8th Circuit Appeals Court to issue a stay!!

[PatsFaninAZ]

Clayton is reporting that the temporary stay has been granted.

They seem to be backtracking on ESPN right now. That to me is consistent with the fact that there's still nothing on the docket with respect to the little stay.

Clayton doesn't know what he's talking about. There's a guy on ESPN right now -- not sure what his name is he has a yellow tie -- he's the first guy I've heard on ESPN that actually knows what he's talking about.

Listen to him. Not Clayton.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Mark Maske of the Washington Post is reporting there is no stay yet.

This could be Mort's second big Fup of the draft weekend... Competition is cutthroat in todays electronic media... The scoop is more important than the facts.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

This could be Mort's second big Fup of the draft weekend... Competition is cutthroat in todays electronic media... The scoop is more important than the facts.

I think they saw the order that granted the players the opportunity to exceed the page limits and misunderstood it. It ends with the word "Granted." Maybe they thought it was the stay and jumped to be first.

Idiots.

 

[Deus Irae]

Mark Maske of the Washington Post is reporting there is no stay yet.

This could be Mort's second big Fup of the draft weekend... Competition is cutthroat in todays electronic media... The scoop is more important than the facts.

I think they saw the order that granted the players the opportunity to exceed the page limits and misunderstood it. It ends with the word "Granted." Maybe they thought it was the stay and jumped to be first.

Idiots.

Imagine the beating ESPN will take if the court denies the stay.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Actually -- one modification on this. The players have demanded that if a stay is issued, the NFL be required to post a $1 billion bond. This is chutzpah for a lot of reasons, but the court might address that request in its order, in which case I would think it would give reasons.

Hahaha. $1B bond. That's hilarious. I don't think that has a chance of happening.

They seem to be backtracking on ESPN right now. That to me is consistent with the fact that there's still nothing on the docket with respect to the little stay.

Clayton doesn't know what he's talking about. There's a guy on ESPN right now -- not sure what his name is he has a yellow tie -- he's the first guy I've heard on ESPN that actually knows what he's talking about.

Listen to him. Not Clayton.

Not surprising that Clayton got it wrong. Am I the only one or does Clayton strike you as idiotic even by typical mediot standards?

 

[KDPPatsfan85]

Hahaha. $1B bond. That's hilarious. I don't think that has a chance of happening.



Not surprising that Clayton got it wrong. Am I the only one or does Clayton strike you as idiotic even by typical mediot standards?

Clayton looks like a very old dodo bird and losing his hair. I guess every time he lies, he loses a strand of hair

 

[PatsDeb]

Hahaha. $1B bond. That's hilarious. I don't think that has a chance of happening.



Not surprising that Clayton got it wrong. Am I the only one or does Clayton strike you as idiotic even by typical mediot standards?

Actually, requiring a bond before issuing a stay is a pretty standard thing in federal court litigation, and the players would be dummies if they didn't ask for one.

And no, I am not surprised that Clayton got it wrong. They should have a lawyer on call who is used to reading a federal docket before they report anything as even lawyers who don't practice in federal court don't like going there cold. They are technical places with lots of technical rules that can bite you if you don't know what you are doing.

 

[Deus Irae]

Hahaha. $1B bond. That's hilarious. I don't think that has a chance of happening.

Why is that?

Not surprising that Clayton got it wrong. Am I the only one or does Clayton strike you as idiotic even by typical mediot standards?

Actually, there was a motion that was granted in the case, but it wasn't the motion for a stay, and that's possibly where the confusion came in.

 

[Triumph]

via twitter

Wrong judge, city and court room.

The owners are in the St Louis fed court now.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Temporary stay has been entered by CA8. It's actually an interesting order -- one of the three judges dissented.

In any event, the lockout is back in place until early next week at the earliest, and potentially longer depending on how long it takes to decide the "big" stay motion.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Eisen on NFLN just said that the 8th just issued a temporary stay of Judge Nelson's injunction against the lockout.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Eisen on NFLN just said that the 8th just issued a temporary stay of Judge Nelson's injunction against the lockout.

Expected, it happens.

 

[Deus Irae]

The league has officially reinstated the lockout:

Teams "have been told that the prior lockout rules are reinstated effective immediately," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press.

NFL: Lockout back, effective 'immediately' - NFL- NBC Sports

 

[Deus Irae]

Followup: The stay was not approved unanimously, and the dissent was very interesting, IMO.

One judge wasn’t happy with temporary stay | ProFootballTalk

 

[TruthSeeker]

Followup: The stay was not approved unanimously, and the dissent was very interesting, IMO.

One judge wasn’t happy with temporary stay | ProFootballTalk

Indeed. The disagreement by the one judge had nothing at all to do with the merits of the case; it had everything to do with what circumstances justifying an emergency stay. I think he makes a good point (although I'm not knowledgeable about emergency stay justifications) but can also see why the other judges would be willing to grant an emergency stay (if, for example, they conclude that it is very likely that the injunction will ultimately be overturned then this may trump other considerations).

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I don't think you can draw too much from the fact of the temp stay or the dissent. I tend to agree with the majority. If you think you are going to decide the big stay next week, then choose the option that is least disruptive and most maintains the status quo.

For all the bluster, the reality is that waiting 5 days to lift the lockout isn't a big deal, if that's what they rule. Lifting it now and reinstating in 5 days would be much more disruptive. If they thought it would be weeks before they decided the big stay it is a different analysis. Bye is being a bit chicken little.

FYI these three judges may not be the ones who decide the big stay. They probably will be but it's not a certainty.