|
|
Post by fishwrapper on Sept 11, 2023 16:20:26 GMT -8
That is big. If they didn't do the same for the other schools the general counsel probably should be held liable. I'd think it bolsters the Pac-2's at any rate. The difference is that Colorado actually formally provided the notification to the league that they were leaving and the other schools have not yet done that. That is what there argument is, even though it has been announced that they are all leaving. I could not find the defined procedure to "formally provide" notification in the owner's manual. Lots of things that could be left ambiguous in the notifications realm (ticket sales, referee issues) clearly defined what proper, or "formal" notification was to be in each of those cases. Not so in leaving. This may be an oversight, may be a loophole - but in in light of the VERY public statements a month ago, and joined with the expectation of precedence that voting privileges are immediately revoked, nobody on a campus of quitters can say, with a straight face, "Uh, no, we're not leaving, let us continue vote on oversight of the PAC." |
|
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 11, 2023 16:49:42 GMT -8
The difference is that Colorado actually formally provided the notification to the league that they were leaving and the other schools have not yet done that. That is what there argument is, even though it has been announced that they are all leaving. I could not find the defined procedure to "formally provide" notification in the owner's manual. Lots of things that could be left ambiguous in the notifications realm (ticket sales, referee issues) clearly defined what proper, or "formal" notification was to be in each of those cases. Not so in leaving. This may be an oversight, may be a loophole - but in in light of the VERY public statements a month ago, and joined with the expectation of precedence that voting privileges are immediately revoked, nobody on a campus of quitters can say, with a straight face, "Uh, no, we're not leaving, let us continue vote on oversight of the PAC." and then leave |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 11, 2023 16:51:45 GMT -8
Somebody mentioned leverage earlier, and that the pirate conferences are going to want the traitorous ten to come in with clean slates. That is a big factor for us.
If the 10 are going to claim that they have not actually given notice to leave, then, it would seem to me, the pirate conferences would have materially damaged the PAC 12 by falsely announcing that the traitors have accepted invitations to join them. When the correspondence between the pirates and the traitors comes out in discovery, I'm guessing that our attorneys will find some basis for dragging the pirates into the legal fray. Maybe we win, maybe we don't. But we force them into significant legal expenses and muddy their waters.
They won't want any part of that, and will apply significant pressure on the traitors to fold their tent on specious claims and settle for a little bit rather than drag things out trying to get a lot.
From our perspective, the more hard ball we play, the better off we will be. Also, the longer the others tie us up in court, the more we will be in position to claim material damages for lost revenue from scheduling problems, etc.
We just need to keep kicking them in the nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 11, 2023 16:53:47 GMT -8
Why? I understand your point, but if the legalese reads you lose voting rights/ membership immediately upon serving notice, then no - they do not get the revenue from this year - earned or not. Once you open that Pandora's Box, the continuing argument is what I made earlier - they will argue they are entitled to all playoff/ bowl appearance money earned up to the time they left - since the monies were earned in years' past, and are paid in arrears. No - just no.
The real issue here? In addition to the verbiage of the by-laws - maybe in their eagerness to screw over OSU/ WSU and bail on the conference, they should have thought it through a little better. I sincerely doubt every move the D10 have made was thoroughly vetted through their legal team, and they considered all of the ramifications of their actions. I think there is some "oops" factor in here. Think about it - they could have changed the bylaws before they made their decisions, and announced they were leaving. They were so enamored with their new shiny conference and their perceived pay raise, they spaced it. Of course, your mileage may vary. Membership and voting rights are two different issues. They will earn what they get this year, but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to vote. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by sewingbeaver on Sept 11, 2023 17:11:18 GMT -8
As far as "earnings" go - is there anything in writing as to what USC and UCLA are going to "earn" for this year? They had a year head start on the math.
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 11, 2023 17:14:58 GMT -8
Somebody mentioned leverage earlier, and that the pirate conferences are going to want the traitorous ten to come in with clean slates. That is a big factor for us. If the 10 are going to claim that they have not actually given notice to leave, then, it would seem to me, the pirate conferences would have materially damaged the PAC 12 by falsely announcing that the traitors have accepted invitations to join them. When the correspondence between the pirates and the traitors comes out in discovery, I'm guessing that our attorneys will find some basis for dragging the pirates into the legal fray. Maybe we win, maybe we don't. But we force them into significant legal expenses and muddy their waters. They won't want any part of that, and will apply significant pressure on the traitors to fold their tent on specious claims and settle for a little bit rather than drag things out trying to get a lot. From our perspective, the more hard ball we play, the better off we will be. Also, the longer the others tie us up in court, the more we will be in position to claim material damages for lost revenue from scheduling problems, etc. We just need to keep kicking them in the nuts. I am agreement. However you are making one huge assumption. Are you sure they have nuts? |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2023 17:30:43 GMT -8
Membership and voting rights are two different issues. They will earn what they get this year, but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to vote. Exactly. Not so quickly.... From the bylaws: "... provided, 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 August 1, 2024..." Basically, the conference can seek injunctive relief from those giving notice of leaving, if not the conference is entitled to retain all media and sponsorship rights through August 1st.... the question is, does this mean the conference can retain the proceeds from those rights? That would be a question for the courts if OSU and WSU would seek to retain proceeds earned this year. I would expect OSU and WSU not to play hardball on this, but it sounds like they could IF keeping the "earnings" from this year is what that portion of the bylaws actually means. I remember Canzano mentioning this in his first article that talked about the 420 million number that's been argued about. |
