bill82
Sophomore
OSU's 10,157th Best Donor
Posts: 1,009 
|
Post by bill82 on Nov 2, 2023 20:46:39 GMT -8
Here is a link to my summary and the documents (no paywall): LINKExcerpts from my substack post: Pac 12’s Argument Against the Temporary Restraining Order
- The Pac 12 laments that their board did not resolve the difference in opinion as to whether UCLA and USC were still members after they announced in 2022 that they would play in the Big 10 in 2024.
- The Pac 12 asks Oregon State to post a bond of $400 million to cover other members for potential damages. They don’t ask WSU because they are immune from such demands in Washington.
UW throws Pac-12 Administrators Under the Bus
- UW addresses the incompetence of the Pac 12 administrators – which makes it more interesting than the Pac 12’s arguments.
- UW explains in detail how a previous version of the by-laws would have supported WSU/OSU’s arguments, but it was changed, and the current version supports UW’s position that all members still have voting rights. Obviously this is an argument the Pac 12 could not make without admitting their incompetence.
- Discovery shows that OSU’s legal counsel doubted the UCLA, USC and Colorado lost their voting rights in real time.
- Main concern it that OSU and WSU will take current year revenues from other members – not future revenues and Pac-12 assets.
- Cites California law (where Pac-12 is registered) that allows members, not board members) to dissolve a non-profit organization based on a majority vote.
- Claims OSU and WSU should seek legal remedies when they are actually damaged by a vote of Pac-12 members.
- Hints at a compromise: suggest ruling could bar OSU and WSU from taking current year revenues from other members.
- Want a pause in proceeding to take to dispute to Washington Supreme Court
Third up: UW President's Declaration
- Pac 12 never told her that USC and UCLA were stripped of board seat.
Finally: Exhibits with Discovery (375 Pages)
Lots of juicy stuff here: Note pages where you can find most interesting pieces. - P.323 to 357 OSU exchange on ACC interest before August 4th. Suggests surviving this round and poaching Big 12 next round (this is when there was a Pac-9)
- p.359: OSU expresses doubt about removing members from board.
- p.361: WSU & OSU scramble after mass exodus on August 4.
- p.366 to 375: Big 12 Conversation between August 26 and September 6. On p. 368 Scott Barnes indicates his agent was ringleader for expansion activity at Fox.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Nov 2, 2023 20:52:56 GMT -8
Here is a link to my summary and the documents (no paywall): LINKExcerpts from my substack post: Pac 12’s Argument Against the Temporary Restraining Order
- The Pac 12 laments that their board did not resolve the difference in opinion as to whether UCLA and USC were still members after they announced in 2022 that they would play in the Big 10 in 2024.
- The Pac 12 asks Oregon State to post a bond of $400 million to cover other members for potential damages. They don’t ask WSU because they are immune from such demands in Washington.
UW throws Pac-12 Administrators Under the Bus
- UW addresses the incompetence of the Pac 12 administrators – which makes it more interesting than the Pac 12’s arguments.
- UW explains in detail how a previous version of the by-laws would have supported WSU/OSU’s arguments, but it was changed, and the current version supports UW’s position that all members still have voting rights. Obviously this is an argument the Pac 12 could not make without admitting their incompetence.
- Discovery shows that OSU’s legal counsel doubted the UCLA, USC and Colorado lost their voting rights in real time.
- Main concern it that OSU and WSU will take current year revenues from other members – not future revenues and Pac-12 assets.
- Cites California law (where Pac-12 is registered) that allows members, not board members) to dissolve a non-profit organization based on a majority vote.
- Claims OSU and WSU should seek legal remedies when they are actually damaged by a vote of Pac-12 members.
- Hints at a compromise: suggest ruling could bar OSU and WSU from taking current year revenues from other members.
- Want a pause in proceeding to take to dispute to Washington Supreme Court
Third up: UW President's Declaration
- Pac 12 never told her that USC and UCLA were stripped of board seat.
