|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Sept 14, 2023 20:46:11 GMT -8
George has admitted that there are some issues on which WSU and OSU should be the sole deciding entities. Since he maintains (and most all of us agree) that matters affecting the conference up to and including July 31, 2024 should be decided by all 12 current members, logic dictates that, for those matters affecting things as of August 1, 2024, WSU and OSU alone should vote. There can be no other way to interpret that.
Clearly, this would include whether the conference should be dissolved AFTER the clock strikes midnight on July 31/August 1. It would also include distribution of any funds ALREADY SCHEDULED for disbursement after that date. It's like a corporation that votes a bonus to be paid for 2023 to all eligible employees who are still on the payroll on March 31, 2024. Then 10 of the 12 current members of the executive committee announce they're leaving on January 15, and want to hold another vote, in which they would participate, to pay the bonuses to those still on the payroll on January 14.
In any event, in a court of law where fan loyalty doesn't matter, I believe George's actions will be deemed to be as we perceive them - completely self serving and at odds with the object of duty to the preservation and well being of the conference. Once he is fired for cause with no separation pay, he should have an uphill battle in any lawsuit he might bring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Sept 14, 2023 21:00:04 GMT -8
F**k George Kliavkoff.. Sideways. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 14, 2023 21:31:54 GMT -8
I would disagree. Sportswriters and commentators don't like this. Most duck fans I know HATE this. Plenty of non revenue athletes and families hate this. There are even plenty of duck fans who are pleased with the move to B1G that don't like the optics of stripping the car on the way out Disagree all you want but I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more fans of the judas schools that feel they deserve their share of the money earned while they are members of the pacific conference than don't. That is a question to be determined in the courts. Could it be that your uck friends are being nice or avoiding an awkward conversation? I'm a lone Beaver fan in an extended family of uo, uw and cu alumni. We decided that until the courts decide nothing good will come from arguing what schools should get what. With all due respect, I don't have the kind of friends who patronize me just to avoid upsetting my sensibilities. They are in breach of the contract, which clearly expresses what happens when you give notice of leaving. It is not nebulous, supported by their own actions when the first three schools announced their departure. Once the floodgates opened, they all got sloppy...or they just figured we would latch on to the MW at our first opportunity which would have made all this moot. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 14, 2023 21:35:27 GMT -8
I can actually see what George is saying (parroting?) when he says that no teams have given notice that they intend to leave "prior to the end of the current fiscal year on July 31, 2024", and I can see how that could be interpreted to mean that all teams are still on the board and still able to vote. But, as you point out, that grey area seems to have been completely clarified when USC, UCLA, and Colorado were excluded from the board and voting as soon as they gave notice of their intent ot leave. George (probably, again, parroting the Traitorous 10) seems to want to ignore that precedent simply because they (he says "we") NOW don't want just 2 teams left on the board. Nobody had a problem when 10 teams were left on the board and then 9 teams left, but now that only 2 teams have any interest in keeping the conference going, it suddenly is unacceptable? I do understand that *some* conference issues, specifically related to on-going operations and keeping the conference solvent and meeting its obligations this season, should probably not be left up entirely to OSU and WSU. But, as the judge ruled earlier this week, those issues can be resolved in writing, with no board meeting and no vote. The BOARD, which is the question that OSU and WSU want answered, should undeniably be 2 schools at this point and they should have sole discretion on any issues that can in any way affect the conference after the end of this fiscal year. If any of the departing schools can't deal with this, then they can try to rescind their intention to leave the conference. MAYBE OSU and WSU will let them back in. One issue is whether usc, ucla, and cu gave written notice or just verbal. I haven't heard either way. "Notice" and "withdraw" are not defined in the bylaws. Therefore, a common interpretation is all they have to go on. And go on that they did...with the original three defectors. |
|
Mike84
Sophomore
Posts: 1,079 
Member is Online
|
Post by Mike84 on Sept 14, 2023 23:17:27 GMT -8
Not that I'm much in the mood to defend anybody, but with more time to ponder and upon re-reading parts of the article, I realize now that this sentence was important:
"In the letter, he was stating the position of the outgoing presidents, who are contesting the notion that they have withdrawn, according to a source with knowledge of the situation."
The reason I went back and looked at this was that in the letter, it was said that "We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members – Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) – now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference..."
It was the "We" that gave me pause. And then I remembered the sentence above, in which the "source" said that the letter was "stating the position of the outgoing presidents". I don't think, in that letter, that Kliavkoff was part of "we". So, it's possible that Kliavkoff was not personally taking both sides here.
