|
|
Post by 93beav on Nov 14, 2023 21:18:39 GMT -8
"the call on the field is that Pac 12 has two voting members" they will need incontrovertible evidence to overturn. Regardless of whether the various appellate courts are headed by UW alums, judges are usually not predisposed to overturn other judges rulings capriciously. I don't see how the facts would support a stay or a ruling that obviates today's ruling. I think a deal will be brokered soon, and we won't get everything we want, but it will still be substantial. We won the battle, but the war is still very much in doubt. How we parlay today is going to be interesting...I'm still holding out hope on a longshot invite, though I concede that is not likely. And just like the rest of the PAC can threaten, we can also bring it to federal court if we lost on appeal. Or even file a new injunction under Oregon courts. Yes, we need to know pretty soon what we have. At the same time, any move to prevent the board from meeting, no matter what the size, potentially prevents distribution. Cal, how is that seismic update going? UW, how is that debt doing? ASU, did you find that $250 million in the couch? They need it to move expeditiously as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Nov 14, 2023 23:06:18 GMT -8
For revenues earned in the 23-24 school year, I propose the following: 1/2 share to to the four-corner schools, Stanford and Berkeley. 1/4 shares to hole and UCLA, and the remainder equally split between OSU and WSU. I believe I've accounted for everyone. If your school is in Seattle or a little south of downtown LA, you are getting more than you deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 14, 2023 23:35:05 GMT -8
For revenues earned in the 23-24 school year, I propose the following: 1/2 share to to the four-corner schools, Stanford and Berkeley. 1/4 shares to hole and UCLA, and the remainder equally split between OSU and WSU. I believe I've accounted for everyone. If your school is in Seattle or a little south of downtown LA, you are getting more than you deserve. They are entitled to the full revenues of a Pac-12 school, which they are until 8/1/24. After that, they are entitled to nothing. Treat them fairly, so they have no legal recourse to claim otherwise, until they go away. |
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Nov 15, 2023 6:41:12 GMT -8
For revenues earned in the 23-24 school year, I propose the following: 1/2 share to to the four-corner schools, Stanford and Berkeley. 1/4 shares to hole and UCLA, and the remainder equally split between OSU and WSU. I believe I've accounted for everyone. If your school is in Seattle or a little south of downtown LA, you are getting more than you deserve. They are entitled to the full revenues of a Pac-12 school, which they are until 8/1/24. After that, they are entitled to nothing. Treat them fairly, so they have no legal recourse to claim otherwise, until they go away. They are not entitled to it. It may be the most prudent and pragmatic move, but they are not entitled to it. The judge literally ruled that. If we decide on a distribution model that forces future action, we deal with it. This is a very fluid and subjective matter |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Nov 15, 2023 7:32:00 GMT -8
They are entitled to the full revenues of a Pac-12 school, which they are until 8/1/24. After that, they are entitled to nothing. Treat them fairly, so they have no legal recourse to claim otherwise, until they go away. They are not entitled to it. It may be the most prudent and pragmatic move, but they are not entitled to it. The judge literally ruled that. If we decide on a distribution model that forces future action, we deal with it. This is a very fluid and subjective matter I read nothing that he had ordered a change in the distribution of media-rights revenues. The judge said they had forfeited their board seats and were no longer voting members but were to be consulted on decisions that impact the conference for the remainder of the year, and had the right to legal redress if they thought they were being treated unfairly. We and the Cougs have the high ground and public opinion on our side. Don't lose it by doing something rash or emotional. If we want to wind up in court forever, mess with the distribution of media rights money. They merit a full share of everything that is earned this year, both legally and morally. Then they merit nothing. . |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Nov 15, 2023 7:35:56 GMT -8
We give them their fair share that they earned. After we have paid off the Comcast fiasco. And we take a cut to pay our legal fees and perhaps help with the rebuilding of the Pac.
They don't get to walk away from the liabilities that the conference has to face and that includes rebuilding costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by justheretoread on Nov 15, 2023 7:41:27 GMT -8
I'm not sure OSU/WSU are thinking that all 12 universities get a 'full distribution', which is why I believe they were unwilling or unable to resolve this through mediation. When there were only 9 universities left, those remaining (and the commissioner at the time) posited that distributions could be reduced to USC/UCLA/Colorado. I believe OSU / WSU still believe that. Shockingly (sarcasm fully intended), while UW/Uo/AZ/ASU/Utah/Cal/Stanford initially appeared to agree with this, now that they are leaving they have changed their opinion. In addition (and I think this is uncontroverted), something needs to remain to pay for the known liabilities (lawsuits, leases, etc.). This is critical because, without a media contract for FY24, how does the conference earn revenue sufficient to pay those liabilities?