Finally: Exhibits with Discovery (375 Pages)
Lots of juicy stuff here: Note pages where you can find most interesting pieces. - P.323 to 357 OSU exchange on ACC interest before August 4th. Suggests surviving this round and poaching Big 12 next round (this is when there was a Pac-9)
- p.359: OSU expresses doubt about removing members from board.
- p.361: WSU & OSU scramble after mass exodus on August 4.
- p.366 to 375: Big 12 Conversation between August 26 and September 6. On p. 368 Scott Barnes indicates his agent was ringleader for expansion activity at Fox.
"Discovery shows that OSU’s legal counsel doubted the UCLA, USC and Colorado lost their voting rights in real time." Bizarre that is in discovery. That sounds like non-discoverable work product. Any of you civil lawyers that can explain why I am wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 3, 2023 8:41:17 GMT -8
Here is a link to my summary and the documents (no paywall): LINKExcerpts from my substack post: Pac 12’s Argument Against the Temporary Restraining Order
- The Pac 12 laments that their board did not resolve the difference in opinion as to whether UCLA and USC were still members after they announced in 2022 that they would play in the Big 10 in 2024.
- The Pac 12 asks Oregon State to post a bond of $400 million to cover other members for potential damages. They don’t ask WSU because they are immune from such demands in Washington.
UW throws Pac-12 Administrators Under the Bus
- UW addresses the incompetence of the Pac 12 administrators – which makes it more interesting than the Pac 12’s arguments.
- UW explains in detail how a previous version of the by-laws would have supported WSU/OSU’s arguments, but it was changed, and the current version supports UW’s position that all members still have voting rights. Obviously this is an argument the Pac 12 could not make without admitting their incompetence.
- Discovery shows that OSU’s legal counsel doubted the UCLA, USC and Colorado lost their voting rights in real time.
- Main concern it that OSU and WSU will take current year revenues from other members – not future revenues and Pac-12 assets.
- Cites California law (where Pac-12 is registered) that allows members, not board members) to dissolve a non-profit organization based on a majority vote.
- Claims OSU and WSU should seek legal remedies when they are actually damaged by a vote of Pac-12 members.
- Hints at a compromise: suggest ruling could bar OSU and WSU from taking current year revenues from other members.
- Want a pause in proceeding to take to dispute to Washington Supreme Court
Third up: UW President's Declaration
- Pac 12 never told her that USC and UCLA were stripped of board seat.
Finally: Exhibits with Discovery (375 Pages)
Lots of juicy stuff here: Note pages where you can find most interesting pieces. - P.323 to 357 OSU exchange on ACC interest before August 4th. Suggests surviving this round and poaching Big 12 next round (this is when there was a Pac-9)
- p.359: OSU expresses doubt about removing members from board.
- p.361: WSU & OSU scramble after mass exodus on August 4.
- p.366 to 375: Big 12 Conversation between August 26 and September 6. On p. 368 Scott Barnes indicates his agent was ringleader for expansion activity at Fox.
The notion that WSU/OSU is going to steal all of this year's revenue as their motivation, and not protecting from the obvious intention of all the other schools to dissolve the conference (which UW effectively admitted they wanted to do by saying they are allowed to dissolve a non-profit...) is a ludicrous declaration. It has always been very clear, OSU/WSU sought the emergency injunction because it became clear the other schools were going to hold a vote to dissolve the conference, and UW, through their documents confirmed they believe they have the right to do it. 10 traitorous schools are now actively colluding to attempt to force OSU and WSU to be G5 schools and actively prevent them from attempting to rebuild a Power-5 worthy conference. That is the bottom line here. It isn't just about getting all the money they possibly can, it is also about eliminating the competition for future money. |
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Nov 3, 2023 15:23:31 GMT -8
1) UW is such an arrogant, prissy little *****
2) The reduction in this year's revenue I believe is tied to the belief that remaining members can hold back monies as part of "damages" as a result of departing teams' actions. I think there was a comment about this earlier that was sent out to some of the PAC presidents after Colorado left. That might be what uw is trying to avoid.
