|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 10, 2023 12:41:06 GMT -8
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. If they could do anything at all I'd think they would have to codify/define exactly what is a State versus Private school, if there is a residency factor in the definition, and what level of State support schools might receive based on residency alone. It'd be tricky and probably controversial to gobeyond what is now written, even for clarity's sake. I doubt the legislature would go there. |
|
|
|
Post by justheretoread on Oct 10, 2023 12:45:51 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here.
I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”.
Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is.
Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 10, 2023 14:15:32 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. Agree with the idea the PAC 12 can live on as a legal entity with only two remaining members. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 10, 2023 14:18:28 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. Considering that all of the college athletic conferences in the country are a tax-advantaged non-profit organization which specifically markets itself as "amateur", I think that it is not only a better analogy, it's actually factually correct. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 10, 2023 14:20:31 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 10, 2023 14:41:22 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. I'm pretty sure the "rebuild the PAC" crowd has been operating under the assumption that the Pac is its own separate entity and the schools are just members. The only question is, apparently, what constitutes a voting member. Good idea on pulling the rest of the schools in. I'd hate to see OSU & WSU have to take them on one at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 10, 2023 14:43:22 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 10, 2023 15:02:14 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. The play with Washington and the other schools is attempt to force the lawsuit against the pac-12 to be dismissed and force OSU/WSU to sue the schools individually, thus making it more costly and time consuming. That is the threat. UW (and now the other schools) basically saying, Hey, the Pac-12 isn't representing our specific interests in this lawsuit, but it affects me! Let me represent myself. Then each of the other schools too... and now instead of it being one on one (OSU/WSU vs Pac-12) it is OSU/WSU versus 10 individual schools. This is a leverage play by UW as the schools, at the same time, are in mediation about the issue. UW is trying to force OSU and WSU to mediate an exit of the Pac-12 and dissolving of the conference. This is the shot across the bow saying we are going to fight you tooth and nail over the conference. Who knows, maybe if OSU/WSU demands they each get paid $X dollars by the other 10 (say, $100M, pulling a completely random number out of the hat) from the proceeds of dissolving the conference, they come to an agreement and dissolve the conference. All I know, is this deserves and extra special super duper f%#* YOU to every traitor school. Literally every one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by hayhurstbeav on Oct 10, 2023 15:24:20 GMT -8
I asked this on another forum, but not sure I’ll get a reply. Would love some thoughts/insights from the board here. I’m seeing lots of people using “partnership” as analogous for the conference … and then concluding that all members (departing or not) should be entitled to their “fair share of what they earned as a member”. Why wouldn’t the better analogy here be a non-profit corporation? In that example, the assets belong to the corporation, which is an entity separate from the employees/members/equity owners of the corporation. While members are part of that corporation, they are entitled to distributions. When they are not members, they are not. As long as the entity can continue, the existing members are entitled to distributions. In this case, from all that I can tell, the entity CAN continue with just 2…at least for a couple years. Nothing that I’ve seen stipulates that a certain percentage of original members must remain. Clearly the departing members believed it could exist with 10 or 9. Same logic should apply to 2 so long as its possible for the entity to exist- and it is. Also, now that UW has joined the party, why wouldn’t OSU/WSU pull the remaining schools in via interpleader. I would want the discovery to extend to them as well. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but joining only via UW feels like its some type of strategy which could easily be addressed by pulling them all in. I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. I almost never post here, but this is actually something I'm pretty familiar with. Pulling in the other schools (other than UW who already wants in) probably can't be done. Asking to file an amicus brief alone also doesn't put the other schools within the reach of the court.
For easier discussion, the arguments that UW is making are roughly paraphrased below. This isn't my endorsement of them, but rather my attempt at translation into non-legalese.
"The statutes under which the Pac2 schools are asking for relief don't allow the court to take action against rights of parties who haven't yet been properly brought in to the litigation. It's on the plaintiff to bring them in if they want that to happen. BUT... For various reasons, those parties can't be forced to participate in the litigation. The law also requires the court to stay out of disputes about the bylaws of voluntary organizations other than in extremely limited circumstances. Because the parties and non-parties have other avenues to resolve their differences -- say through mediation or private and binding arbitration -- the court's involvement isn't appropriate here. Further, the drafters of the bylaws did such a bad job that there isn't an unambiguously right way to read the withdrawal clause. For all of those reasons, the court should butt out and send everyone home to work things out."
