Attorneys, check out thread
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
Not sure I understand this. Why would we agree to let them join, when they only want to file a motion to dismiss?
For expediency? Perhaps we are so confident of our position that we don't want to piss away valuable time arguing over whether the uw/etc has standing?
Just speculating here, and I am NOT an attorney and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I did stay at a La Quinta last week, conveniently located right between a bar and a massage parlor! LOL......
Retired accountants are not the best legal analysts.
In simple terms, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't claim in court that they shouldn't have the right to vote, while also claiming they shouldn't have the right to appear and respond as well. We do our best in this country not to run kangaroo courts. While as a culture we don't generally embrace "fair play" concepts like some cultures, lauding crappy principles like, "if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying" and "winning is the only thing" for example, but "fair play" is at the very core of our legal system, nevertheless.
So, what’s “fair“about letting someone who wants to torpedo our case join our case? Doesnt seem fair to me.
Why do they have to join our case to respond?
Last edited:
It does if your case is legally flawed and it could significant impact them. Put your pitch forks away! Justice isn't just a one way, "we win automatically" street, we don't live in the DPRK.
DPRK has most equitable and fair justice system in all of world! All hail DPRK!
So is the case flawed?
How do WSU and OSU proceed, with uw slapping zip ties on them at every turn?
Actually, I think I see the benefit. Allowing UW to join allows them to file their motion to dismiss. Then the judge can rule on that motion - and presumably deny it, which then signals to the 10 that the court believes our claim has merit. That then impacts what they’ll agree to in mediation.
Fighting their right to join delays that happening.
Still feels like the “pac 10“ telling us we have to give them our play book and tell them what play we’re running on every down, or we get an unsportsmanlike penalty.
Never said I was. Although every lawyer I ever met thought they were an accountant. They aren't.
Anyway I have read and read and still don't get what this filing is all about. And am confused as hell about the money thing. We go from thinking there is a huge stash out the to being told that our cash reserves were gone. Well are there other reserves? My cash reserves are my checking account and a modest CD. My real money is in my retirement accounts.
Oh and after the last 14 months, being skeptical of whatever the Pac2 does is not a bad stance.
Don’t know how much is/was in the reserves…but given the level of management in the conference over the last 10+ years I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s nothing there.
But, the overpayments to the network should be coming from the schools, not the reserves. And there’s still upward of $240M that should be due in June 2024 just for this year’s media.
I'm no accountant. You know it's not required to weigh in on stuff you don't have any idea about, right?
Well shit we might as well abandon the board if that's the conduct you want.
Nonparties have to intervene in order to be heard. uw was not named as a defendant.
Why can’t they join the conference side to be heard? That’s the side they support.
To my non lawyer brain it sounded like they were taking over our side of the case.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Semi OT: Feel good story related to the upcoming Superb Owl Tomorrow
- Latest: KRUSTYtheCOUG
-
-