|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 11, 2023 11:36:50 GMT -8
I think he granted any unanimous decisions, not just employee retention, which seems fine. Listening to the live stream it seemed to me that it was just for this one issue, but I am not sure. Of course it matter what the judge actually wrote in his decision and of course those words will be interpreted different by both sides  Regardless, unanimous is a very good thing. a guy on the coug board also heard it as any unanimous decisions. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2023 11:45:15 GMT -8
The unanimous decision thing could really murky the waters if it goes beyond just the 1 question about employees.
Any 1 of the 10 could potentially torpedo anything and everything the Pac 2 does to rebuild the PAC. They could at least argue they have a seat at the table. I'd expect more legal situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 11, 2023 11:50:42 GMT -8
The unanimous decision thing could really murky the waters if it goes beyond just the 1 question about employees. Any 1 of the 10 could potentially torpedo anything and everything the Pac 2 does to rebuild the PAC. They could at least argue they have a seat at the table. I'd expect more legal situations. This was to maintain the status quo. If everyone leaves, whoever is left gets the money. If the board is allowed to convene with the 10 Pac-12 members, who have announced that they are leaving, then they can vote to dissolve or change how money is paid out. As long as the Pac-12 survives until the 10 are definitively out, it is to Oregon State's benefit. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
Member is Online
|
Post by ftd on Sept 11, 2023 11:52:33 GMT -8
I thought our lawyer made a great statement when he talked about the 'give notice' part of the by-laws. Since there is no legal definition in the agreement, we have to use the 'common' understanding of the term...basically all the schools gave notice in common terms by saying 'we are joining the <insert conference name here> in 2024. They made public, statements to the same effect. Once notice is given, you give up your board rights. Game over!....But that will all get decided in further court cases
|
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 11, 2023 11:52:55 GMT -8
The unanimous decision thing could really murky the waters if it goes beyond just the 1 question about employees. Any 1 of the 10 could potentially torpedo anything and everything the Pac 2 does to rebuild the PAC. They could at least argue they have a seat at the table. I'd expect more legal situations. I don't think that is the Judges intention at all, he expects to see everyone back in court to resolve this pretty soon was what I heard. The unanimous decision is only going to be on normal operating decisions to keep the conference functioning day to day and I think he said those decisions would be written approval only, not a board meeting. The judge seemed fair and seemed unswayed by the Pac12 arguements in general. I think the departing 10 will try and negotiate a governance settlement with the Pac2 after they see the writing on the wall on how the judge will rule in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Sept 11, 2023 11:53:08 GMT -8
Our lawyer is a banger so far one of the things the traitors want to vote on wednesday is for the Pac12 to pay for the traitors transition costs!!!Femmmmmmmm It's getting so I have to preface everything I say about this whole issue with "This doesn't make sense...". So much of this just DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! If you have a vote on whether or not the conference should pay the transition costs for 10 schools to complete their move to another conference, then those 10 schools must intend to move to another conference, right? So, they have made their intention to depart clear. So, they no longer have a vote! How can they have it both ways? If I was the chairman of the board and somehow all 12 schools were still on the board, I would address it like this: "The next item on the agenda is the vote to have the conference pay transition costs for departing members. As we have a full 12-member board here today, no schools must be intending to leave at this time. So, this issue is not time critical and can wait. If and when enough schools give a notice of their intent to leave, we will hold a vote on this AFTER those departing schools give their notice and are no longer on the board. Now, on to the next item." |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 11, 2023 11:54:58 GMT -8
