bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Oct 9, 2023 19:58:31 GMT -8
My initial thought was that OSU and WSU needed political help to bring UO and UW to their side. That was before I got a copy of UCLA's agreement with the Big 10. Discovery would add a lot to the story, but with just one document you can infer that UCLA is already acting as a member of the Big 10. They had to make a $15 million nonrefundable deposit with strings attached, they got in return a right to terminate if they did not like any new members, and they can boost their CFB Playoff revenue with the Big 10 if they dissolve the Pac 12. All of their allegiances are now with the Big 10 and they are likely making business decisions in consultation with that conference. This tells me they have effectively left the conference from a business perspective. The documents from this latest filings are on a free substack site I just created. You can get them here. |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Oct 9, 2023 20:21:37 GMT -8
"If the Court grants WSU and OSU the relief they seek, WSU and OSU would be able to make decisions by fiat through the Conference Board that would affect each of the indispensable [departing] institutions that cannot be joined [to the lawsuit], hundreds of millions of dollars in the schools' revenue and liabilities, and the current and future experiences of their student-athletes," UW's motion states. "This would have far-reaching consequences." They must be joking. Like leaving the conference doesn’t have far reaching consequences? There are only consequences if it affects them, apparently. We REALLY need to consider never playing them again…The only way is if it’s home and home for football only because we are desperate for money…all other sports…eff them! And the damages their actions have had on their fellow in-state school? They are not just worried about what they're losing. They are going scorched earth in the process. How can the current experiences of Washington's athletes be impacted? Until August 1, they will be playing in the same conference for the same conference championships and, possibly, more. They will have the same coaches who will receive the same pay, and the Washington athletic department will receive the exact same revenue through the conference up until July 31. So there is absolutely zero impact on current experiences. How can the lawsuit impact future experiences of their athletes? UW has decreed that their athletes and coaches will no longer participate in the PAC 12 after July 31. UW has decreed that their revenues will come through the Big 10 after July 31, not through the PAC 12. UW has forbidden their athletes to represent the school other than through the Big 10. OSU and WSU had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. How can the action taken by OSU and WSU have far-reaching consequences? July 31 is 271 days from now, after which the divorce will be final and UW will marry again the very next day. They have long since signed a pre-nup to receive adequate succor from their new mate. Since it is clear they anticipate said succor to be considerably more than they might have expected in the PAC 12, what could these far reaching consequences possibly be? And how can OSU and WSU make decisions by fiat when the TRO says that all decisions pertaining to the day to day operations of the Conference must be made by unanimous vote of all 12 current schools? A lawyer I am not, but this section of their brief seems to be so full of holes that one might think a high school kid wrote it. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 9, 2023 21:29:33 GMT -8
Washington is going to do the nasty bidding for the Pac-10. Why you ask they are the lead dog?
See here:
Univ. of Washington athletics’ financial situation remains rocky
Easy solution. Quit believing all the media about weak the Pac 12 conference is, stay in the Pac 12, and play your games regionally. But nope. You turned tail and ran. Well, those long flights will give you an opportunity to add up all the red ink. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 9, 2023 21:32:34 GMT -8
My initial thought was that OSU and WSU needed political help to bring UO and UW to their side. That was before I got a copy of UCLA's agreement with the Big 10. Discovery would add a lot to the story, but with just one document you can infer that UCLA is already acting as a member of the Big 10. They had to make a $15 million nonrefundable deposit with strings attached, they got in return a right to terminate if they did not like any new members, and they can boost their CFB Playoff revenue with the Big 10 if they dissolve the Pac 12. All of their allegiances are now with the Big 10 and they are likely making business decisions in consultation with that conference. This tells me they have effectively left the conference from a business perspective. The documents from this latest filings are on a free substack site I just created. You can get them here. Nice work! |
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Oct 9, 2023 22:12:35 GMT -8
I am a little worried this isn't the slam dunk we all think it is.
Here is the exact language in the bylaws:
3. Withdrawal.
No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; 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, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the
CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group.
The key question is how the bolded part is interpreted.
OSU and WSU interpret this as: "notice is given prior to August 1, 2024 to withdraw at any time."
The other schools read this as "notice is given at any time to withdraw prior to August 1, 2024".
Or put another way, OSU/WSU claims this part of the sentence means a breach of contract:
"if any member does deliver <a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>"
...while the other schools claim that only this part of the sentence means a breach of contract:
"if any member does deliver a notice of <withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>"
There two ways to read this sentence, and I don't think it's clear cut which is the 'right' interpretation.