3) If they want to sign over all future revenue and some not-insignificant money for damages in exchange for an equal division of this year's money, okay.
4) Immediately sell all of uw's past historical games to the Hallmark Channel so their memories are banned forever.
5) They argue that there is no way the other members would vote to dissolve the conference, but then they also point out it's allowed under California law re: non-profits. But even if they did such a thing (why, shucks, we'd never do that!), then OSU would have to pony up more money for lawyers to sue to get damages. While we have no incoming money.
6) All this talk about "Oh, look OSU/WSU looked at other conferences" is bluster and noise. The difference is we didn't leave, we didn't give notice, nothing, zilch, nada. If they are so sure of the fact that the bylaws don't allow notice to indicate losing the board seat, why did they specify it in their exit letters? They must have known at that point that USC, UCLA & Colorado had suffered penalties by doing so. I really hope discovery somewhere turns up a notification that the uw president is lying and she was informed.
7) The best hope OSU/WSU have right now, because honestly that California law is a little disturbing, is that the judge's opinion on the interpretation of the bylaws is in osu/wsu's favor. By doing so, osu/wsu could, I'm sure, do some action to change the bylaws with immediate effect to prevent a majority-vote to disband, or just remove the others' votes entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by avidbeaver on Nov 3, 2023 17:48:36 GMT -8
So uw says they were never told sc and ucla didn't have a vote anymore. Well what did they think when those two didn't vote on anything after the announcement to leave? Seems a little unbelieveable she wasn't aware.
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Nov 10, 2023 8:01:35 GMT -8
If you haven't checked out Bill's page, please do so. The link is at the top of the page in his first post. Another well done job, Bill. The latest response from OSU/WSU before next week's decision (is it next week or the week after? can't remember) is out.
Just some highlights (but read Bill's highlighted disclosures)...
Pretty much uw's president lied.
uw's lawyers don't understand California law and apparently don't fully understand Washington's law - or at least want to set a new standard just for them, special children that they are.
I find it interesting that everybody thinks the $420 million in revenue for this year is in play. I don't think we should be that cruel. We should give each of the departing members a bus and gas money to get to their new conference HQ as a lovely parting gift. And then take the rest. Ok, maybe not penalize Utah, they've been the best of the 10 in their attitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Nov 10, 2023 9:08:40 GMT -8
Just take the money of the big defectors. They are the true scum buckets here. I guess I'm too naive. I don't see how you advance to a university president level without reasonable personal integrity.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 10, 2023 11:37:33 GMT -8
If you haven't checked out Bill's page, please do so. The link is at the top of the page in his first post. Another well done job, Bill. The latest response from OSU/WSU before next week's decision (is it next week or the week after? can't remember) is out. Just some highlights (but read Bill's highlighted disclosures)... Pretty much uw's president lied. uw's lawyers don't understand California law and apparently don't fully understand Washington's law - or at least want to set a new standard just for them, special children that they are. I find it interesting that everybody thinks the $420 million in revenue for this year is in play. I don't think we should be that cruel. We should give each of the departing members a bus and gas money to get to their new conference HQ as a lovely parting gift. And then take the rest. Ok, maybe not penalize Utah, they've been the best of the 10 in their attitude. I doubt they really think this year's money would be grabbed by the Pac-2, but in theory it could potentially be so they're running with it. Apparently tne Pac 12 money gets passed around to the