And Kliavkoff is apparently in Montana. I'm sure working hard for the PAC. According to the lawyer "He is doing his level best to steer this sinking ship from going completely under" But who put the giant gaping whole in the hull of the ship??? The schools who bailed! Especially USC, UCLA, u of ho, and UW!! George K. George K. chased everyone away with stupid incompetence. Michael Schill, Oregon's President was the Chairman of the Pac-12, when Larry Scott was ousted and was head of the Hiring Committee, who found and hired George K. Schill is now at Northwestern, and Oregon's new President was previously the Provost of Wisconsin. I suppose that Michael Schill and Oregon are at the root of all of this. They took a bad situation and turned it into a five-alarm fire. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 11, 2023 11:59:54 GMT -8
The unanimous decision thing could really murky the waters if it goes beyond just the 1 question about employees. Any 1 of the 10 could potentially torpedo anything and everything the Pac 2 does to rebuild the PAC. They could at least argue they have a seat at the table. I'd expect more legal situations. This was to maintain the status quo. If everyone leaves, whoever is left gets the money. If the board is allowed to convene with the 10 Pac-12 members, who have announced that they are leaving, then they can vote to dissolve or change how money is paid out. As long as the Pac-12 survives until the 10 are definitively out, it is to Oregon State's benefit. This is where the "all decisions must be unanimous" stipulation protects us and the Cougs. This is a great precedent. So even if the Traitorous 10 are granted future voting rights in the next round of legal proceedings, the judge can simply say, legal precedent has been established that all votes must be unanimous and that condition still applies. Stare decisis (stand by things decided) is our friend here, big time. They can try to vote to dissolve but it won't be unanimous so it can't happen. The day-to-day decisions can still be made, however, because yes, there is conference business unrelated to the departures that must be resolved. This is step one toward a settlement, which is the best outcome for all parties. An agreement will be forged regarding the assets and how much/what the departing members are legally entitled to receive, which is the right thing to do. OSU and Wazzu will maintain the rights to the Pac-12's name, intellectual property, future revenue, etc., going forward after 8/1/24, which is the right thing to do, since we never left. No one wants a court fight, especially the Big Ten, ACC and Big 12. They want their new members coming in clean, with no entanglements. And many of the Traitorous 10 want nothing to do with the discovery process, where it would be determined they were double-dealing the entire time, looking to bail while pledging allegiance to the Pac-12 out of the other side of their mouths. Once this process is done, we can move forward with the reverse merger with the MWC, which (IMHO) is clearly the best option going forward. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2023 12:30:13 GMT -8
I just hope this all moves along fast. It'd be nice if the decision of whether or not the Pac 2 can go forward with rebuilding the Pac were all taken care of by season's end, preferably significantly earlier.
If the other schools try to drag this out it would feel a lot like spite and sore losership.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverdude on Sept 11, 2023 12:44:28 GMT -8
To the Traitorous 10
A message from The Bandit!
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2023 12:51:50 GMT -8
The unanimous decision thing could really murky the waters if it goes beyond just the 1 question about employees. Any 1 of the 10 could potentially torpedo anything and everything the Pac 2 does to rebuild the PAC. They could at least argue they have a seat at the table. I'd expect more legal situations. I don't think that is the Judges intention at all, he expects to see everyone back in court to resolve this pretty soon was what I heard. The unanimous decision is only going to be on normal operating decisions to keep the conference functioning day to day and I think he said those decisions would be written approval only, not a board meeting. The judge seemed fair and seemed unswayed by the Pac12 arguements in general. I think the departing 10 will try and negotiate a governance settlement with the Pac2 after they see the writing on the wall on how the judge will rule in the future. I realize this isn't the judges intent, but when you are potentially dealing with charlatans looking for loopholes, it may have opened one if it goes beyond this 1 issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 11, 2023 13:30:21 GMT -8
Wilky and other attorneys can weigh in, but most parties in lawsuits prefer a settlement that is satisfactory to both parties instead of a long, drawn-out, expensive and potentially rancorous trial. Even Dominion and FOX settled.
