|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2023 14:51:25 GMT -8
 This is gonna get ugly and get ugly real fast!! This was already ugly. This just got uglier real fast, though. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 8, 2023 14:51:45 GMT -8
I'm hoping our lawyers are top notch. Betterto spend big money on top attorneys and win then spend less money on average attorneys and lose big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Sept 8, 2023 15:00:03 GMT -8
Getting back to the point of this thread... Monday at 11am is gonna be interesting....If they don't grant the TRO we could be in big trouble... Yeah, we are now at a super critical juncture. All common sense points to this coming out in our favor, but damn do you hate to leave it up to the courts like this... and with so little time to spare! Hang on to your butts, folks... |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 8, 2023 15:07:32 GMT -8
Hate to be on the titanic with these 11 a-holes including the commissioner. They'd pull women and children off a life raft and then put their sorry ego filled fat asses on instead. The world of all about meeeeeeeee.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2023 15:15:12 GMT -8
Pac-12 will demand it gets moved, or appeal to federal court after a ruling, but I can't imagine any Whitman County Judge siding with the other 10 schools. Notice they didn't file in BENTON county... Knowing Benton County they WOULD side with the other 10 schools    wilkyisdashiznit , what are the Pac-12 and Georgie Porgies options in terms of moving venue or later appeals? Why would venue be inappropriate? Kirk Schulz is the Chairman of the Pac-12 Board of Directors. It seems like they sued in the exact right spot, just like I said the other day. If you sue, you sue in Benton or Whitman, and they sued in Whitman. The assigned judge in the case is the Honorable Gary J. Libey, a Washington State University graduate. Libey went to law school at Gonzaga. An appeal of a ruling by the Whitman County Superior Court would go to Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, which is in Spokane. The Court of Appeals judges went to Washington, Utah, Willamette, Stanford, and Western Washington/Seattle. The Washington Supreme Court is obviously in Olympia. Steven Gonzalez is the Chief Justice, who is a California graduate. The Associate Chief Justice is Charles Johnson, a Washington graduate. Otherwise, the Supreme Court has a Washington/Gonzaga graduate, a Duke/UNC graduate, a Gonzaga graduate, a USC graduate, a Notre Dame graduate, a New Mexico/Washington graduate, and a Seattle graduate. So, I am not loving the idea that this thing gets appealed, but they got it in the right spot to kick things off. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2023 15:16:43 GMT -8
Getting back to the point of this thread... Monday at 11am is gonna be interesting....If they don't grant the TRO we could be in big trouble... Yeah, we are now at a super critical juncture. All common sense points to this coming out in our favor, but damn do you hate to leave it up to the courts like this... and with so little time to spare! Hang on to your butts, folks...  |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2023 15:19:01 GMT -8
I'm hoping our lawyers are top notch. Betterto spend big money on top attorneys and win then spend less money on average attorneys and lose big time. They have firms out of DC, NYC, and San Francisco, as well as local firms in Portland and Spokane. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 8, 2023 15:23:05 GMT -8
Here's the thing . . .
Imagine a court siding entirely with the rest of the Pac. To actually dissolve the conference and truly shaft us, the defectors need at least 8 of 10 votes (or 7 of 9). Which means that UO and UW would have to vote to shaft us.
Which if it were just the four NW schools, maybe they would. But it's not . . . they would be voting to shaft us AND give most of the proceeds to the other five/six schools. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be a political disaster - voting to take, say, 40m from OSU to profit 10m at UO.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 8, 2023 15:28:48 GMT -8
I think the 'court of public opinion' is going to be an important factor in how these legal challenges are resolved. OSU and WSU need to strongly voice the David v. Goliath angle, with David being in the right and Goliath being in the wrong - which is exactly the case. Make it harder than hell for any court to find a way to rule against us.
Murthy's statement was a good start, written in a tone befitting someone in her position. More bombastic statements need to be issued by media types and public figures not directly tied to the university.
I expect, short term, we'll see suits and countersuits filed, and ultimately compromise will be reached in order to free up the cash and other assets within our lifetimes.
