Once they provide notice of intent to leave the conference, they lose their representation on the CEO group. Currently, there should be 2 votes.
Any guess on what our "legal damages" are...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
The contract DOES NOT SAY "WHEN" of the departure.
It SAYS "AS SOON AS NOTICE OF DEPARTURE(Nothing about the date of departure having to be before 8/1/24), IS GIVEN, AND IF NOTICE(Not departure date, etc), IS GIVEN BY 8/1/24, THEN PENALTY, etc"
I'm sure the original INTENT, was to work like you say HUSKY, but the legal system does not go by INTENT, it goes by WORDING, and sometimes WORDING goes against INTENT, and this is one of those times.
This is semi kind of like how I am a D&D DM.
As such I have had LOTS of players cast, use, do, get a WISH, and they write the wish up, and I say what happens, and they say "Wait a minute, that's not what I wanted, or said, wrote what I wanted".
And I say "sorry, you wished for a zillion gold pieces, but you didn't specify how, so the wish took you to a zillion gold piece dragon treasure hoard with a dragon ready to eat you".
I don't have to be a lawyer to understand what words, contracts, etc, mean.
If the intent was as you say, it should have been worded something like this:
"If give notice of departure, before 8/1/24, then you suffer penalty X, unless, except the date of departure of the notice that you have given before 8/1/24, is after 8/1/24".
But if it's something like this:
"If give NOTICE of departure before 8/1/24, then you suffer penalty X"
And if that kind of wording is used, and that kind of wording is used, then it does not matter when the date of departure is.
The departure could be scheduled to happen 10 million years from now, but if you give notice of that departure that is supposed to happen in 10 million years and give notice of it before 8/1/24, then they suffer the penalty.
Wording can be a bitch in both D&D wishes, and in real life.
The colleges that leaving PAC, could have just given notice of departure AFTER 8/1/24.
The only, biggest problem, is it's going to be too costly, time consuming, etc, to fight it out in court, even tho it would probably, eventually be ruled in WSU's, OSU's favor.
That's why s settlement will probably be worked out, where WSU, OSU get a LOT less, and where the other colleges that left PAC will probably get their fair share, etc.
But LEGALLY, ACCORDING to the wording WSU, OSU are entitled to ALL the money, etc, if they either stay, don't go to MWC, etc, an or stay in PAC until after 8/1/24, and don't give notice until after 8/1/24
It's ALL ABOUT THE NOTICE DATE, NOT ABOUT THE DEPARTURE DATE.
Would have been nice if I became a lawyer as lawyers make more then D&D DM's, Rules lawyers, Telemarketers, NAC's, Web Designer, like what I have done, etc.
Speaking of Money, it looks like there is starting to be a cracking the damn storing all this money for sports and leagues, this will be something to watch in the future. All these teams are leaving for more money, what if it isn't there in 5 years
Charter and Disney at odds
Charter and Disney at odds
my read is they lose voting rights when they announce their departure.
Being rumored that ESPN will just "jack the rates up" on their customers willing to pay.
For that strategy to work, in my opinion, they need to own as much sports content as possible.
Charter/Spectrum was my way to get ESPN, which really sucks, but in a delicious bit of irony, I still have the ****ing Pac-12 Networks through accessing this via my Florida-based vacation home's cable. All this stuff is insane.
Well, that fits college particularly well. That's the funding model for universities. Bloated admins, charge the living shit out of those who aren't in poverty, with the legitimately rich not caring and the purported "rich" (and everyone else not in poverty) getting bent over.
Legally no, because it says GIVE NOTICE BEFORE 8/1/24, THEN PENALTY X.
Part of penalty X is not being able to vote.
Now there might be a settlement worked out, etc, but those that left, voting days are OVER.
I think they will go the settlement route. I don't think we want to create "scorched earth"....meaning if the band wanted to get back together, we should welcome that....but we also can't let them walk all over us on the way out the door.
If there's a ESPN game or show you want to watch, is there a roundabout way to view it even with the standoff between the two parties? Or is every customer on the Spectrum out of luck?
Does the cable company give a refund to customers who aren't getting the package they paid for?
Man, I'd be pretty upset for this boycott or whatever it is to start right when football season kicks off!
ESPN's fix is to sign up for HULU, which is also owned by Disney to get around it. Of course, you need a stick or a smart TV to make this work, and people without a computer or smart phone will probably never figure it out. It's going to be the wave of the future, the days of free sports on Linear TV will be over in 5 years or less.
That’s could be a good deal if they throw some bacon on those burgers
From the 2023-24 Pac-12 Constitution & Bylaws, Chapter 2 (Membership), Section 3:
"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;"
Pretty straightforward. You can't tell the conference you're leaving before 8-1-24. Legal precedent has been pretty clear, if you publicly announce that you're doing something...that is considered delivering notice.
