I am pretty sure that once an injunction or restraining order is lifted, unless the ruling expressly forbids it, a member can be penalized for ignoring a rule.

quote:

---

We are doing away with inspection stickers correct? A year from now they change the rule back to having to have them...they csnt retroactively penalize you for not having one during that period. Geez

---

You realize this isn't the same thing, right? Not even close to analogous.

LSU has been very clear all along they will follow court orders. When court orders change LSU would remove the players from the roster.

Players would sue and all parties would be involved in that lawsuit.

Sankey tried to flex his muscles and when he took his shirt off found out he had none.

SEC had no standing. Once the court ruled, that was the end. All they would have done is caused the SEC to go bankrupt if they continued with this clown show.

quote:

---

I can’t believe how many times I’ve heard this phrase over the past week

---

We’re talking about a #2 TE and a DT coming off injury.

Would having them on the team help? Absolutely

But questioning whether all of this is worth it isn’t that crazy a stance IMO.

quote:

---

The judge could amend his ruling or even make it part of the ruling if the preliminary injunction is overturned, to prohibit future penalties for the time when the preliminary injunctions were in place, but what he is saying does appear to be a possibility.

This was something that was discussed well before now on this board.

I do not expect the SEC to do anything to LSU, and if they try, I expect LSU to fight it. It's a lot to deal with, though, and is part of the reason I wonder if walking away is the right call. This, like everything in life, is a risk-reward calculation. The whole juice/squeeze situation.

---

As I posted several days quoting legal definitions since as I've said I'm not a lawyer. A preliminary injunction is much stronger than a TRO. Both parties are present at the injunction hearing and IF the players prevail, the judge is basically saying that they are likely to prevail if a trial was ever held. So the judge isn't going to change his mind. And appeals usually take time. I think the SEC has shot their wad on this issue.

And Lord protect them if they retroactively try to impose penalties against teams when what they did at the time was ruled legal. And if the CFB ever tries to prevent teams from making the playoffs, they will lose that in a second also. And before somebody says "oh, they can just rank them artificially low, that is They would be destroyed in court when OTHER rankings are compared against theirs.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The juice isn't worth the squeeze

---

I can’t believe how many times I’ve heard this phrase over the past week

---

I said this very early. One thing my life experience has taught me is that if I start a trend, it is never a good one

I'm ready for the season to start and for this to be behind us (in terms of what we talk about)

quote:

---

I can’t believe how many times I’ve heard this phrase over the past week

---

it is from the same pussies and clowns who melted when it took lane "so long" to commit to us and then turned on him. i called them out. zero mental or intestinal fortitude.

Those types were fine with alleva and woodward having no spine to fight skankey or be the vanguard and be on top of issues that help the team.

like verge, rousse, wade and kiffin are doing.

quote:

---

but I am pretty sure that once an injunction or restraining order is lifted, unless the ruling expressly forbids it, a member can be penalized for ignoring a rule.

---

Good news...the universe has aligned itself again. That is utter nonsense. You can NOT be penalized for acting legally at the time. What you CAN be penalized for if an appeal overturns the original ruling after say game 6, those affected could not continue to play. Someone else already said this and they were spot on. But the ruling IN EFFECT is all that counts. Oh, and BTW, if the SEC or the NCAA or the CFB tries and end around on sanctions against schools involved, they will rue the day they ever tried that..

And before anyone brings up Vidal Alexander and why LSU had to forfeit the games he played in after the fact because he was "on the take", there were never any ruling explicitly ever saying he was eligible. These players will explicitly be ruled eligibile.