The precedent that was set by USC and UCLA looms large here, however I am worried that they'll make the case that they voluntarily gave up their board seats, and that the Pac-12 didn't actually do anything there or hold them in breach of contract or anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Oct 10, 2023 7:11:01 GMT -8
I am a little worried this isn't the slam dunk we all think it is. Here is the exact language in the bylaws: 3. Withdrawal. No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; 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, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group. The key question is how the bolded part is interpreted. OSU and WSU interpret this as: "notice is given prior to August 1, 2024 to withdraw at any time." The other schools read this as "notice is given at any time to withdraw prior to August 1, 2024". Or put another way, OSU/WSU claims this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver <a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" ...while the other schools claim that only this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver a notice of <withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" There two ways to read this sentence, and I don't think it's clear cut which is the 'right' interpretation. The precedent that was set by USC and UCLA looms large here, however I am worried that they'll make the case that they voluntarily gave up their board seats, and that the Pac-12 didn't actually do anything there or hold them in breach of contract or anything. Eh, don't forget Colorado, where they received a letter saying you're done. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Oct 10, 2023 8:42:44 GMT -8
I am a little worried this isn't the slam dunk we all think it is. Here is the exact language in the bylaws: 3. Withdrawal. No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; 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, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group. The key question is how the bolded part is interpreted. OSU and WSU interpret this as: "notice is given prior to August 1, 2024 to withdraw at any time." The other schools read this as "notice is given at any time to withdraw prior to August 1, 2024". Or put another way, OSU/WSU claims this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver <a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" ...while the other schools claim that only this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver a notice of <withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" There two ways to read this sentence, and I don't think it's clear cut which is the 'right' interpretation. The precedent that was set by USC and UCLA looms large here, however I am worried that they'll make the case that they voluntarily gave up their board seats, and that the Pac-12 didn't actually do anything there or hold them in breach of contract or anything. You are focusing too much on the latter half of that sentence and not the front half which sets it all up. No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024This is 100% absolutely clear. That's why USC and UCLA are just walking away. They violated this clause. They delivered intent to withdraw within the period specified that they must not. So if this is their argument, then they are sunk because it is as plain as can be. I think they stand a better chance of arguing whether they have submitted notice and what actually constitutes notice. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 10, 2023 8:57:40 GMT -8
And Oregon says they are self sufficient. They must be running a higher debt than the dawgs. Who is going to pay for that new practice facility, btw. Student funds I am guessing. We would not do that. Oregon has one thing that others don't have, Phil Knight and brand awareness because of him Uncle Phil is 85 years old - it ain't gonna last forever. Oklahoma State is in a somewhat different situation these days without T. Boone Pickens. New Money has been the X-factor as college sports spun up over the last 20 years. The money that was in college football 20 years ago was small enough that a single outsized donor like Knight could make an enormous impact. Now you're seeing these mega media deals and NIL deals, there's a little less influence that a single donor could have, and you're seeing Old Money starting to come roaring back as SC, Texas, Ohio State and Michigan crank their revenue up. Oregon is going to struggle to keep up in the end, without the media market horsepower to keep up with the revenue the Jones' down the street are generating. Things are in a constant state of change, but to me, I think it's really really important that we all recognize how special what we have is at this particular moment in time. The landscape is going to continue to change to a point where it's going to be difficult for Oregon State to continue to compete, is what I am seeing. I think we are looking at the historical peak of the Oregon State program, right here, right now. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Oct 10, 2023 9:19:20 GMT -8
I am a little worried this isn't the slam dunk we all think it is. Here is the exact language in the bylaws: 3. Withdrawal. No member shall deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024; 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, even if the member is then a member of another conference or an independent school for some or all intercollegiate sports competitions. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group. The key question is how the bolded part is interpreted. OSU and WSU interpret this as: "notice is given prior to August 1, 2024 to withdraw at any time." The other schools read this as "notice is given at any time to withdraw prior to August 1, 2024". Or put another way, OSU/WSU claims this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver <a notice of withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" ...while the other schools claim that only this part of the sentence means a breach of contract: "if any member does deliver a notice of <withdrawal prior to August 1, 2024>" There two ways to read this sentence, and I don't think it's clear cut which is the 'right' interpretation. The precedent that was set by USC and UCLA looms large here, however I am worried that they'll make the case that they voluntarily gave up their board seats, and that the Pac-12 didn't actually do anything there or hold them in breach of contract or anything. Not only did the Pac 12 have lousy commissioners, they also had lousy lawyers write up the bylaws. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 10, 2023 10:38:59 GMT -8