"...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, "
Also pretty straightforward. If you announce that you're leaving, you're in breach, and the conference can either stop you or demand compensation.
"...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."
This is easy to understand, but does some big things. If you announce you're leaving, and the conference tries to stop you but a court won't provide an injunction...the conference keeps your media rights through 8-1-24. This is the "grant of rights" portion of the deal, and it's the piece that is keeping FSU and Clemson in the ACC.
"Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the Pac-12 Board of Directors. "
Completely straightforward. Once you've provided notification that you're leaving, you no longer get a vote. USC, UCLA, UO, and UW have already followed this. USC and UCLA haven't participated in the CEO group since they made their original announcement. UW and UO (according to the narratives from multiple conference presidents) called 10 minutes before the scheduled Apple meeting to say that they were leaving, and then didn't show up. I assume the other schools have stopped attending as well.
So, the question I have - and maybe the one that the lawyers are chewing on right now - is if this actually requires OSU and WSU to sue to try to stop the departures. After reading it again, I kind of think it does. Here's the entire (very long) sentence in its entirety, with the exact punctuation:
"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."
I think the "and if" is a problem. The way I read that, the conference is only entitled to retain media rights if a court doesn't block a team's departure.
Unrelated, but potentially problematic going forward - most of the sections of the bylaws that indicate a threshold for voting decisions require 3/4 of the members to agree. So at the moment...OSU and WSU can't do anything unless they agree with each other. If they're split, they don't reach the required threshold.
"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;"
Pretty straightforward. You can't tell the conference you're leaving before 8-1-24. Legal precedent has been pretty clear, if you publicly announce that you're doing something...that is considered delivering notice.
"...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, "
Also pretty straightforward. If you announce that you're leaving, you're in breach, and the conference can either stop you or demand compensation.
"...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."
This is easy to understand, but does some big things. If you announce you're leaving, and the conference tries to stop you but a court won't provide an injunction...the conference keeps your media rights through 8-1-24. This is the "grant of rights" portion of the deal, and it's the piece that is keeping FSU and Clemson in the ACC.
"Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors shall automatically cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the Pac-12 Board of Directors. "
Completely straightforward. Once you've provided notification that you're leaving, you no longer get a vote. USC, UCLA, UO, and UW have already followed this. USC and UCLA haven't participated in the CEO group since they made their original announcement. UW and UO (according to the narratives from multiple conference presidents) called 10 minutes before the scheduled Apple meeting to say that they were leaving, and then didn't show up. I assume the other schools have stopped attending as well.
So, the question I have - and maybe the one that the lawyers are chewing on right now - is if this actually requires OSU and WSU to sue to try to stop the departures. After reading it again, I kind of think it does. Here's the entire (very long) sentence in its entirety, with the exact punctuation:
"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."
I think the "and if" is a problem. The way I read that, the conference is only entitled to retain media rights if a court doesn't block a team's departure.
Unrelated, but potentially problematic going forward - most of the sections of the bylaws that indicate a threshold for voting decisions require 3/4 of the members to agree. So at the moment...OSU and WSU can't do anything unless they agree with each other. If they're split, they don't reach the required threshold.
The whole system is obviously unsustainable. It's built on the idea that there are always subscribers, and they'll always pay more. But it's near its limit, and now that everyone has a separate streaming channel, it's increasingly fractured. Soon, a media deal is going to come up for renewal, and the big news is going to that there are no serious bidders(actually...this just happened with the Pac-12), and for far less money than anticipated.
I read something a week or two ago that suggested in 10-12 years, all of the collective media rights will fall apart. There won't be conference or league media deals, it'll be team-based. For CFB, that'll mean we go back to the 80s - you can see Notre Dame, Michigan, and Alabama every week. There will be about 20 teams that are easy to watch, the other 100 will get televised once or twice a season.
If W/OSU need to sue to stop the Terrible 10 from collecting their media rights why didn’t the PAC10 sue usc and ucla? Maybe they wanted to keep a good relationship if they wanted to come back? It seems like we could have been been taking all their milk money since last summer if that is the correct interpretation.
And we need that why? WSU has a 5-6 person AG office staffed right in French AD. I mean can't they do their jobs/
I'm not a litigator and I typically would want to see the entire contract to weigh in at all, but as an initial reaction, I agree with your read that "and if" imparts conditionality. I also think the entire thing being premised on the delivery of notice could be problematic. I'd have to see more about the contract to stand behind that position, though. Looks like Larry may have used the same shitty drafters that Moos used with Ernie's contract. I recall that one being drafted poorly in numerous ways.
