|
|
Post by aggielarry on Sept 1, 2023 20:46:13 GMT -8
The point is, Detroit is still an instantly-recognized "brand," for the lack of a better term, even if it is not as great a city as it once was. Just like the Pac-13 would be. The fact the Wings and Pistons suck is immaterial. The Tigers and Lions, while not great, are franchises on the rise. It's not the same though. Professional teams can improve thru the draft. It's a more even playing field, pun intended......have you seen what the national sports writers have to say about the potential broke Pac mountain? 3rd rate conference was one term I saw thrown out.....the only people the Pac 13 will matter to is us and the Aggie Larrys of the world. I take umbrage at the first part! We're going to be a SECOND rate conference! As to the second part, I'm totally OK with that. I've spent most of my life not caring what other people think of me. I'm comfortable in my own skin. I'm also OK with Utah State's place in the world. We're never going to win a national championship, but our teams are filled with local kids who are often second, third, and even fourth generation Aggies. We play regional peer institutions. The rivalries are very real, but not bitter. For example, I love hosting Wyoming at the Mav. They're good people, very much like the USU fans, just wearing different colors. We are really looking forward to having you in the conference. Over at USUFans.com there was even a suggestion that for your first conference game at the Mav, we should do an "Orange Out", everyone dressed in orange, just to make you feel welcome. Of course, we all thought that was a really stupid idea, but you can at least see where our heart is. By the way, you should wander over to MWCBoard.com. It's the site everyone loves to hate; the digital water cooler for the Mountain West. Go introduce yourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Sept 1, 2023 21:48:26 GMT -8
It's not the same though. Professional teams can improve thru the draft. It's a more even playing field, pun intended......have you seen what the national sports writers have to say about the potential broke Pac mountain? 3rd rate conference was one term I saw thrown out.....the only people the Pac 13 will matter to is us and the Aggie Larrys of the world. I take umbrage at the first part! We're going to be a SECOND rate conference! As to the second part, I'm totally OK with that. I've spent most of my life not caring what other people think of me. I'm comfortable in my own skin. I'm also OK with Utah State's place in the world. We're never going to win a national championship, but our teams are filled with local kids who are often second, third, and even fourth generation Aggies. We play regional peer institutions. The rivalries are very real, but not bitter. For example, I love hosting Wyoming at the Mav. They're good people, very much like the USU fans, just wearing different colors. We are really looking forward to having you in the conference. Over at USUFans.com there was even a suggestion that for your first conference game at the Mav, we should do an "Orange Out", everyone dressed in orange, just to make you feel welcome. Of course, we all thought that was a really stupid idea, but you can at least see where our heart is. By the way, you should wander over to MWCBoard.com. It's the site everyone loves to hate; the digital water cooler for the Mountain West. Go introduce yourselves. AggieLar, I dig ur style man......I will likely embrace our relegation at some point ......but this season we have a team that could really make some national noise...hell, we dont even have a home yet after this season......so just give me (us) some grace in this whole thing......and I will try not to be degrading to the MW.....I do have plenty of connection with MW towns.....and I was raised an Eastern OR rural kid....I'm the kind of guy who will probly feel right at home in any stadium in the MW. |
|
|
|
Post by aggielarry on Sept 1, 2023 22:28:28 GMT -8
I take umbrage at the first part! We're going to be a SECOND rate conference! As to the second part, I'm totally OK with that. I've spent most of my life not caring what other people think of me. I'm comfortable in my own skin. I'm also OK with Utah State's place in the world. We're never going to win a national championship, but our teams are filled with local kids who are often second, third, and even fourth generation Aggies. We play regional peer institutions. The rivalries are very real, but not bitter. For example, I love hosting Wyoming at the Mav. They're good people, very much like the USU fans, just wearing different colors. We are really looking forward to having you in the conference. Over at USUFans.com there was even a suggestion that for your first conference game at the Mav, we should do an "Orange Out", everyone dressed in orange, just to make you feel welcome. Of course, we all thought that was a really stupid idea, but you can at least see where our heart is. By the way, you should wander over to MWCBoard.com. It's the site everyone loves to hate; the digital water cooler for the Mountain West. Go introduce yourselves. AggieLar, I dig ur style man......I will likely embrace our relegation at some point ......but this season we have a team that could really make some national noise...hell, we dont even have a home yet after this season......so just give me (us) some grace in this whole thing......and I will try not to be degrading to the MW.....I do have plenty of connection with MW towns.....and I was raised an Eastern OR rural kid....I'm the kind of guy who will probly feel right at home in any stadium in the MW. Dude, it's all good. As I have said