I know that is a weak argument and may not make anybody less venomous, but I think there's plenty to be upset about without attributing EVERY bad thing to George.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 15, 2023 4:38:22 GMT -8
Disagree all you want but I'd be willing to bet that there are a lot more fans of the judas schools that feel they deserve their share of the money earned while they are members of the pacific conference than don't. That is a question to be determined in the courts. Could it be that your uck friends are being nice or avoiding an awkward conversation? I'm a lone Beaver fan in an extended family of uo, uw and cu alumni. We decided that until the courts decide nothing good will come from arguing what schools should get what. With all due respect, I don't have the kind of friends who patronize me just to avoid upsetting my sensibilities. They are in breach of the contract, which clearly expresses what happens when you give notice of leaving. It is not nebulous, supported by their own actions when the first three schools announced their departure. Once the floodgates opened, they all got sloppy...or they just figured we would latch on to the MW at our first opportunity which would have made all this moot. Yeah, I have friends and family from other Pac schools. I went on an extended family vacation with some of them in August, 22, shortly after USC left the conference. One of them, my niece, approximately 25 years old, asked me what I thought of SC leaving and I my immediate response was, "I f'ing hate them. I hope they lose every game." My cousin who went to Stanford, when I asked him on that same trip about SC's move, said that Stanford "[will] just go to the Big 10 anyway." He didn't seem much to care that the Pac was falling apart. I haven't spoken to him about the ACC. My brother in law, a UCLA grad and sports fan, hasn't been too positive. I think he also like being in a conference of the West. I have had no problems talking with friends and family about it, and none seem shy about giving their honest opinion. The opinions are all over the map. My opinions have been narrowing down to a hate for the leaders of each phase of the exodus: Hatred for SC who started it all. Hatred for Colorado, who started the second wave. And hatred for Stanford who started the last of it. Sports hatred. Not the kind of hatred I have for, say, terrorists and cartels/mafias. But the kind of hatred that makes me root against teams. Not hope that they are killed in some painful sort of way or that hell awaits in the afterlife. Oddly, I don't feel hate for UW. Their president all along said that a predominantly streaming deal wouldn't cut it. When it was presented, she left. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 15, 2023 5:07:29 GMT -8
With all due respect, I don't have the kind of friends who patronize me just to avoid upsetting my sensibilities. They are in breach of the contract, which clearly expresses what happens when you give notice of leaving. It is not nebulous, supported by their own actions when the first three schools announced their departure. Once the floodgates opened, they all got sloppy...or they just figured we would latch on to the MW at our first opportunity which would have made all this moot. Yeah, I have friends and family from other Pac schools. I went on an extended family vacation with some of them in August, 22, shortly after USC left the conference. One of them, my niece, approximately 25 years old, asked me what I thought of SC leaving and I my immediate response was, "I f'ing hate them. I hope they lose every game." My cousin who went to Stanford, when I asked him on that same trip about SC's move, said that Stanford "[will] just go to the Big 10 anyway." He didn't seem much to care that the Pac was falling apart. I haven't spoken to him about the ACC. My brother in law, a UCLA grad and sports fan, hasn't been too positive. I think he also like being in a conference of the West. I have had no problems talking with friends and family about it, and none seem shy about giving their honest opinion. The opinions are all over the map. My opinions have been narrowing down to a hate for the leaders of each phase of the exodus: Hatred for SC who started it all. Hatred for Colorado, who started the second wave. And hatred for Stanford who started the last of it. Sports hatred. Not the kind of hatred I have for, say, terrorists and cartels/mafias. But the kind of hatred that makes me root against teams. Not hope that they are killed in some painful sort of way or that hell awaits in the afterlife. Oddly, I don't feel hate for UW. Their president all along said that a predominantly streaming deal wouldn't cut it. When it was presented, she left. We may be able to attribute that to an enemy of my enemy deal too  |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 15, 2023 8:46:33 GMT -8
Not that I'm much in the mood to defend anybody, but with more time to ponder and upon re-reading parts of the article, I realize now that this sentence was important: "In the letter, he was stating the position of the outgoing presidents, who are contesting the notion that they have withdrawn, according to a source with knowledge of the situation." The reason I went back and looked at this was that in the letter, it was said that " We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members – Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) – now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference..." It was the "We" that gave me pause. And then I remembered the sentence above, in which the "source" said that the letter was "stating the position of the outgoing presidents". I don't think, in that letter, that Kliavkoff was part of "we". So, it's possible that Kliavkoff was not personally taking both sides here. I know that is a weak argument and may not make anybody less venomous, but I think there's plenty to be upset about without attributing EVERY bad thing to George. I agree. I think that letter could be read a couple of ways. Kliavkoff definitely did not come down on the 10 that are leaving, but it's tough to say he completely sided with them either as he did mention OSU and WSU should be in charge of what goes on with the Pac after school ends. He's kind of straddling the line as far as supporting anyone fully. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Sept 15, 2023 9:46:49 GMT -8
Rgeorge?