Because the AG’s office doesn’t do that kind of work. And with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, do you want the rank and file AAGs, or counsel with experience and expertise?
Last edited:
You late on your rent Moon? You are really pining for that 1/12!
Take your winnings from BCC… I mean UW covering and go to the track!
True, but this is written like an if…then statement. IF an injunction is denied, THEN the conference is entitled to retain media dollars.
For anything beyond very fundamental legal advice or WSU contracts and policies, outside counsel gets hired. The AGO is generalists, they like to find specialists
This might explain Schulz's recent comments about legal proceedings. WSU and OSU may need to take the violators to court to guarantee that they retain the money when the bastards inevitably leave.
so, if an injunction is filed, against all offending schools it is either granted,which would block their exit or denied which would entitle wso, and osu to keep what is left is how I read it
And the injunction would be to keep those schools from...leaving after the agreement expires? Follow the logic.
It would be good for you to follow the logic. Everyone knows the injunction to prevent them from leaving is going to fail...but the court filing may be necessary for WSU and OSU to gain the right to keep the remaining money and to take over full ownership of the conference (or what's left of it).
I feel much the same. With completely new viewing habits amongst the younger generation and a waning lack of interest in most all sports how are they (streaming services/networks) going to be able to continually claim a growth of eyeballs to their platforms to justify to advertisers increased revenue? They won't be able to.
A huge problem down the road for some of these lower- tiered schools (Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Minnesota, South Carolina, etc) that become accustomed to a standard of living based off 60-80 million dollars annually on this dying formula will cause them to do some serious cost-cutting when that yearly income is no longer justified by the next contracts.
Eventually EVERYONE will have to take a pay cut. That pay cut is going to hit those universities and programs much harder than it would WSU and OSU who would already have had to make it on lower revenues. We'll be better situated for the coming collapse. That's all I have to say about that.
I read it the same way you do.
The retain media dollars is the key. $400M+ coming in this year.
I don't want to "screw over" Cal and Stanford. They didn't create this mess.
The younger generation, especially on the West coast, isn't nearly as interested in sports fandom and game attendance as we were 20+ years ago.
I don't blame UW and Oregon for chasing the money now, because it's not going to be there forever. Moving away from regionality is going to accelerate the declining fan interest. There will be a spike of "wow, Ohio State's playing here" for a couple of years, but UW now has only 1 rival (Oregon) within thousands of miles. That's not fun for anyone, and it's one of the key reasons why the traditional B!G, SEC, and ACC (especially in hoops) conferences are so passionate. Damn near all of the teams intersect with one another. When you go to school, to work, to church, the bar, there's intense rivalry trash talking. There's none of that out here, and it's the big reason why fan interest has slumped and will continue to slump.
I don't blame UW and Oregon for chasing the money now, because it's not going to be there forever. Moving away from regionality is going to accelerate the declining fan interest. There will be a spike of "wow, Ohio State's playing here" for a couple of years, but UW now has only 1 rival (Oregon) within thousands of miles. That's not fun for anyone, and it's one of the key reasons why the traditional B!G, SEC, and ACC (especially in hoops) conferences are so passionate. Damn near all of the teams intersect with one another. When you go to school, to work, to church, the bar, there's intense rivalry trash talking. There's none of that out here, and it's the big reason why fan interest has slumped and will continue to slump.
Unless Stanford's genius representatives to the Pac 12 were the ones holding out for $50 Million TV deal.
Which wouldn't be all that surprising if you've ever watched arrogant Harvard/Stanford MBAs come in and get their asses handed to them on Shark Tank with outrageous valuations.
rumor is was ASU's President, Crowe, who had the 50M valuation. That guy was all in with Larry Scott and the Pac-12 network strategy as well.
The reality is the 50M number might have been directly right...but being right and getting a deal done are two different things.
I don’t think there’s a realistic way to treat the 10 defectors differently. If USC and UO’s media rights get docked…so do Stanford & Cal’s. The document says the conference can retain “all media and sponsorship rights” but doesn’t mention partial retention. Maybe “all” can be taken as “any or all”…but that’s not what it says.
You're so close. No one is withdrawing before the agreement expires so there is no action to request an injunction against. It won't even get heard, let alone granted or denied. I know, I know..."but but notice was delivered!!"
"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"
Seems like a clear statement to me. If you deliver notice of withdrawal, which UW did, then you are subject to the penalties.
To say "UW didn't give notice of withdrawal" is a very curious interpretation.
Seems like a clear statement to me. If you deliver notice of withdrawal, which UW did, then you are subject to the penalties.
To say "UW didn't give notice of withdrawal" is a very curious interpretation.
Similar threads
