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: TROs and Other Fun Legal Actions - The Ultimate Gamble for LSU
Posted on 8/28/26 at 3:34 pm to JudgeHolden
Posted on 8/28/26 at 3:34 pm to JudgeHolden
Go back to political board. Oh wait never mind!
Posted on 8/28/26 at 3:36 pm to Salviati
There's like three or four of you guys on here that keep making the same post over and over again and I guess the problem that I really have with it isn't that you're posting the same argument over and over again is that you're being intentionally negligent to the same corrections as factual Corrections that were made towards you time and time again or ones that I know that you have read by now.
Any injunction that comes out at this point is going to have anti-restitution verbage in it if the court says these players can play they're going to play this is not currently consuming any cognitive capacity of the LSU coaches they're basically living their life and if they're told they get to extra players then good for them
Any injunction that comes out at this point is going to have anti-restitution verbage in it if the court says these players can play they're going to play this is not currently consuming any cognitive capacity of the LSU coaches they're basically living their life and if they're told they get to extra players then good for them
Posted on 8/28/26 at 3:49 pm to Salviati
Let the courts decide. We should stay out of it.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 4:17 pm to St Augustine
quote:I'm not sure I understand your post, but I'll try to answer.
Wouldn’t this be the case for basically every player playing under a ruling if it was taken high enough uo the chain?
The player could win his case all the way up the chain. If so, the end result would be a permanent injunction. There would be nothing the NCAA or SEC could do to LSU without violating the permanent injunction. In other words, if the players ultimately win, LSU cannot be touched.
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 8/28/26 at 4:24 pm to Ebridg3
quote:First, do the injunctions have clauses to protect LSU if they are reversed or overturned? I have not seen the actual injunction language. [EDITED: It appears that the injunctions do have language to protect LSU.]
Any injunction that comes out at this point is going to have anti-restitution verbage in it if the court says these players can play they're going to play this is not currently consuming any cognitive capacity of the LSU coaches they're basically living their life and if they're told they get to extra players then good for them
Second, will that protection language in a 19th JDC injunction survive reversal or overturn by the First Circuit, the LSC, or the SCOTUS?
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 8/28/26 at 4:33 pm to JudgeHolden
1) Uh, yeah it probably does actually
2) You’re acting like LSU has no leverage here.
3) If the SEC wants to single out and treat LSU like chopped liver then we can go make the Big 12 relevant again. Or shite, I’m sure the B1G would take us. Obviously nobody wants any of that, so it’d be best if the crybaby teams would stand down.
But we ain’t at their mercy nor did we do anything wrong.
2) You’re acting like LSU has no leverage here.
3) If the SEC wants to single out and treat LSU like chopped liver then we can go make the Big 12 relevant again. Or shite, I’m sure the B1G would take us. Obviously nobody wants any of that, so it’d be best if the crybaby teams would stand down.
But we ain’t at their mercy nor did we do anything wrong.
Posted on 8/28/26 at 4:38 pm to Salviati
None of this makes any sense.
If a league can retroactively do all of the things that the TRO bans after the case is heard, then what is the point of a TRO?
It would hold no weight.
Having it or not having it would have the same ultimate result.
Thats why the Restitution Rule has been almost never utilized and specifically ruled against in Ohio and Texas (including Sorsby case). There was a case in Kentucky where it was ruled the Restitution Rule was legal, but that is essentially old case law now.
I would be surprised if it isn't specifically remarked on by this judge when we finally get to read the new TRO.
If a league can retroactively do all of the things that the TRO bans after the case is heard, then what is the point of a TRO?
It would hold no weight.
Having it or not having it would have the same ultimate result.
Thats why the Restitution Rule has been almost never utilized and specifically ruled against in Ohio and Texas (including Sorsby case). There was a case in Kentucky where it was ruled the Restitution Rule was legal, but that is essentially old case law now.
I would be surprised if it isn't specifically remarked on by this judge when we finally get to read the new TRO.
This post was edited on 8/28/26 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 8/28/26 at 8:05 pm to Salviati
quote:
First, do the injunctions have clauses to protect LSU if they are reversed or overturned? I have not seen the actual injunction language. [EDITED: It appears that the injunctions do have language to protect LSU.]
Quit using free versions of AI man.
Sol 5.6, Opus or Fable, Grok 4.6 and Gemini pro would have all corrected your point while helping write the posts
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News