Looking at it without my orange reading glasses on, there are some good and some not so good arguments there. There's some case law that says that not every necessary party is an indispensable party, which helps our position. But the case that idea comes from involved sovereign tribes who were more tangentially involved, rather than as primary parties whose rights were at stake. They may be able to differentiate on those grounds. The UW lawyers also did as well as they could to lay out their preferred interpretation of the withdrawal notice clause. Though all of us here prefer the more straightforward reading, their version isn't wholly implausible. I don't think Judge Libey will bite on that interpretation, but it isn't the worst argument ever.
There's a chance they get this tossed on the procedural arguments. I'd put it at 10% - 20%. If they don't, I think the chances they prevail on the bylaw argument is almost nil. If they want to be vindictive and drag things out, the procedural side could create grounds for an appeal that could drag on for a long time. Would they do that? Who knows.
|
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Oct 10, 2023 15:34:25 GMT -8
I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. I almost never post here, but this is actually something I'm pretty familiar with. Pulling in the other schools (other than UW who already wants in) probably can't be done. Asking to file an amicus brief alone also doesn't put the other schools within the reach of the court.
For easier discussion, the arguments that UW is making are roughly paraphrased below. This isn't my endorsement of them, but rather my attempt at translation into non-legalese.
"The statutes under which the Pac2 schools are asking for relief don't allow the court to take action against rights of parties who haven't yet been properly brought in to the litigation. It's on the plaintiff to bring them in if they want that to happen. BUT... For various reasons, those parties can't be forced to participate in the litigation. The law also requires the court to stay out of disputes about the bylaws of voluntary organizations other than in extremely limited circumstances. Because the parties and non-parties have other avenues to resolve their differences -- say through mediation or private and binding arbitration -- the court's involvement isn't appropriate here. Further, the drafters of the bylaws did such a bad job that there isn't an unambiguously right way to read the withdrawal clause. For all of those reasons, the court should butt out and send everyone home to work things out."
Looking at it without my orange reading glasses on, there are some good and some not so good arguments there. There's some case law that says that not every necessary party is an indispensable party, which helps our position. But the case that idea comes from involved sovereign tribes who were more tangentially involved, rather than as primary parties whose rights were at stake. They may be able to differentiate on those grounds. The UW lawyers also did as well as they could to lay out their preferred interpretation of the withdrawal notice clause. Though all of us here prefer the more straightforward reading, their version isn't wholly implausible. I don't think Judge Libey will bite on that interpretation, but it isn't the worst argument ever.
There's a chance they get this tossed on the procedural arguments. I'd put it at 10% - 20%. If they don't, I think the chances they prevail on the bylaw argument is almost nil. If they want to be vindictive and drag things out, the procedural side could create grounds for an appeal that could drag on for a long time. Would they do that? Who knows.
