|
|
Post by sparty on Sept 21, 2023 11:36:13 GMT -8
The documents were not to bad to review. Two of them attached the Pac 12 Bylaws which inflated the page count. My initial impressions are: 1) UW and UO can stop all the nonsense by pledging to vote with OSU and WSU. That ends any possibility of nine members (3/4 vote) effectively dissolving the conference. All other sister institutions stuck together (ASU/UA, Cal/Stanford, USC/UCLA) it seems the least UW and UO can do at this point. They are the only institutions to state that they should not be present when voting on new members. Everyone else is either silent of against this restriction. 2) Several universities accuse Pac 12 conference staff of lying when documenting verbal communications. Seems like a smoke there is fire situation where the bureaucrats at the conference have gone rouge. 3) The Pac 12 was vetting participation of departing members on boards and committees for conflict of interest issues early on during the parade of exits. They made a 180 degree turn with the meeting they called which was stopped with the TRO. They were leaving it the members to self-determine conflicts. That is nuts and OSU and WSU were right to avoid that trap. 4) Everyone is asking everyone else to retain ALL records and communications. Guns drawn. 5) GK feels the gang of backstabbers can meet together with OSU and WSU and have a cordial meeting that will result in a fair outcome. WTF. This reads better than the hearings in congress that they have ever two months.  |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 21, 2023 11:44:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 21, 2023 11:54:35 GMT -8
I've completed a review of the court filings and distilled my thoughts into a blog post. Here is the conclusion (see the blog post for the findings) OSU and WSU are at a disadvantage now for several reasons, 1) a super majority is in place to dissolve or strip the conference assets, 2) the defecting members never stipulated to the Conference’s interpretation of the “Notice of Withdrawal” provision, 3) over the past year a super majority of the Conference membership did not amend the bylaws to clarify the condition under which a member forfeited their board seat, 4) there is no indication at this point that their sister universities will join the two in a voting block that could preserve the conference. At this point, the best course of action for WSU and OSU appears to be 1) use legal channels to delay any vote of the full conference membership, 2) Seek a settlement with the leverage that the discovery process for a trial could be damaging to some of the universities and the outgoing media partners, and 3) use political channels to have the University of Oregon and University of Washington join with them in a voting block that can thwart any votes to change the bylaws. It is a narrow path to succeed, and unless there is a quick lifeline from the Big 12, it could prove to be a very long one that could last well beyond this season. This reply was meant for you..
Are you accepting that an organization can make a determination of undefined terms ('notice' 'withdraw') however they see fit as the motivations evolve and change?
So, the conference interpreted them one way when it was a small number of schools leaving, and now they want to take it upon themselves to flip that 180 as the majority that are "left" now have the same incentive as the first two schools that left.
The fact that the conference omitted the word 'notice' when stating that the majority of schools have not withdrawn (where they refer to the conclusion as 'mistake') seems to reinforce that point.
The lack of further defining of these terms usually means that the colloquial or common usage is used to interpret. There is no common sense way to suggest that these schools (through press releases and press conferences) did not submit their notice to withdraw.
May not work out that way, but I think that is still a question that is legally unsettled
|
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 21, 2023 12:54:30 GMT -8
I started the painfully slow process of collecting realignment documents a couple weeks ago. I'm going to blog about what I find and potentially write a journal article on a narrow question. I was granted access to the court documents in WSU/OSU v. Pac 12 so I will start sifting through those this week (800 pages). I'm suppose to get UCLA's agreement with the Big 10 today but not holding my breath. My hobby is writing both academic and trade articles which I know is weird. If anyone else wants to get into the weeds I'll post the source documents on my website (billfarley DOT net). If you are on twitter you can get updates on my progress intermixed with weak takes at @billfarleyphd. You must be retired? Right? Semi. The request takes 10 minutes to file. Then you wait two months. Then you may get a document that takes an hour to digest if you have read enough of them. UO just let me know I'm not getting anything from them. So I took 10 minutes to file an appeal with the Lane County District Attorney. Now I wait for a couple months. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 21, 2023 13:04:47 GMT -8
I've completed a review of the court filings and distilled my thoughts into a blog post. Here is the conclusion (see the blog post for the findings) OSU and WSU are at a disadvantage now for several reasons, 1) a super majority is in place to dissolve or strip the conference assets, 2) the defecting members never stipulated to the Conference’s interpretation of the “Notice of Withdrawal” provision, 3) over the past year a super majority of the Conference membership did not amend the bylaws to clarify the condition under which a member forfeited their board seat, 4) there is no indication at this point that their sister universities will join the two in a voting block that could preserve the conference. At this point, the best course of action for WSU and OSU appears to be 1) use legal channels to delay any vote of the full conference membership, 2) Seek a settlement with the leverage that the discovery process for a trial could be damaging to some of the universities and the outgoing media partners, and 3) use political channels to have the University of Oregon and University of Washington join with them in a voting block that can thwart any votes to change the bylaws. It is a narrow path to succeed, and unless there is a quick lifeline from the Big 12, it could prove to be a very long one that could last well beyond this season. This reply was meant for you..