I suspect OSU/WSU are willing to distribute a 'portion' of what would otherwise have been distributed, after considerations for liabilities and whatever is reasonably necessary to preserve the conference are deducted. This seems, to me, to be the rub. The 10 departing schools don't want their distributions reduced by any amount (other than, presumably, their allocated liabilities) to 'preserve the conference.' I could envision a resolution where the parties agree to reduce their FY23/24 distributions by some amount for the liabilities and a small amount to pay MWC for a scheduling alliance ($10-$15M total?). WSU president may seek to couple that with some type of concession from CFP committee before moving to a 5+7 model.
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Nov 15, 2023 7:45:44 GMT -8
They are not entitled to it. It may be the most prudent and pragmatic move, but they are not entitled to it. The judge literally ruled that. If we decide on a distribution model that forces future action, we deal with it. This is a very fluid and subjective matter I read nothing that he had ordered a change in the distribution of media-rights revenues. The judge said they had forfeited their board seats and were no longer voting members but were to be consulted on decisions that impact the conference for the remainder of the year, and had the right to legal redress if they thought they were being treated unfairly. We and the Cougs have the high ground and public opinion on our side. Don't lose it by doing something rash or emotional. If we want to wind up in court forever, mess with the distribution of media rights money. They merit a full share of everything that is earned this year, both legally and morally. Then they merit nothing. . I don't necessarily disagree, but you are modifying your position a little bit here. I think of entitlement in the classic 'benefits' way...inarguable. The Pac still controls all of the assets and controls how money is distributed. I contest that they are owed this legally...and if they were owed this legally, then there would be no reason to add that they are owed it morally. I agree we have the high ground at this moment, but unless we can translate that into something substantial, it is merely a smiley face award pinned to our shirt collar. Not taking advantage of this position and simply doing what we could have done even if we lost would be a waste. |
|
ftd
Junior
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by ftd on Nov 15, 2023 7:55:18 GMT -8
So when does the Preliminary Injunction become 'Final'? I know there is an appeal in progress, due no later than noon Monday. If the appellate court declines to review, is int then 'Final"? Or does the US supreme court get involved potentially? If they say no, is it then final?
Anybody with actual legal knowledge, let us know...we can all be armchair lawyers, but just looking for the facts ma'am
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbeav on Nov 15, 2023 8:00:26 GMT -8
Yeah, it's interesting how this has evolved. We went from just wanting to control future assets, to contemplating what to do with existing media revenue.
When the Traitorous 10 (love that name) started complaining about how OSU/WSU might start playing shenanigans with existing media revenue, I admit that my mind kinda started thinking, actually...yeah, we could! And then you start thinking about how there actually is some logical justification for withholding a portion of current revenue to maintain the future health and integrity of the conference, and suddenly the stakes of this ruling are a lot higher.
I hope Barnes and Chun have a ruthless edge to them. It's gonna take some balls to discuss in meetings with them all how we're going to handle this money, listen to their objections, and then do whatever we want. There will likely be some strained relationships going forward.
Ooh, I just thought of another angle. We could totally promise a higher share of revenue if a school agrees to play one of us the next 2 years, especially at home. 😈
|
|
|
|
Post by jrbeavo on Nov 15, 2023 8:02:31 GMT -8
So when does the Preliminary Injunction become 'Final'? I know there is an appeal in progress, due no later than noon Monday. If the appellate court declines to review, is int then 'Final"? Or does the US supreme court get involved potentially? If they say no, is it then final? Anybody with actual legal knowledge, let us know...we can all be armchair lawyers, but just looking for the facts ma'am My understanding is that our and WSU standing as sole board members would be final after next week. However, there is always the right to legal action if a party can show they were harmed by decisions made by the board. In other words, we won't have the latitude act recklessly and expect no pushback . As a non-lawyer, I doubt our status as the remaining board members will be affected, but our decisions may be challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Nov 15, 2023 8:03:33 GMT -8