|
|
|
Post by castorcanadensis on Sept 11, 2023 17:39:34 GMT -8
The pac-12 lawyer mentioned the conference was set to receive around $500 million in media revenue this year…
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 11, 2023 17:47:20 GMT -8
Not so quickly.... From the bylaws: "... provided, 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 August 1, 2024..." Basically, the conference can seek injunctive relief from those giving notice of leaving, if not the conference is entitled to retain all media and sponsorship rights through August 1st.... the question is, does this mean the conference can retain the proceeds from those rights? That would be a question for the courts if OSU and WSU would seek to retain proceeds earned this year. I would expect OSU and WSU not to play hardball on this, but it sounds like they could IF keeping the "earnings" from this year is what that portion of the bylaws actually means. I remember Canzano mentioning this in his first article that talked about the 420 million number that's been argued about. What chapter did they violate? Bowl income is not media and sponsorship rights. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 11, 2023 17:58:14 GMT -8
Listening to part of the canzano show today he had audio of Mullens and the uck president say how great it was to be invited to the Big10 and on and on...how it was great for the athletes, the school, etc... Can't imagine they'd turn around and say just joking.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 11, 2023 18:03:34 GMT -8
Not so quickly.... From the bylaws: "... provided, 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 August 1, 2024..." Basically, the conference can seek injunctive relief from those giving notice of leaving, if not the conference is entitled to retain all media and sponsorship rights through August 1st.... the question is, does this mean the conference can retain the proceeds from those rights? That would be a question for the courts if OSU and WSU would seek to retain proceeds earned this year. I would expect OSU and WSU not to play hardball on this, but it sounds like they could IF keeping the "earnings" from this year is what that portion of the bylaws actually means. I remember Canzano mentioning this in his first article that talked about the 420 million number that's been argued about. What chapter did they violate? Bowl income is not media and sponsorship rights. Do I have to print the whole chapter? Basically, nobody is supposed to give notice during that time period, if they do the conference is all to seek injunctive relief, if not, blah blah blah... The question is - media rights. I'm not talking about donations and ticket earnings, etc. The media rights distributions the Pac sends schools are part of each schools income on the balance sheet I believe. The real question is exactly what does that section mean? Canzano questioned it, and I've seen at least one other question it. I don't know or understand the legalese of what they mean in this section. EDIT: I see going back several posts someone did specifically say bowl money at one point. I was responding to income/earnings mentioned later, which in my mind includes media income. Perhaps we are talking about somewhat different things. The reply thread chains sometimes gradually alter initial thoughts/ideas as older responses drop off. I was actually trying to reply to Judge's comment, which was in response to NativeBeav's comment and so on. I don't know how much "bowl" money is split amongst everyone vs earned specifically by a team in a particular bowl. The split money arguably could be withheld if it is media rights money and subject to being withheld IF that's what the section actually means. Big IF. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 11, 2023 18:23:01 GMT -8
Somebody mentioned leverage earlier, and that the pirate conferences are going to want the traitorous ten to come in with clean slates. That is a big factor for us. If the 10 are going to claim that they have not actually given notice to leave, then, it would seem to me, the pirate conferences would have materially damaged the PAC 12 by falsely announcing that the traitors have accepted invitations to join them. When the correspondence between the pirates and the traitors comes out in discovery, I'm guessing that our attorneys will find some basis for dragging the pirates into the legal fray. Maybe we win, maybe we don't. But we force them into significant legal expenses and muddy their waters. They won't want any part of that, and will apply significant pressure on the traitors to fold their tent on specious claims and settle for a little bit rather than drag things out trying to get a lot. From our perspective, the more hard ball we play, the better off we will be. Also, the longer the others tie us up in court, the more we will be in position to claim material damages for lost revenue from scheduling problems, etc. We just need to keep kicking them in the nuts. I am agreement. However you are making one huge assumption. Are you sure they have nuts? Whatever happens to be there, kick them in it. |
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 11, 2023 19:01:41 GMT -8
As a side note my cousin played in the recent Beaver golf tourney. One of his foursome was Pat Casey. He said that Pat wouldn't provide any specifics but was very positive where this thing is going. Time will tell
|
|
|
|
Post by joecool on Sept 11, 2023 21:14:14 GMT -8
As a side note my cousin played in the recent Beaver golf tourney. One of his foursome was Pat Casey. He said that Pat wouldn't provide any specifics but was very positive where this thing is going. Time will tell Perfect, I can sleep easy now! |
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Sept 12, 2023 6:23:05 GMT -8
Not so quickly.... From the bylaws: "... provided, 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 August 1, 2024..." Basically, the conference can seek injunctive relief from those giving notice of leaving, if not the conference is entitled to retain all media and sponsorship rights through August 1st.... the question is, does this mean the conference can retain the proceeds from those rights? That would be a question for the courts if OSU and WSU would seek to retain proceeds earned this year. I would expect OSU and WSU not to play hardball on this, but it sounds like they could IF keeping the "earnings" from this year is what that portion of the bylaws actually means. I remember Canzano mentioning this in his first article that talked about the 420 million number that's been argued about. I fully expect WSU and OSU ago press that case and go after all of them. Why shouldn’t they? Tired of the Mr and Mrs Nice Person tact. Those schools left us for dead. We are coming after them like Charles Bronson in “Death Wish”. |
|