Probably be pressure on the Traitorous 10 from the Big Ten, ACC and Big 12 and FOX to settle as well. They want their new properties free of potential liens, and they certainly don't want anything resembling a potential anti-trust suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 11, 2023 13:41:11 GMT -8
Wilky and other attorneys can weigh in, but most parties in lawsuits prefer a settlement that is satisfactory to both parties instead of a long, drawn-out, expensive and potentially rancorous trial. Even Dominion and FOX settled. Fox got put in a bad jurisdiction, because of just awful corporate planning and settled. Bad lawyering in the beginning leads to the necessity of good lawyers to settle. Most parties make sound financial decisions, based upon facts, jurisdiction, opposing counsel, etc. Some clients are emotional and do not think clearly or logically and are out for blood or to burn the other side to the ground (or any number of stupid things that I have heard on this board in the past couple of months). If people think logically, they can usually work out a compromise of their positions. But, if you are in the right, why would you settle? You only settle, if the other side has leverage of some kind. Of course, this is the Pac-12 and the Pac-12 Universities, who have shown a remarkable lack of ability to think and act in a way that makes financial sense. Honestly, I would wait until one of the other universities makes a stupid argument about how they are still a part of the Pac-12 and then try to enjoin them from leaving. Or use your subpoena power in these cases to dig into everything everywhere that everyone sent back and forth about leaving the conference and joining others and negotiating media deals. Like, if you were the other universities, you should be motivated to get the heck out of this, because Oregon State and Wazzu could get a stray email or text about this and just hammer one or more of them in a different lawsuit, like a wire fraud lawsuit or something along those lines. (Although you get into Federal jurisdiction really fast with wire fraud, which could cause Oregon State and Wazzu problems.) |
|
|
|
Post by Mike84 on Sept 11, 2023 13:51:55 GMT -8
I just had a disturbing thought (which is a daily thing for me, ever since this fiasco started)...
I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand anything, but it seems that in the absence of clear contractual language, a lot of legal rulings are based on precedent. For instance, the fact that USC, UCLA, and Colorado have not been voting sets a precedent that they shouldn't suddenly be allowed to be included in voting again. However, it could be argued that the other 7 departing schools have only signaled that they MAY leave the conference and are still on the board. While OSU and WSU would argue that all 10 departing schools have given sufficient notice of their intent to leave, I can see where we could end up with 9 voting members on the board for at least a while longer.
The disturbing part is that the bylaws reportedly specify that a super majority (75%) is needed for approval of major strategic and financial issues. Well, 75% of 9 is 6.75. Thus, the 7 departing members on the board (if it does somehow end up at 9) could do whatever they wanted. This is assuming that UofNike and UW would be willing to take on the PR burden of voting to further obliterate OSU and WSU. Based on past actions, I would say they would be willing to do whatever is in their own best interest, regardless of what it means to OSU, WSU, or anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishwrapper on Sept 11, 2023 14:23:45 GMT -8
I, too, am not a lawyer, but I can read. And the PAC-12 handbook is written in plain English, so that makes it easy for most of us. Chapter 2 covers membership, and section 3 of that chapter, “Withdrawal,” clearly states: Nowhere in the document does the term “notice” or “notification” receive a definition pertaining to membership, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the common definition applies. There are no instruction in the PAC-12 handbook to make notification by registered letter, by email, by bicycle courier, carrier pigeon, or any specific method. There are instructions for making notifications about ticket sales, about referee issues, etc; but those are made individually in their pertinent sections, so it is safe to assume there is no “blanket” notification procedure for all other situations. By going to the press and stating, “By inviting the University of Oregon to be a member of the Big Ten, we have opportunity to accelerate our extraordinary record of innovation and success on the playing fields, as well as to enhance significantly the academic reputation of the university,” as President Scholz said a month ago; by convening a special meeting of the Board of Trustees to accept said invitation, as that university did a month ago, and by going to the press and stating, “We are excited to welcome the University of Oregon and the University of Washington to the Big Ten Conference,” as the Big Ten commissioner did a month ago (we all remember that day!), UO notified the world about their intention, to go, their acceptance of the invite, and the receiving conference confirmed the move. As the PAC-# is, without a doubt, a subset of “the world,” it was notified. And it demonstrated it was aware of what was going on by, on the same day as the statements above, releasing a statement that said, “Today’s news is incredibly disappointing for student-athletes, fans, alumni and staff of the Pac-12 who cherish the over 100-year history, tradition and rivalries of the Conference of Champions.” Again, I’m not an attorney, but it is clear: if you make a notification you are leaving, you lose your seat in theCEO Group. If one would so desire - and maybe the quitters do - one could say, “But we really didn’t mean it.” Who wants that as part of their conference? Not me. And, already, the other conferences may be getting buyers remorse, or certainly will if they try to take this too far. They left. They told the world they left. So they are out. Or words don’t mean anything. |
|