repeatedly, I feel for you guys. This sucks for you. We've been there. In 1961, USU was on top of the world. The football team was nationally ranked. We regularly put guys not just in the NFL, but in the first round of the draft (Merlin Olsen, Bill Munson, Jim Turner, Cornell Green - OK, Cornell didn't actually go in the NFL draft. He played on the USU basketball team. In fact, he had never played football before he tried out for the Dallas Cowboys. He played 13 seasons for the Cowboys, and went to 5 pro bowls. Probably the greatest natural athlete I've ever seen.), then Utah conspired to cut us off at the knees. At least you have a conference to land in. We wandered in independence and crappy conference purgatory for fifty years. We LOVE the Mountain West! But I also get that everything is relative. I'd be angry as hell if we had to drop down to FCS, like Idaho did a few years ago. (Man, there but for the grace of God...) So, I get it. But you're going through the stages of grief. Right now you've passed through denial. You're well into anger, with some in depression and bargaining. It may take a couple of years to get to acceptance, maybe more. I'm just trying to help you see that life goes on. As bad as it seems, it is NOT the end of the world, and good things can still happen. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 2, 2023 5:16:09 GMT -8
Basically what I heard is they have not formally delivered the paper work to withdraw. They will all do it on August 2, 2024 or date it as such. And they are not members of the other conferences until 12:01 am August 2, 2024.
You think they all don't have lawyers involved in all of this?
It's sort of like saying I am leaving for a different job in 2024 but if I leave on Jan 1st, 2024 I will get the extra full bonus for that previous year (2023) after giving a formal notice date of Jan 1st, 2024.
Or in other words:
(I may already know I am leaving in October and interviewed and accepted the new job but I start in January 2024. Maybe my current employer even knows I am leaving but they cannot withhold my full bonus for 2023)
(from an Oregon CPA that has seen many by-laws and have drafted my share of'em): Generally, in by-laws or other organizational documents; there maybe a 'definitions' section that will define certain terms more concretely. I didn't see a specific section that specifically define 'deliver' nor 'notice' and since the phrase "deliver a notice of withdrawal" does not contain 'formal'. 'written' and/or refer to another specific area of the by-laws it can be interpreted many different ways... It can be interpreted as "notice was given" when it was made known to the general public or even in a meeting with the other P12 CEOs. I'm sure this wasn't even a major point of emphasis when drafting these by-laws since the P12 is/was a 100+ year-old conference and it's relatively harsh to those who would think about leaving before the allotted date. Conclusion, they are out as voting members and are no longer involved in conference decisions (this has been reported as such too)... The violation isn’t giving notice, the violation of the section is giving notice they are leaving prior to the end date. They aren’t leaving prior to the end date so they aren’t in violation. “Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group." |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Sept 2, 2023 6:55:28 GMT -8
(from an Oregon CPA that has seen many by-laws and have drafted my share of'em): Generally, in by-laws or other organizational documents; there maybe a 'definitions' section that will define certain terms more concretely. I didn't see a specific section that specifically define 'deliver' nor 'notice' and since the phrase "deliver a notice of withdrawal" does not contain 'formal'. 'written' and/or refer to another specific area of the by-laws it can be interpreted many different ways... It can be interpreted as "notice was given" when it was made known to the general public or even in a meeting with the other P12 CEOs. I'm sure this wasn't even a major point of emphasis when drafting these by-laws since the P12 is/was a 100+ year-old conference and it's relatively harsh to those who would think about leaving before the allotted date. Conclusion, they are out as voting members and are no longer involved in conference decisions (this has been reported as such too)... The violation isn’t giving notice, the violation of the section is giving notice they are leaving prior to the end date. They aren’t leaving prior to the end date so they aren’t in violation. “Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group." interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Sept 2, 2023 7:16:45 GMT -8
The violation isn’t giving notice, the violation of the section is giving notice they are leaving prior to the end date. They aren’t leaving prior to the end date so they aren’t in violation. “Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group." interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... The lawyers are going to make some serious cash if all this is contested |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 2, 2023 7:24:18 GMT -8
The violation isn’t giving notice, the violation of the section is giving notice they are leaving prior to the end date. They aren’t leaving prior to the end date so they aren’t in violation. “Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group." interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... Also the the part that was quoted speaks directly to not being able to vote. I’m wondering if there’s a disconnect here on what 55to7 was actually trying to say? I know I’ve had plenty of times my point hasn’t come across clearly, part of the hazards of posting I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Sept 2, 2023 7:29:12 GMT -8
interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... The lawyers are going to make some serious cash if all this is contested True, unless they are doing it pro-bono (for the PR) or at reduced rate - I suspect many have in-house counsel too... Shouldn't be any out-of-pocket if they are smart and include reimbursement of attorney fees and court costs separately in the suit (if any lawsuit). |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Sept 2, 2023 7:35:03 GMT -8
interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... Also the the part that was quoted speaks directly to not being able to vote. I’m wondering if there’s a disconnect here on what 55to7 was actually trying to say? I know I’ve had plenty of times my point hasn’t come across clearly, part of the hazards of posting I guess. perhaps a perceived disconnect, both they are connected tho; the delivery of notice during the period is the action required for violation of the chapter and the revocation of voting rights is the consequence of said action... |
|
|
|
Post by clydebeav on Sept 2, 2023 13:27:33 GMT -8
It's not the same though. Professional teams can improve thru the draft. It's a more even playing field, pun intended......have you seen what the national sports writers have to say about the potential broke Pac mountain? 3rd rate conference was one term I saw thrown out.....the only people the Pac 13 will matter to is us and the Aggie Larrys of the world. I take umbrage at the first part! We're going to be a SECOND rate conference! As to the second part, I'm totally OK with that. I've spent most of my life not caring what other people think of me. I'm comfortable in my own skin. I'm also OK with Utah State's place in the world. We're never going to win a national championship, but our teams are filled with local kids who are often second, third, and even fourth generation Aggies. We play regional peer institutions. The rivalries are very real, but not bitter. For example, I love hosting Wyoming at the Mav. They're good people, very much like the USU fans, just wearing different colors. We are really looking forward to having you in the conference. Over at USUFans.com there was even a suggestion that for your first conference game at the Mav, we should do an "Orange Out", everyone dressed in orange, just to make you feel welcome. Of course, we all thought that was a really stupid idea, but you can at least see where our heart is. By the way, you should wander over to MWCBoard.com. It's the site everyone loves to hate; the digital water cooler for the Mountain West. Go introduce yourselves. What’s your moniker over there? I haven’t seen an aggielarry. I’m already on there as clydebeav. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 2, 2023 15:14:02 GMT -8
interesting interpretation; given that the initial sentence of Ch 3 contains "No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024;" implies the violation is directly tied to the act of giving notice rather than act of actual exit... Also the the part that was quoted speaks directly to not being able to vote. I’m wondering if there’s a disconnect here on what 55to7 was actually trying to say? I know I’ve had plenty of times my point hasn’t come across clearly, part of the hazards of posting I guess. I guess I don’t understand what you don’t understand. No one involved was worried about getting notice someone is leaving after 8/1/24, the breach is leaving before 8/1/24. If you leave after 8/1/24 the grant of rights is over, no harm no foul at that point. This part of the section only makes sense if they are talking about a team withdrawing prior to 8/1/24: “that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through” Do you read that to mean it applies to universities that withdraw after 8/1/24? So if you leave before 8/1/24 you are in breach, in violation and you lose your voting rights as soon as you give notice of that breach. Leaving after 8/1/24 probably doesn’t even require notice, just don’t sign the new grant of rights that starts 8/1/24. but what do I know, I’m not an attorney. |
|
|
|
Post by ostate on Sept 2, 2023 15:55:23 GMT -8
Also the the part that was quoted speaks directly to not being able to vote. I’m wondering if there’s a disconnect here on what 55to7 was actually trying to say? I know I’ve had plenty of times my point hasn’t come across clearly, part of the hazards of posting I guess. I guess I don’t understand what you don’t understand. No one involved was worried about getting notice someone is leaving after 8/1/24, the breach is leaving before 8/1/24. If you leave after 8/1/24 the grant of rights is over, no harm no foul at that point. This part of the section only makes sense if they are talking about a team withdrawing prior to 8/1/24: “that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through” Do you read that to mean it applies to universities that withdraw after 8/1/24? So if you leave before 8/1/24 you are in breach, in violation and you lose your voting rights as soon as you give notice of that breach. Leaving after 8/1/24 probably doesn’t even require notice, just don’t sign the new grant of rights that starts 8/1/24. but what do I know, I’m not an attorney. The subject matter of the chapter deals only with the act of giving notice to withdrawal - just as u$c and ucla did, they gave notice and were removed from the P12 governing group (no voting rights) - they had no seat at the table since they were leaving anyway, why would they be allowed to be involved in deciding the future and direction of the P12? |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 2, 2023 16:13:37 GMT -8