I am a little worried this isn't the slam dunk we all think it is. In front of an impartial judge we're on very solid ground. Intent of the bylaws as written were to expressly dissuade any member school from damaging the ability of the conference to seal a new contract deal by announcing their departure prior to the August 1, 2024 date. The plain reading of the bylaw states the consequences for doing so, one of which is losing voting membership. USC and UCLA were held to said consequences. Then CU was held to the same stated consequences. There has been no evidence reported indicating any of the 10 and then 9 remaining member schools challenged the loss of voting status for USC, UCLA, or CU. That's a clear demonstration through their behavior, or lack thereof, they affirmed the action as being consistent with the conferences governing bylaws. Providing an impartial judge, it's going to be an uphill climb on wet ice without traction devices for them to present a compelling legal argument which ignores the facts and precedence which they previously affirmed. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Oct 10, 2023 10:46:16 GMT -8
I see the bastions of integrity in Seattle and Eugene driving this. When we use the word "whoregon," it does a disservice to sex workers around the world. If the board of trustees, regents, or maybe even legislators wanted to be true and right, they would act.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 10, 2023 11:42:28 GMT -8
I see the bastions of integrity in Seattle and Eugene driving this. When we use the word "whoregon," it does a disservice to sex workers around the world. If the board of trustees, regents, or maybe even legislators wanted to be true and right, they would act. My guess is there's not a heck of a lot legislatures could do without "taking sides" of one State University over another. About the only thing I can see as possible (this ties into Jim's thread), is mandating that State funded Universities maintain 51% (at a minimum) student populations that are legal Oregon residents, or graduated from Oregon (if they really want to crack down) high schools. They'd then have to stipulate clear consequences (reduced funding?) of failing to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Oct 10, 2023 12:01:47 GMT -8
I see the bastions of integrity in Seattle and Eugene driving this. When we use the word "whoregon," it does a disservice to sex workers around the world. If the board of trustees, regents, or maybe even legislators wanted to be true and right, they would act. My guess is there's not a heck of a lot legislatures could do without "taking sides" of one State University over another. About the only thing I can see as possible (this ties into Jim's thread), is mandating that State funded Universities maintain 51% (at a minimum) student populations that are legal Oregon residents, or graduated from Oregon (if they really want to crack down) high schools. They'd then have to stipulate clear consequences (reduced funding?) of failing to do so. Can't enforce the legal Oregon resident status. I am not sure if the legislature would touch that. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 10, 2023 12:10:08 GMT -8
I see the bastions of integrity in Seattle and Eugene driving this. When we use the word "whoregon," it does a disservice to sex workers around the world. If the board of trustees, regents, or maybe even legislators wanted to be true and right, they would act. My guess is there's not a heck of a lot legislatures could do without "taking sides" of one State University over another. About the only thing I can see as possible (this ties into Jim's thread), is mandating that State funded Universities maintain 51% (at a minimum) student populations that are legal Oregon residents, or graduated from Oregon (if they really want to crack down) high schools. They'd then have to stipulate clear consequences (reduced funding?) of failing to do so. Good ole Back Scholzer himself must have some reservations regarding the action lawmakers could take in response to their attempt to blow up the Conference of Champions. If not, why get in front of them and offer up blatantly false testimony. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Oct 10, 2023 12:14:12 GMT -8
My guess is there's not a heck of a lot legislatures could do without "taking sides" of one State University over another. About the only thing I can see as possible (this ties into Jim's thread), is mandating that State funded Universities maintain 51% (at a minimum) student populations that are legal Oregon residents, or graduated from Oregon (if they really want to crack down) high schools. They'd then have to stipulate clear consequences (reduced funding?) of failing to do so. Can't enforce the legal Oregon resident status. I am not sure if the legislature would touch that. Every school already has legal requirements (affidavit or non) for in-state residency/tuition requirements. Some schools have stricter guidelines & enforcement. A strict, unified, & enforced residency requirement is totally possible. The % requirements would be very tricky and I'm not sure how or if any legislation would care to even go down that road. |
|