|
|
|
|
Post by speakthetruth on Sept 15, 2023 9:59:18 GMT -8
Why would any league give money to a school so it could have a smoother transition to another league. Screw all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Sept 15, 2023 10:27:41 GMT -8
Why would any league give money to a school so it could have a smoother transition to another league. Screw all of them. No league would ever do this. There is a zero percent chance the league would have given money to SC, UCLA and Colorado, had the other 7 stayed. This is a bald-faced attempt at strong arm robbery. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 15, 2023 10:36:51 GMT -8
Not that I'm much in the mood to defend anybody, but with more time to ponder and upon re-reading parts of the article, I realize now that this sentence was important: "In the letter, he was stating the position of the outgoing presidents, who are contesting the notion that they have withdrawn, according to a source with knowledge of the situation." The reason I went back and looked at this was that in the letter, it was said that " We simply cannot accept the suggestion that only two members – Oregon State University (OSU) and Washington State University (WSU) – now have the right to determine by themselves all issues affecting the Conference..." It was the "We" that gave me pause. And then I remembered the sentence above, in which the "source" said that the letter was "stating the position of the outgoing presidents". I don't think, in that letter, that Kliavkoff was part of "we". So, it's possible that Kliavkoff was not personally taking both sides here. I know that is a weak argument and may not make anybody less venomous, but I think there's plenty to be upset about without attributing EVERY bad thing to George. I agree. I think that letter could be read a couple of ways. Kliavkoff definitely did not come down on the 10 that are leaving, but it's tough to say he completely sided with them either as he did mention OSU and WSU should be in charge of what goes on with the Pac after school ends. He's kind of straddling the line as far as supporting anyone fully. A couple things... First, as stated by a post above not worth quoting. No one on this board has really defended George or said he was in any way neutral. The crux of any post regarding the anti-George posts (and Larry) was that he was an employee. There is nothing George could do without consent of the voting Presidents. Has the Pac12 had good leadership from it's commissioners? I'd say absolutely not!! But, they were hired by those in charge of the universities. And, all actions were at their behest and if not they should have taken action against Larry or George. Second, I did not read the article as George defending the 10, but acting as an employee of the of those schools. As of now, thru July of '24 he is still the commish for ALL 12 teams. As soon as the judge said decisions about the future of the conference must be unanimous George had to play both sides. OSU/WSU would certainly vote him out now. As long as he is acting in the best interest of the 12, which for now includes those 10 he's not going to lose his job. So, in a way, yes, he is looking out for himself. And, he is also doing his job as a representative of the 12. I have no real angst as far as blame. There is no one school, President, George, media, conference, etc. to blame. It was truly a conglomeration of events that happened at precisely the right time. Without knowing details if Apple would/did counter after Oregon & UW pulled out I would assign more blame than most here to the last 5 to leave. When UW and Oregon were no shows for the Apple vote, if there was still a viable offer of $25 mil per team plus incentive, they could have easily stayed. There was a majority in voting for this year, a revenue pot to split between the 7, a viable 7 team conference that could have easily added teams over the next 2 seasons, etc. In reality the last 5 were never public about not liking the Apple deal until they left. To me the last 5 were the weaklings that allowed the other traitors to determine their future. But, there is so much we do not know and never will assigning blame and being angry is a waste of time. Hopefully whatever conference WSU/OSU form the Presidents have learned some valuable lessons. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 15, 2023 10:41:00 GMT -8
Why would any league give money to a school so it could have a smoother transition to another league. Screw all of them. No league would ever do this. There is a zero percent chance the league would have given money to SC, UCLA and Colorado, had the other 7 stayed. This is a bald-faced attempt at strong arm robbery. Or is it a bold-faced attempt…? 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 15, 2023 10:55:43 GMT -8
Why would any league give money to a school so it could have a smoother transition to another league. Screw all of them. The argument they will make is, the money belongs to the schools on a pro rata basis and not the conference. The source of the revenue in question comes from media partners and a resulting contract negotiated and agreed to by all schools. Let's say you announce intention to resign your position effective midnight December 31 which also happens to be when your employment contract ends. Does your employer get to keep your earnings between now and December 31? Would the answer be different if the reason you're resigning is to retire or join a competing company? |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 15, 2023 11:05:11 GMT -8
Why would any league give money to a school so it could have a smoother transition to another league. Screw all of them. The argument they will make is, the money belongs to the schools on a pro rata basis and not the conference. The source of the revenue in question comes from media partners and a resulting contract negotiated and agreed to by all schools. Let's say you announce intention to resign your position effective midnight December 31 which also happens to be when your employment contract ends. Does your employer get to keep your earnings between now and December 31? Would the answer be different if the reason you're resigning is to retire or join a competing company? The answer would be found in your employment agreement. If there was a clause in there about what would result if you chose to resign your position and you signed it, then the contract is controlling at that point. this is not as simple as "everything that happens after such and such a date" is subject to dispute". My feeling is, the reason there are proscribed penalties for schools who notify of withdrawal is because the injury takes place immediately and not necessarily after the actual exit takes place. I am sure when they created these bylaws, they were not considering the possibility of a mass exodus, but rather an isolated event where a particular school decided to withdraw. The Pac (1)2 was undoubtedly negatively affected by these notices, therefore the two members should have pretty wide ranging rights to the assets and revenues. |
|