I guess I don’t understand what you don’t understand. No one involved was worried about getting notice someone is leaving after 8/1/24, the breach is leaving before 8/1/24. If you leave after 8/1/24 the grant of rights is over, no harm no foul at that point. This part of the section only makes sense if they are talking about a team withdrawing prior to 8/1/24: “that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through” Do you read that to mean it applies to universities that withdraw after 8/1/24? So if you leave before 8/1/24 you are in breach, in violation and you lose your voting rights as soon as you give notice of that breach. Leaving after 8/1/24 probably doesn’t even require notice, just don’t sign the new grant of rights that starts 8/1/24. but what do I know, I’m not an attorney. The subject matter of the chapter deals only with the act of giving notice to withdrawal - just as u$c and ucla did, they gave notice and were removed from the P12 governing group (no voting rights) - they had no seat at the table since they were leaving anyway, why would they be allowed to be involved in deciding the future and direction of the P12? Precedent is good, that will help. But UCLA and USC not showing up for votes when it was 10-2 in the room may or may not mean much. Now the leavers have the 10 votes ( if they are allowed to vote). If we think 9 teams can vote to dissolve the MWC so they can join the pacx, why do we think the 10 Pac-12 leavers can’t vote to dissolve the pac 12? Anyway, whatever I think on a message board is meaningless, attorneys are going to have to figure this all out, and I’m not an attorney. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 2, 2023 16:21:08 GMT -8
Also the the part that was quoted speaks directly to not being able to vote. I’m wondering if there’s a disconnect here on what 55to7 was actually trying to say? I know I’ve had plenty of times my point hasn’t come across clearly, part of the hazards of posting I guess. I guess I don’t understand what you don’t understand. No one involved was worried about getting notice someone is leaving after 8/1/24, the breach is leaving before 8/1/24. If you leave after 8/1/24 the grant of rights is over, no harm no foul at that point. This part of the section only makes sense if they are talking about a team withdrawing prior to 8/1/24: “that if any member does deliver a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024, in violation of this chapter, the Conference shall be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief to prevent such breach, and if a court of competent jurisdiction shall deny the Conference such injunctive relief, the Conference shall be entitled to retain all the media and sponsorship rights in the multi-player video distribution (MPVD) and telecommunications/wireless categories of the member purporting to withdraw through” Do you read that to mean it applies to universities that withdraw after 8/1/24? So if you leave before 8/1/24 you are in breach, in violation and you lose your voting rights as soon as you give notice of that breach. Leaving after 8/1/24 probably doesn’t even require notice, just don’t sign the new grant of rights that starts 8/1/24. but what do I know, I’m not an attorney. You are completely ignoring the part where it says, if you give notice if leaving prior to August 1, 2024... you lose voting power. It says that clear as day and they have given notice. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 2, 2023 16:26:32 GMT -8
The subject matter of the chapter deals only with the act of giving notice to withdrawal - just as u$c and ucla did, they gave notice and were removed from the P12 governing group (no voting rights) - they had no seat at the table since they were leaving anyway, why would they be allowed to be involved in deciding the future and direction of the P12? Precedent is good, that will help. But UCLA and USC not showing up for votes when it was 10-2 in the room may or may not mean much. Now the leavers have the 10 votes ( if they are allowed to vote). If we think 9 teams can vote to dissolve the MWC so they can join the pacx, why do we think the 10 Pac-12 leavers can’t vote to dissolve the pac 12? Anyway, whatever I think on a message board is meaningless, attorneys are going to have to figure this all out, and I’m not an attorney. They didn't "not show up for votes", they did not have voting rights so they had no need to be there. Same with Colorado not being there to vote the Friday it all fell apart. Oregon and uo literally gave notice 5-10 minutes prior to that voting meeting, at which point the vote was no longer part of their business. The teams you call leavers have already given up their right to vote by giving notice. None of the MWC teams have given official notice (SDSU had to negotiate their way out of what they considered an inquiry) but they can call a meeting for a dissolution vote anytime they want, and if 9 vote to dissolve, their conference is toast and they are free to leave without a buyout. The Pac has not sat down for a vote to dissolve. It has not dissolved. Everyone left of their own accord a team or two or more at a time. Each time they announced intent to leave they lost voting rights. At no time did the required majority of the Pac vote to dissolve the entity. Now there are only 2 voting members left. If they decide amongst themselves to leave and notify the conference, then the conference dissolves, otherwise, they are the 2 voting members of the conference and it still exists. Not really that confusing. |
|
