This has to be the best approach when assessing the balance sheets. I think have an expert analysis review potential losses and damages from the exodus to be included into whatever settlement taking place, should absolutely be a part of all this.
Attorney's Reaction to the WA SC Ruling
- Thread starter Stretch 74
- Start date
WTF is wrong with you? An "appropriate settlement" Is the big F you finger and doing everything we can to keep all the money. Period. Fair share my ass.
If your wife approached you and said hey honey, I'm leaving you for this guy I've been F-ing, but I want an appropriate fair share settlement your reaction would be what?
think you answered your own question Loyal. You are in Yakima right? In that case if your wife did that the state of WA doesn’t give you a choice, she gets half your shit no matter what she’s done. I’m sure a few poor bastards here have been through that.
Jon Wilner's latest for evaluation and discussion of how to proceed:
According to the only authority that truly matters, the Pac-12 is now the Pac-2.
Washington State and Oregon State were given control of the conference’s governing board Friday through a momentous display of inaction by the Washington Supreme Court.
The justices declined to review a lower court’s preliminary injunction that established WSU and OSU as the only board members and lifted a stay that was preventing the two schools from taking action to secure the future of the conference.
“As of right now,” a source said after the ruling from Olympia, “there are two board members in the Pac-12.”
What’s next for the Cougars and Beavers after their groundbreaking victory?
How will they treat the outbound schools?
Is there reasonable legal recourse for the 10 departing members?
How will the conference’s revenue and assets be distributed?
Let’s dive in …
— Deafening silence
Admittedly, the high court’s decision came as a surprise to the Hotline given the rulings on previous motions and the significance of the case to the state’s two major universities.
We fully expected the justices to review the preliminary injunction themselves or send the case to an appellate court.
Sources for the plaintiffs expected a review, as well.
And so, it appears, did the defendants.
The outbound schools had been quick to issue joint statements at nearly every stage of this three-month saga, including a self-serving pronouncement following the reveal of a football scheduling agreement between WSU, OSU and the Mountain West.
But Friday afternoon, the 10 defendants offered nothing but radio silence.
Days later, they still have not uttered a public peep.
— Courtroom blowout
As we have addressed previously, Washington State and Oregon State had the vastly stronger case — one built on real-world precedent.
USC and UCLA were removed from the Pac-12 board after announcing their deal with the Big Ten in June 2022. Colorado met the same fate upon declaring its allegiance to the Big 12 in July 2023.
And as the Hotline first reported, Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff himself confirmed the removal of the L.A. schools from the board in sworn statements in other lawsuits.
It wasn’t until 10 schools had left that Kliavkoff reversed course and attempted to call a September board meeting of all 12 presidents and chancellors — the fateful move that forced WSU and OSU to take the conference to court. (Three months later, Kliavkoff has still not offered an explanation.)
Meanwhile, the 10 defendants based their legal argument on parsing the phrase “notice of withdrawal” beyond the laws of Merriam, Webster and common sense.
When a university president (Washington’s Ana Mari Cauce) holds a news conference to discuss her school’s move into the Big Ten, she has given notice.
When the football team (Arizona) publishes its Big 12 schedule for 2024, it has given notice.
From the first legal filing to the last, this was an evidentiary wipeout. And the attorneys for the plaintiffs pounced on the opportunity presented.
— Democracy or dictatorship?
After the high court’s ruling Friday, fans of the departing schools wondered if WSU and OSU would use sole control of the board to hoard the Pac-12’s expected $420 million in revenue for the 2023-24 competition year.
The schools smartly have not divulged their plans, but the Hotline would be surprised if they acted in authoritarian fashion.
One reason: They have been warned against that tactic.
Upon granting his preliminary injunction last month, Whitman County (Wash.) Superior Court Judge Gary Libey was clear in his expectation WSU and OSU act in a reasonable manner.
“This is not a shutout,” he said at the time. “The (preliminary injunction) is going to be modified to make sure the other 10 are still treated in a fair manner … Nobody’s going to take advantage of somebody else.”
The notion that WSU and OSU would divide $420 million by two never squared with their strategic intentions or the legal reality.
The outbound 10 would seek a temporary restraining order immediately, and the very last thing WSU and OSU want is a return to court.
— The core issue
The heart of the dispute isn’t about distribution of revenue; it’s about using revenue as a vehicle for covering liabilities.
As a named defendant in a billion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA, the Pac-12 could be on the hook for massive damages starting in 2025 — after the 10 schools have left the conference.
WSU and OSU are concerned that, absent a plan to cover the damages, they alone would be liable in a ‘Pac-2’ configuration.
There are other liabilities, including Kliavkoff’s contract and a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by two former employees. But those are mere inconveniences compared with the antitrust case.
The Cougars and Beavers want a legally binding plan to handle the looming damages. That plan could include a requirement all 12 schools forfeit a portion of their 2023-24 revenue.
— Scorched earth?
The next step for the defendants is unclear.
Certainly, the outgoing schools will be interested in learning the specifics of whatever plan the Cougars and Beavers have crafted to divide revenue and handle liabilities.
Perhaps they will ask an appellate court in Washington to review the case, although the likelihood of success seems low after the state’s highest court declined.