schools later in the fiscal year. Canzano alluded to it in at least one of his early articles. If Canzano was right, in theory, if the Pac 2 are awarded total voting power, they could change the bylaws and use this year's distribution money to buy out 6 of the MWC schools of their choice and a 2-4 other higher performing G5 schools and have a 10-12 team Conference that's fairly formidable days or weeks after the legal mess goes away.... and still have room to buy out more high performers later if they wanted. I don't think the Pac-2 would do that, but I could see the Traitorous 10 wanting legal assurances that won't happen. What a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Nov 10, 2023 12:04:05 GMT -8
If you haven't checked out Bill's page, please do so. The link is at the top of the page in his first post. Another well done job, Bill. The latest response from OSU/WSU before next week's decision (is it next week or the week after? can't remember) is out. Just some highlights (but read Bill's highlighted disclosures)... Pretty much uw's president lied. uw's lawyers don't understand California law and apparently don't fully understand Washington's law - or at least want to set a new standard just for them, special children that they are. I find it interesting that everybody thinks the $420 million in revenue for this year is in play. I don't think we should be that cruel. We should give each of the departing members a bus and gas money to get to their new conference HQ as a lovely parting gift. And then take the rest. Ok, maybe not penalize Utah, they've been the best of the 10 in their attitude. I doubt they really think this year's money would be grabbed by the Pac-2, but in theory it could potentially be so they're running with it. Apparently tne Pac 12 money gets passed around to the schools later in the fiscal year. Canzano alluded to it in at least one of his early articles. If Canzano was right, in theory, if the Pac 2 are awarded total voting power, they could change the bylaws and use this year's distribution money to buy out 6 of the MWC schools of their choice and a 2-4 other higher performing G5 schools and have a 10-12 team Conference that's fairly formidable days or weeks after the legal mess goes away.... and still have room to buy out more high performers later if they wanted. I don't think the Pac-2 would do that, but I could see the Traitorous 10 wanting legal assurances that won't happen. What a mess. Apparently there is a whole new twist to contend with. I have not seen and therefore read it yet, but heard a brief recap of an article Wilner just wrote regarding a lawsuit filed in California seeking a massive financial settlement for NIL usage for athletes who competed prior to current NIL standards. The suit has won an initial ruling as I understand it. Who knows what ramifications this may bring as it relates to any assets held by the conference, or if ultimately successful, will simply be a liability each individual school will be faced with. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Nov 10, 2023 12:08:15 GMT -8
There has been nothing... legal documentation or public comments or suggestion... to show that OSU & WSU want to hoard this season's revenue. NONE. This is a simple ploy by the "others", in this case UW specially hoping for adjoining partners, that the Pac2 will act in the same callous and ingenious manner they and the commissioner did previously. Unfortunately for UW (and the other nine) there is ample real, documentary, and testimonial evidence of their collusion and fraudulent claims. Whereas, no such mountain of evidence exists showing OSU and WSU want to willfully withhold '23-24 monies.
Narcissists such as UW's leadership (and others typically employ some or all of these (5) methods/traits: Dismiss or minimize the other parties distress/effects of a situation; their lack of feeling guilt or remorse has them tend to Gaslight; Deflection away from the original argument when faced with indisputable proof/evidence; Shift blame with an acute degree of defensiveness; and lastly, which may not apply here unless it's behind closed doors, Ridicule. I'm pretty sure many of the "10" see WSU & OSU as the street beggar that is far beneath their elite stature.
