George sounds like a weasel

I think you interpreted my post different than how it was written.  In my example, the employer doesn't get to just keep the employees earning between now and the end of year because the employee has announced intention he will not renew/renegotiate a new contract and intends to resign at end of year.  That's pretty much in agreement with what you're saying and not an exception as I read your post.

What I will fully admit to is not having read through the conference by-laws so it is possible my example was a poor one as it pertains to this situation.  If this scenario was/is covered by the by-laws, all members agreed to abide by, and the by-laws dictate forfeiture of revenue by a departing member then we're on very solid ground should we win the next legal battle over who is rightfully a voting BOD member.  
  

Po tay toe
Po tah toe

The term bold-faced lie refers to an obvious, shameless lie, one that the liar makes little or no effort to disguise as the truth. Bold-faced lie means the same thing as two other similar phrases, bald-faced lie and barefaced lie.

All three of these terms typically imply that the lie is told shamelessly, without a real attempt to conceal the deception. In other words, the teller is so brash that they don’t care whether the lie is recognized as a lie. In some cases, they might even want it to be recognized as one in order to provoke the person or people they’re telling it to.

For this reason, bold-faced lie and its synonymous terms are always used critically.

Example: It’s fascinating that his statements, which are so obviously bold-faced lies, are so convincing to some people.

www.dictionary.com/e/slang/bold-faced-lie/

I defended K in the media rights negotiations. He brought a 30 mil offer from ESPN last year only to be told try 50 mil. He was doing what his bosses told him to do. ESPN dropped out due to the 50 mil xounter offer. Rightfully so. It was a ludicrous counter. Then it was Apple. Base of 25 wasn't great but Apple made it easy to get to 31 mil. A couple of schools freaked out and bailed and the rest is history. Now after that mess, he hasn't handled things well. If internal emails would be released, things wouldn't go well for K and other schools.

OSU had to file a lawsuit to stop him. He wanted a vote on things like compensation matters for he and others. He blatantly ignored the by-laws asking the other schools to vote on conference matters they had no business deciding on. Things that would damage OSU. I respect if you want to defend George. I can’t with the behaviors he has shown. He hasn’t once been visible or made a statement out there fighting for us or WSU. The MWC commissioner, Gloria, has made more supportive comments about our plight than George of the Jungle has. He wants a golden parachute and a dissolved conference. That is ill will.

I am afraid I will be facing a mob willing to tar and feather me for saying this, but, here goes...

I think George K is a weasel. But, he may have gotten the Pac 10 the best deal that anyone was going to get, twice. 

The first deal, after usc and UCLA left, was when the Pac had a limited bargaining window with only ESPN and Fox. Rumors are that that deal was likely for $30 mil pre team per year. I recall hearing at the time a lot of rumors that the deal was for only $20-22 million, but the latest information was for $30 mil. The likely rumor is also that the Pac presidents rejected that deal based on the notion that the Pac was worth $50 million. 

After the Pac Presidents rejected the deal at the time, Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark stepped in and nabbed a deal for the Big 12 at $31.7/million, which the Big 12 presidents quickly signed. It appears to me that Yormark was smart enough to know that when the Pac rejected the $30 million, that they, and the Big 12, were not likely to get much more. He's getting a lot of praise in Big 12 country, with only a few stragglers saying that he left money on the table.

But after the Big 12 inked their deal, the Pac had to get the best they could with the biggest college football media companies, ESPN and Fox, being fairly well filled up. I don't know what truth there is to the rumors, but it appears that Kliavkoff turned over every rock looking for a decent deal, including deal from some unlikely media sources (Ion, CW, etc.).

In the end, Kliavkoff apparently got the Apple deal which most likely would have resulted in over $30 million per team but it appears to have been on streaming only. 

Could anyone have gotten a better deal for the Pac under those circumstances? I am not sold on that, at all. I think Kliavkoff got the best we were going to get.  

So we've got George the weasel on the hook for nearly $3.5 million/year. My biggest question: can we trust him to look out for our best interests? And by "our best interests," I mean OSU and WSU going forward. I don't know if we can. It felt, when he called a meeting for last week, that the was looking out for the schools that would pay him the most, and that was the Traitorous Ten. 

But if we could trust him, then I would task him to go out there and see what kind of media deal he could get for a newly reconstituted Pac consisting of OSU, WSU, and any other schools that we are likely to add. 

You skip over the part, where he badmouthed the conference and then let the Big Ten outmaneuver the Pac-12, while George K. apparently did nothing.

The only reason that the $30 million offer by ESPN/Fox was a "great" offer was because he had already lost UCLA and USC through neglect and stupidity.

As for the $30 million offer itself, I believe that any moron would have received that offer.  It was the response that proves George K. didn't get it.  

The conference without UCLA and USC is not worth $50 million a year, not even close.  And he should have known that.  But he went in there and made that stupid offer anyway and destroyed the Pac-12.  If the Presidents wanted him to make that $50 million offer, it was his job to explain to them what would happen, if he did that, and to proffer his resignation, if they did not come back with a lower offer than $50 million.

Also, from what I have heard, he was really banking on the State of California forcing UCLA back into the Pac-12 (I have a personal theory as to why this would be, but I cannot post it here) at the end of last year, which was ultimately stupid, as well.  I believe that this is part of the reason why he made the counter that he did.

It's all bad.  George K. was a terrible hire.  I said that he was a terrible hire after his first post-bowl comments.  He also let Chip Kelly and UCLA jerk around the Pac-12's friends at the Holiday Bowl.  Outside of the Pac-12 Championship Game, the bowls are the biggest revenue generators of any individual games.  And he just did not get that.

One of the biggest knocks against Larry Scott was that he did not understand football, but he understood generating revenue and negotiating.

George K. not only did not understand football.  But he also had no idea how to generate revenue or negotiate.  He also did not keep his eye on the prize that were the Southern California schools, which, ultimately, was the glue that held the conference together.

Oregon's Schill, who is now at Northwestern, spearheaded firing Scott and hiring George K. Just awful.

You can try and turn that sow's ear into a silk purse all that you want.  George K. is a dope hired by someone who probably wanted the conference to fail.  George K. was in way over his head and, apparently, did not realize it, which sucks.