Are you accepting that an organization can make a determination of undefined terms ('notice' 'withdraw') however they see fit as the motivations evolve and change?
So, the conference interpreted them one way when it was a small number of schools leaving, and now they want to take it upon themselves to flip that 180 as the majority that are "left" now have the same incentive as the first two schools that left.
The fact that the conference omitted the word 'notice' when stating that the majority of schools have not withdrawn (where they refer to the conclusion as 'mistake') seems to reinforce that point.
The lack of further defining of these terms usually means that the colloquial or common usage is used to interpret. There is no common sense way to suggest that these schools (through press releases and press conferences) did not submit their notice to withdraw.
May not work out that way, but I think that is still a question that is legally unsettled
I wish the conference had voted as a super majority to make the definition crystal clear when USC challenged their interpretation. Since GK did not do his job it is open to interpretation. GK is taking the position, as will now a super majority of members, that "announcing intent of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024" means a member university is leaving the conference BEFORE August 1, 2024. All the deserters are leaving AFTER that date. As much as I want WSU and OSU to prevail, the fact that this was not tightened down right after USC and UCLA announced gives me pause. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Sept 21, 2023 13:10:46 GMT -8
This reply was meant for you..
Are you accepting that an organization can make a determination of undefined terms ('notice' 'withdraw') however they see fit as the motivations evolve and change?
So, the conference interpreted them one way when it was a small number of schools leaving, and now they want to take it upon themselves to flip that 180 as the majority that are "left" now have the same incentive as the first two schools that left.
The fact that the conference omitted the word 'notice' when stating that the majority of schools have not withdrawn (where they refer to the conclusion as 'mistake') seems to reinforce that point.
The lack of further defining of these terms usually means that the colloquial or common usage is used to interpret. There is no common sense way to suggest that these schools (through press releases and press conferences) did not submit their notice to withdraw.
May not work out that way, but I think that is still a question that is legally unsettled
I wish the conference had voted as a super majority to make the definition crystal clear when USC challenged their interpretation. Since GK did not do his job it is open to interpretation. GK is taking the position, as will now a super majority of members, that "announcing intent of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024" means a member university is leaving the conference BEFORE August 1, 2024. All the deserters are leaving AFTER that date. As much as I want WSU and OSU to prevail, the fact that this was not tightened down right after USC and UCLA announced gives me pause. Hmm. This is concerning - I had more or less figured this was a slam dunk with the precedent set by SC and UCLA's notification that they would not be part of future board meetings. Now I'm less sure. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Sept 21, 2023 13:38:08 GMT -8
Thank you for doing this! I would love to have more detail on how all this went down.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Sept 21, 2023 17:59:15 GMT -8
This reply was meant for you..
Are you accepting that an organization can make a determination of undefined terms ('notice' 'withdraw') however they see fit as the motivations evolve and change?
So, the conference interpreted them one way when it was a small number of schools leaving, and now they want to take it upon themselves to flip that 180 as the majority that are "left" now have the same incentive as the first two schools that left.
The fact that the conference omitted the word 'notice' when stating that the majority of schools have not withdrawn (where they refer to the conclusion as 'mistake') seems to reinforce that point.
The lack of further defining of these terms usually means that the colloquial or common usage is used to interpret. There is no common sense way to suggest that these schools (through press releases and press conferences) did not submit their notice to withdraw.