|
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Sept 8, 2023 15:34:41 GMT -8
For those who can't access the article (I'm accessing it through the oregonlive Beavers app), there is plenty of very disturbing and notable content here!... First of all, it seems 100% clear to me now that Kliavkoff wants the conference dissolved. The chairman of the Pac-12 board of directors is the WSU president Kirk Shulz. When Kliavkoff requested Shulz call a board meeting 2 weeks ago, Shulz declined to do it, citing the lack of clarity on who is still on the board. So, Kliavkoff scheduled one for next Wednesday (Sept 13th) anyway! And, if I'm reading it right, he is including ALL outgoing schools in the board meeting, INCLUDING USC, UCLA, and Colorado, who have all been excluded from board of directors meetings and votes since they announced their intention to leave! The only reason for Kliavkoff to want all 12 schools there is because, according to at least one source, it only takes 9 votes to change the bylaws of the conference (or, I assume, to dissolve the conference). As OSU's and WSU's presidents said in their letter to Kliavkoff and the 10 other presidents, requesting that this all be resolved prior to 10AM today (which explains why the lawsuit was announced late this morning, when no action was taken on the OSU/WSU complaint), "...the recent correspondence from the Commissioner's office creates the misimpression that representatives of all Conference members are eligible to serve on the Board, participate in Board meetings, and vote on Board matters. That is incorrect." The Pac-12 bylaws state that if a school gives notice to withdrawal prior to Aug 1, 2024, then its "representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to have the right to vote on any matters." WSU and OSU believe the public statements by executives from the outgoing schools -- and the "welcome" announcements by their new leagues -- constitute a legal delivery of notice. This 100% fits with the fact that not only USC and UCLA have been unable to vote since their announcements, but also Colorado. Why would they all be able to vote now, other than to override OSU and WSU? It is not a given that OSU and WSU *WANT* to retain the conference, but they at least need to have the option once all the financial data is clear. Everything that is happening right now seems to be an effort to prevent that. In his statement to the court, WSU's Shulz says that 10 outgoing schools "are now motivated to dissolve the Pac-12 -- against which their new conferences will otherwise compete beginning next year -- and distribute its assets." I have to wonder if the Big-10 and/or Big-12 specifically requested and confirmed that the outgoing schools would dissolve the Pac-12. In a follow-on article on Oregonlive, Barne's clarifies that the lawsuit is to find "a clear path forward" and is "not personal". But, man, it sure doesn't reflect well on Kliavkoff and the outgoing schools that it has come to this. If OSU's motion fails and the meeting of all 12(!) schools goes forward next Wednesday, this could be the final giant F.U. to OSU and WSU by the league and the other 10 schools. That feels personal to me. Good summary Mike84 |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2023 15:37:13 GMT -8
Here's the thing . . . Imagine a court siding entirely with the rest of the Pac. To actually dissolve the conference and truly shaft us, the defectors need at least 8 of 10 votes (or 7 of 9). Which means that UO and UW would have to vote to shaft us. Which if it were just the four NW schools, maybe they would. But it's not . . . they would be voting to shaft us AND give most of the proceeds to the other five/six schools. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be a political disaster - voting to take, say, 40m from OSU to profit 10m at UO. Where do you get your 8 of 10 and 7 of 9 numbers? |
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on Sept 8, 2023 16:26:52 GMT -8
Here's the thing . . . Imagine a court siding entirely with the rest of the Pac. To actually dissolve the conference and truly shaft us, the defectors need at least 8 of 10 votes (or 7 of 9). Which means that UO and UW would have to vote to shaft us. Which if it were just the four NW schools, maybe they would. But it's not . . . they would be voting to shaft us AND give most of the proceeds to the other five/six schools. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. It would be a political disaster - voting to take, say, 40m from OSU to profit 10m at UO. Where do you get your 8 of 10 and 7 of 9 numbers? A strong chairman would adjourn the "meeting" the minute it started and would NEVER entertain a vote on anything. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Sept 8, 2023 16:34:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Sept 8, 2023 17:08:30 GMT -8
Seems like a winnable case to me. The teams all chose to leave, at separate intervals, on their own. I don’t see how three teams could leave early, be left out of subsequent votes, then two more are a no show and announce they’ve found a new league, then the other four announce they’ve found a league a few days later, and then all decide that now they’d like to all come back together again to vote to disband the league because it benefits them.
I’m not a lawyer but just the timeline of events would seem to put things in OSU and WSU’s favor. I guess it depends what the legal definition of their plans to exit are, but the league was looking for a new tv deal based on at least two of the teams being gone. That sounds like at least something official was announced to the league before the date in 2024 or whatever it is in the bylaws.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 8, 2023 17:34:33 GMT -8
Seems like a winnable case to me. The teams all chose to leave, at separate intervals, on their own. I don’t see how three teams could leave early, be left out of subsequent votes, then two more are a no show and announce they’ve found a new league, then the other four announce they’ve found a league a few days later, and then all decide that now they’d like to all come back together again to vote to disband the league because it benefits them. I’m not a lawyer but just the timeline of events would seem to put things in OSU and WSU’s favor. I guess it depends what the legal definition of their plans to exit are, but the league was looking for a new tv deal based on at least two of the teams being gone. That sounds like at least something official was announced to the league before the date in 2024 or whatever it is in the bylaws. Idk, it seems every organization I’ve been a member of at one point or another found out we were doing something in violation of the bylaws. Always innocent and always fixed by either coming into compliance with the bylaws or by changing the bylaws. The question for the judge is which is the violation of the bylaws, allowing them to vote or not allowing them to vote. Hopefully he gives a lot of weight to precedent(precedent gives weight to intent, and intent of this wording is important)but I’m not counting on it. |
|