|
|
|
|
Post by 93beav on Nov 10, 2023 12:18:18 GMT -8
If you haven't checked out Bill's page, please do so. The link is at the top of the page in his first post. Another well done job, Bill. The latest response from OSU/WSU before next week's decision (is it next week or the week after? can't remember) is out. Just some highlights (but read Bill's highlighted disclosures)... Pretty much uw's president lied. uw's lawyers don't understand California law and apparently don't fully understand Washington's law - or at least want to set a new standard just for them, special children that they are. I find it interesting that everybody thinks the $420 million in revenue for this year is in play. I don't think we should be that cruel. We should give each of the departing members a bus and gas money to get to their new conference HQ as a lovely parting gift. And then take the rest. Ok, maybe not penalize Utah, they've been the best of the 10 in their attitude. I doubt they really think this year's money would be grabbed by the Pac-2, but in theory it could potentially be so they're running with it. Apparently tne Pac 12 money gets passed around to the schools later in the fiscal year. Canzano alluded to it in at least one of his early articles. If Canzano was right, in theory, if the Pac 2 are awarded total voting power, they could change the bylaws and use this year's distribution money to buy out 6 of the MWC schools of their choice and a 2-4 other higher performing G5 schools and have a 10-12 team Conference that's fairly formidable days or weeks after the legal mess goes away.... and still have room to buy out more high performers later if they wanted. I don't think the Pac-2 would do that, but I could see the Traitorous 10 wanting legal assurances that won't happen. What a mess. Actually, before the PAC-2, there was conversation between members about pulling current year revenue from UCLA, USC and Colorado. I don't recall exactly why, but it was logical, but was about 10-15% off what they were due. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Nov 10, 2023 12:32:44 GMT -8
I doubt they really think this year's money would be grabbed by the Pac-2, but in theory it could potentially be so they're running with it. Apparently tne Pac 12 money gets passed around to the schools later in the fiscal year. Canzano alluded to it in at least one of his early articles. If Canzano was right, in theory, if the Pac 2 are awarded total voting power, they could change the bylaws and use this year's distribution money to buy out 6 of the MWC schools of their choice and a 2-4 other higher performing G5 schools and have a 10-12 team Conference that's fairly formidable days or weeks after the legal mess goes away.... and still have room to buy out more high performers later if they wanted. I don't think the Pac-2 would do that, but I could see the Traitorous 10 wanting legal assurances that won't happen. What a mess. Actually, before the PAC-2, there was conversation between members about pulling current year revenue from UCLA, USC and Colorado. I don't recall exactly why, but it was logical, but was about 10-15% off what they were due. Probably suggested by some of the schools who are worried about us hoarding the money. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 10, 2023 14:18:36 GMT -8
The 10 are due everything they were supposed to receive in Pac-12 money until 8/1/2024. After that, they receive nothing. That's the morally and legally correct approach, and I'd be disappointed if we and WSU tried to pull a fast one if/when we prevail on 11/14.
Pretty simple really, but of course it won't be.
PS: Spending millions of dollars to get MWC teams to form a new conference for 2024-25 is wasting millions of dollars. Make do in 2024-25, which should be doable after we win on 11/14, and then get the MWC for free in 2025-26.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Nov 10, 2023 14:49:18 GMT -8
The 10 are due everything they were supposed to receive in Pac-12 money until 8/1/2024. After that, they receive nothing. That's the morally and legally correct approach, and I'd be disappointed if we and WSU tried to pull a fast one if/when we prevail on 11/14. Pretty simple really, but of course it won't be. PS: Spending millions of dollars to get MWC teams to form a new conference for 2024-25 is wasting millions of dollars. Make do in 2024-25, which should be doable after we win on 11/14, and then get the MWC for free in 2025-26. Not so fast. If everything were black and white I could buy your stance. Fact is, there are some potential significant liabilities due to ongoing lawsuits against the conference. If we were to divide revenue up as formerly agreed through 8/1, ten schools could take their share and walk into a new contract elsewhere while stepping away from any of the liabilities. That would meant two schools are left bearing the brunt of any settlements decided after 8/1 but brought prior to 8/1. How is that "moral" or "just"? Any scenario that allows the schools who abandoned the conference to receive immunity from conference liability which took place while they were members, and at the expense of the schools who stood tall is far from a just scenario on my scale. |
|
|
|
Post by p8nted on Nov 10, 2023 15:17:16 GMT -8
The 10 are due everything they were supposed to receive in Pac-12 money until 8/1/2024. After that, they receive nothing. That's the morally and legally correct approach, and I'd be disappointed if we and WSU tried to pull a fast one if/when we prevail on 11/14. Pretty simple really, but of course it won't be. PS: Spending millions of dollars to get MWC teams to form a new conference for 2024-25 is wasting millions of dollars. Make do in 2024-25, which should be doable after we win on 11/14, and then get the MWC for free in 2025-26. You don't get the MWC FOR FREE unless you take them all. Exit fees are reduced if given 2 years notice but they are exit fees written in conference by laws and not linked to a media deal. They have far better lawyers than the PAC had. |
|