May not work out that way, but I think that is still a question that is legally unsettled
I wish the conference had voted as a super majority to make the definition crystal clear when USC challenged their interpretation. Since GK did not do his job it is open to interpretation. GK is taking the position, as will now a super majority of members, that "announcing intent of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024" means a member university is leaving the conference BEFORE August 1, 2024. All the deserters are leaving AFTER that date. As much as I want WSU and OSU to prevail, the fact that this was not tightened down right after USC and UCLA announced gives me pause. Those words are express in the contract (bylaws). If the intention wasn't to punish those who announced their intention before the 2024 date, then the bylaws would have simply proscribed sanctions for any member LEAVING before that date. The notion of announce and intent would not have been introduced. Injury to remaining members does not simply begin upon the date of withdrawal (Aug 24) as we are clearly seeing. When a school announces their intention to leave, it immediately impacts the ability of the remaining members to: Recruit, negotiate TV rights, negotiate sponsor deals, raise money from donors, sell tickets, retain coaches etc. Those things are real and currently manifest. I don't believe signatories to a contract that is under dispute can simply determine meaning and intent if they have majority voting power. That is what the courts are for, and i think this is going to be more complicated than many believe. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 22, 2023 6:02:58 GMT -8
I wish the conference had voted as a super majority to make the definition crystal clear when USC challenged their interpretation. Since GK did not do his job it is open to interpretation. GK is taking the position, as will now a super majority of members, that "announcing intent of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024" means a member university is leaving the conference BEFORE August 1, 2024. All the deserters are leaving AFTER that date. As much as I want WSU and OSU to prevail, the fact that this was not tightened down right after USC and UCLA announced gives me pause. Those words are express in the contract (bylaws). If the intention wasn't to punish those who announced their intention before the 2024 date, then the bylaws would have simply proscribed sanctions for any member LEAVING before that date. The notion of announce and intent would not have been introduced. Injury to remaining members does not simply begin upon the date of withdrawal (Aug 24) as we are clearly seeing. When a school announces their intention to leave, it immediately impacts the ability of the remaining members to: Recruit, negotiate TV rights, negotiate sponsor deals, raise money from donors, sell tickets, retain coaches etc. Those things are real and currently manifest. I don't believe signatories to a contract that is under dispute can simply determine meaning and intent if they have majority voting power. That is what the courts are for, and i think this is going to be more complicated than many believe. Speaking of complications.... USA Today reporting Colorado took a $2.5 million signing bonus from the Big 12. That is the kind of stuff discovery will flush out. Settlement in favor of OSU/Wazzu more likely. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 22, 2023 7:12:59 GMT -8
This sure seems to be the optimal route.
I posted before . . . for UO and UW to vote against us would mean taking our share of the assets and sending the majority of them to the other schools. If the total number is $100m, then they would be taking $40m from us, sending $30m to other schools, and keeping $10m for themselves.
Would UO and UW really take $40m from us to get $10m for themselves? That doesn't seem politically prudent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 22, 2023 8:07:50 GMT -8
This sure seems to be the optimal route.
I posted before . . . for UO and UW to vote against us would mean taking our share of the assets and sending the majority of them to the other schools. If the total number is $100m, then they would be taking $40m from us, sending $30m to other schools, and keeping $10m for themselves.
Would UO and UW really take $40m from us to get $10m for themselves? That doesn't seem politically prudent.
part of me thinks they would do that and high5 each other |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 22, 2023 9:29:29 GMT -8
This reply was meant for you..
Are you accepting that an organization can make a determination of undefined terms ('notice' 'withdraw') however they see fit as the motivations evolve and change?
So, the conference interpreted them one way when it was a small number of schools leaving, and now they want to take it upon themselves to flip that 180 as the majority that are "left" now have the same incentive as the first two schools that left.
The fact that the conference omitted the word 'notice' when stating that the majority of schools have not withdrawn (where they refer to the conclusion as 'mistake') seems to reinforce that point.
The lack of further defining of these terms usually means that the colloquial or common usage is used to interpret. There is no common sense way to suggest that these schools (through press releases and press conferences) did not submit their notice to withdraw.
May not work out that way, but I think that is still a question that is legally unsettled
I wish the conference had voted as a super majority to make the definition crystal clear when USC challenged their interpretation. Since GK did not do his job it is open to interpretation. GK is taking the position, as will now a super majority of members, that "announcing intent of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024" means a member university is leaving the conference BEFORE August 1, 2024. All the deserters are leaving AFTER that date. As much as I want WSU and OSU to prevail, the fact that this was not tightened down right after USC and UCLA announced gives me pause. This will be the age old fight of plain language interpretation of the bylaws, versus intent of the bylaws, versus legal precedence in the jurisdiction. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 22, 2023 11:52:58 GMT -8
Bill / anyone for that matter, apparently the O and W's counsel delivered to the conference letters stating they were not / had not formally withdrawn from the conference blah blah blah.
IF so, please post them.
To me this is a smoking gun and a significant blunder on their part. You can try to tell someone in writing you're not rear ending them while you're rear ending them, but it's not believable.
And even more astounding than the audacity to do so is, the fact you only drive home the point you were fully 100% conscious of your actions and knew exactly how everyone else would perceive them and still attempted to find an escape hatch so as not to be held accountable for your fully conscious actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Sept 22, 2023 12:29:23 GMT -8
This sure seems to be the optimal route.
I posted before . . . for UO and UW to vote against us would mean taking our share of the assets and sending the majority of them to the other schools. If the total number is $100m, then they would be taking $40m from us, sending $30m to other schools, and keeping $10m for themselves.
Would UO and UW really take $40m from us to get $10m for themselves? That doesn't seem politically prudent.
In a second. |
|
bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009
|
Post by bill82 on Sept 22, 2023 13:03:39 GMT -8
|
|