Really appreciate this post, thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Oct 10, 2023 15:39:47 GMT -8
I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. The play with Washington and the other schools is attempt to force the lawsuit against the pac-12 to be dismissed and force OSU/WSU to sue the schools individually, thus making it more costly and time consuming. That is the threat. UW (and now the other schools) basically saying, Hey, the Pac-12 isn't representing our specific interests in this lawsuit, but it affects me! Let me represent myself. Then each of the other schools too... and now instead of it being one on one (OSU/WSU vs Pac-12) it is OSU/WSU versus 10 individual schools. This is a leverage play by UW as the schools, at the same time, are in mediation about the issue. UW is trying to force OSU and WSU to mediate an exit of the Pac-12 and dissolving of the conference. This is the shot across the bow saying we are going to fight you tooth and nail over the conference. Who knows, maybe if OSU/WSU demands they each get paid $X dollars by the other 10 (say, $100M, pulling a completely random number out of the hat) from the proceeds of dissolving the conference, they come to an agreement and dissolve the conference. All I know, is this deserves and extra special super duper f%#* YOU to every traitor school. Literally every one of them. I have softened my opinion on who the traitors really were/are. It's pretty evident now SC and UCLA felt they deserved a bigger share of media revenue given their population base,,cost of living, and brands. That was not an unreasonable request. The conference voted no, so they found a much better deal and left. Traitors? They made a reasonable request and were denied, it sucks, but at least they were honest about what they wanted and gave the conference a chance to work out a deal with them. I am now putting two and only two school directly in front of the traitor label for a few reasons. As late as Thursday evening before the Friday Apple deal signing they gave assurances they were in lock step with the remaining members. Then Friday morning rolls around and they announce joining the B1G. So not only did they sabotage the Apple Deal, the timing and fact they accepted jr. member status makes it clear it was a move they thought would end the conference at the same time and free up additional revenue for them.. Everything about it was traitorous behavior. The timing, the stringing along all other members therefore killing any future trust, and the letters they sent to the conference. It all shows forethought went into each aspect. As for the rest of the schools, how would any be able to trust one another any longer? When O and W stabbed them all in the back, they also stabbed any semblance of trust that could be extended between schools from that point forward. I see two schools and only two schools who intended to sabotage the conference's survival and that's O and W. |
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Oct 10, 2023 17:15:17 GMT -8
I'm not an attorney, but the other schools have filed an Amicus Brief to be included as parties with Washington. I would think that opens them to discovery. I almost never post here, but this is actually something I'm pretty familiar with. Pulling in the other schools (other than UW who already wants in) probably can't be done. Asking to file an amicus brief alone also doesn't put the other schools within the reach of the court.
For easier discussion, the arguments that UW is making are roughly paraphrased below. This isn't my endorsement of them, but rather my attempt at translation into non-legalese.
"The statutes under which the Pac2 schools are asking for relief don't allow the court to take action against rights of parties who haven't yet been properly brought in to the litigation. It's on the plaintiff to bring them in if they want that to happen. BUT... For various reasons, those parties can't be forced to participate in the litigation. The law also requires the court to stay out of disputes about the bylaws of voluntary organizations other than in extremely limited circumstances. Because the parties and non-parties have other avenues to resolve their differences -- say through mediation or private and binding arbitration -- the court's involvement isn't appropriate here. Further, the drafters of the bylaws did such a bad job that there isn't an unambiguously right way to read the withdrawal clause. For all of those reasons, the court should butt out and send everyone home to work things out."
Looking at it without my orange reading glasses on, there are some good and some not so good arguments there. There's some case law that says that not every necessary party is an indispensable party, which helps our position. But the case that idea comes from involved sovereign tribes who were more tangentially involved, rather than as primary parties whose rights were at stake. They may be able to differentiate on those grounds. The UW lawyers also did as well as they could to lay out their preferred interpretation of the withdrawal notice clause. Though all of us here prefer the more straightforward reading, their version isn't wholly implausible. I don't think Judge Libey will bite on that interpretation, but it isn't the worst argument ever.
There's a chance they get this tossed on the procedural arguments. I'd put it at 10% - 20%. If they don't, I think the chances they prevail on the bylaw argument is almost nil. If they want to be vindictive and drag things out, the procedural side could create grounds for an appeal that could drag on for a long time. Would they do that? Who knows.
How long could Washington drag this out if they go this route. What is a long time by your definition? Does it time up conference money for months or years? |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Oct 10, 2023 17:31:52 GMT -8
My astute, yet humble opinion is; f%#* ‘em
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 10, 2023 18:11:54 GMT -8
Today's Monty Show podcast is interesting. Talks about a Wilner article on the UW lawsuit. He's pulling for the Pac-2. Expecting negotiating, says he's heard OSU/WSU open to splitting NCAA basketball credits, doesn't know to what degree. Says his sources say Pac-2 and MWC is set to go when the legal issues are solved. Other tidbits.
|
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Oct 11, 2023 8:14:05 GMT -8
Today's Monty Show podcast is interesting. Talks about a Wilner article on the UW lawsuit. He's pulling for the Pac-2. Expecting negotiating, says he's heard OSU/WSU open to splitting NCAA basketball credits, doesn't know to what degree. Says his sources say Pac-2 and MWC is set to go when the legal issues are solved. Other tidbits. If the leaving schools can drag this out in the courts for months, and it appears they can. The MWC schools have a ton of leverage. Really no other choice |
|