I'm not sure OSU/WSU are thinking that all 12 universities get a 'full distribution', which is why I believe they were unwilling or unable to resolve this through mediation. When there were only 9 universities left, those remaining (and the commissioner at the time) posited that distributions could be reduced to USC/UCLA/Colorado. I believe OSU / WSU still believe that. Shockingly (sarcasm fully intended), while UW/Uo/AZ/ASU/Utah/Cal/Stanford initially appeared to agree with this, now that they are leaving they have changed their opinion. In addition (and I think this is uncontroverted), something needs to remain to pay for the known liabilities (lawsuits, leases, etc.). This is critical because, without a media contract for FY24, how does the conference earn revenue sufficient to pay those liabilities? I suspect OSU/WSU are willing to distribute a 'portion' of what would otherwise have been distributed, after considerations for liabilities and whatever is reasonably necessary to preserve the conference are deducted. This seems, to me, to be the rub. The 10 departing schools don't want their distributions reduced by any amount (other than, presumably, their allocated liabilities) to 'preserve the conference.' I could envision a resolution where the parties agree to reduce their FY23/24 distributions by some amount for the liabilities and a small amount to pay MWC for a scheduling alliance ($10-$15M total?). WSU president may seek to couple that with some type of concession from CFP committee before moving to a 5+7 model. They were unwilling or unable to resolve this during mediation because the departing 10 were unwilling. There is a zero percent chance OSU/WSU say no to an agreement to distribute 2023-2024 revenue in exchange for the board and ongoing control of the Pac-12. The traitorous 10 wanted more than 2023-2024 revenue. That is as obvious as the day is long. |
|
|
|
Post by bucktoothvarmit on Nov 15, 2023 8:22:50 GMT -8
A prudent board will see a conference w/o a media rights deal for the foreseeable future(2 years) and will build a contingency for that. 2 members @ $35 large x2 years =$140 million withheld from distribution.............
Other added costs for rebuilding a conference to the NCAA minimum (6 more schools) I don't know, 10 large per school, 20 large? Probably another $100 million withheld
Go Beavs!!
|
|
|
|
Post by justheretoread on Nov 15, 2023 8:24:25 GMT -8
I'm not sure OSU/WSU are thinking that all 12 universities get a 'full distribution', which is why I believe they were unwilling or unable to resolve this through mediation. When there were only 9 universities left, those remaining (and the commissioner at the time) posited that distributions could be reduced to USC/UCLA/Colorado. I believe OSU / WSU still believe that. Shockingly (sarcasm fully intended), while UW/Uo/AZ/ASU/Utah/Cal/Stanford initially appeared to agree with this, now that they are leaving they have changed their opinion. In addition (and I think this is uncontroverted), something needs to remain to pay for the known liabilities (lawsuits, leases, etc.). This is critical because, without a media contract for FY24, how does the conference earn revenue sufficient to pay those liabilities? I suspect OSU/WSU are willing to distribute a 'portion' of what would otherwise have been distributed, after considerations for liabilities and whatever is reasonably necessary to preserve the conference are deducted. This seems, to me, to be the rub. The 10 departing schools don't want their distributions reduced by any amount (other than, presumably, their allocated liabilities) to 'preserve the conference.' I could envision a resolution where the parties agree to reduce their FY23/24 distributions by some amount for the liabilities and a small amount to pay MWC for a scheduling alliance ($10-$15M total?). WSU president may seek to couple that with some type of concession from CFP committee before moving to a 5+7 model. They were unwilling or unable to resolve this during mediation because the departing 10 were unwilling. There is a zero percent chance OSU/WSU say no to an agreement to distribute 2023-2024 revenue in exchange for the board and ongoing control of the Pac-12. The traitorous 10 wanted more than 2023-2024 revenue. That is as obvious as the day is long. Hmmm...I'm not sure that I agree that the departing schools were as focused on +Aug '24 revenue, let alone that this was 'as obvious as the day is long' lol. In fact, pretty sure they stated as much in their filings. I also don't agree that OSU/WSU would (or should) be satisfied with a full distribution of FY23/FY24 revenue, since the effect of that would likely result in their inability to act as the 'pac 2' for at least one year with a 'scheduling alliance' - we will need more than future distributions to subsist. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Nov 15, 2023 9:15:19 GMT -8
A prudent board will see a conference w/o a media rights deal for the foreseeable future(2 years) and will build a contingency for that. 2 members @ $35 large x2 years =$140 million withheld from distribution............. Other added costs for rebuilding a conference to the NCAA minimum (6 more schools) I don't know, 10 large per school, 20 large? Probably another $100 million withheld Go Beavs!! Exactly, Henry S is simply wrong on this issue. The same section of the bylaws that removed the traitors from the board, also gives the Pac 12 the right to seek damages from the departing members, when the remaining members have suffered damages. WSU and OSU's damages are huge and on going. Liabilities from lawsuits could be very large. It would be unbelievably bad business practice to give them all the money they think they are due. Withhold a massive amount of it in reserve to cover our costs, lost revenue and costs to re-establish the pac 12. |
|