Maybe one of the outbound schools will seek a temporary restraining order against WSU and OSU in its own state.
Or perhaps the defendants take a scorched-earth approach and try to dissolve the conference. Although that seems unrealistic given the composition of the governing board, an attorney raised the issue of dissolution last month.
However, the Hotline has always considered a settlement to be the most likely outcome, and the latest development simply reinforces that view.
Find a revenue figure that works for the outbound schools, sock away enough for WSU and OSU to cover the secondary liabilities and, above all, find a legal framework for dealing with the potential damages in the antitrust case against the NCAA.
This process took longer than necessary and cost the schools plenty in legal fees. But now that the ‘Pac-2’ schools are in control, the end should come swiftly.
Get it settled, folks, and move on.
Jon Wilner: jwilner@bayareanewsgroup.com; on Twitter: @wilnerhotline. Jon Wilner has been covering college sports for decades and is an AP top-25 football and basketball voter as well as a Heisman Trophy voter. He was named Beat Writer of the Year in 2013 by the Football Writers Association of America for his coverage of the Pac-12, won first place for feature writing in 2016 in the Associated Press Sports Editors writing contest and is a five-time APSE honoree.
I've had 2 wives buddy. I'm quite familiar with the no fault, 50/50 divorce laws in this state. Which I have no problem with. My first one cost all of $300 - I told her to get a lawyer, I did not need one. That was with property distribution, child support (specified per a WA chart) and everything. I'm kind of proud about that. Paid my child support religiously, and when my son came to live with me my ex-wife was cool about the adjustment in support. Decent people doing the right thing. People would ask me about the Support Enforcement agency that governs child support, and I would scoff at them. No I write the check every month. Don't need some agency collecting it. Really insulted me.
Now wife # 2, again I said you get the lawyer, I don't need one. But the blood sucking leach bitch attorney ended up charging her 2 or 3 thousand for nothing. All we had was the division of assets, which we had totally agreed on. Should have cost next to nothing. Dumb bitch wife)
Now where were we? F the traitors. No division of anything, No Fair distribution. We keep it all, F them.
I 100% agree with a "F*ck all you guys".
Sounds right. Feels right. In logical measurement of all that happened and how it happened... Abso-f*cking-lutely!
My Cougar mind and Cougar love then take a deep breath and decides that if we somehow figure that giving $10 million to each of those ass mongers gets it done more safely... we look better and probably have a better reputation.
Not saying $10 million is the right number... but I am saying that in this divorce if we get the house and they only get a car... the ex still loses.
Plus, the good looking friends would be knocking on our door for hits with no strings attached and making it so we can eat at Applebee's vs. a kid's meal at McDonald's.
Of course in the perfect world... we'd be taking all the money and also filing a harassment lawsuit against everyone of these pricks and have it as the lead story on ESPN
Honestly- my take away is that Wilner doesn't really know what he's talking about. Or just regurgitates whatever a "source" tells him. Not unique in his business, since he has to fill space daily. Now that there is "deafening silence" he's repeating his prior reporting.
And I really doubt the plaintiffs expected review. It was about as clear as could be that review was not warranted under the rules and case law. Of course, the highest court in the state can nearly do whatever it wants, but still.
I think $10 million now (or as soon as possible) is the right number. They can walk away and not participate in any cleaning up any of the mess, cover any of the liabilities, expend any time or effort to do anything. Seems quite fair to me.
I would make clear that this offer will expire, and that if this dispute is not resolved soon, don't expect WSU and OSU to continue negotiating. My thinking is that each day closer to 8/1/24 is a little bit more leverage for WSU and OSU. The departing 10s' legal position evaporates at that time.
Not to beat this into the ground but why is -0- not the right number? We don't even know how much money is out there. Continues to fry me that apparently the Pac office has no one who can operate a calculator. And that we haven't fired Quackkoff yet. And for cause. He can sue us.
F the F-ing Fers.
I would say that 0 IS a good number, it is what they deserve, it is what would make us feel good, buuuuutttt.....
With the warning from Judge Libey about playing fair, I think that would open us up to him making the final decision, and I don't think we want that. So here is the plan:
1. You are right about pounding the drum to finally get an absolute accounting of assets and liabilities. Cannot make rational plans without that.
2. Lay out all the damages to the conference, using the most generous bias in the conference's favor.
3. Since the uw argued in Colfax that their athletes were being damaged, determine the damages levied on WSU/OSU athletes and deduct that from the available amount available to spread around.
4. Hold back a very generous amount to cover possible liabilities from existing lawsuits where the actual conference is the target of the suit.
5. Set aside the proper amount necessary for the ongoing operation of the conference. This would cover salaries/benefits/pensions for necessary employees, operation of the PAC network, officials, advertising, rent/lease costs, and so on.
6. Now, if there is anything left, we can discuss doling out some funds.
The key here is do reasonable and accurate documention of all of these things so that any arguments at meetings or in the legal system can be fully defended. Do NOT leave any obvious openings for the Traitor Ten to claim foul.
P.S.- Set aside a generous allowance for legal fees!
Meh, still not feeling it. (quoting Jax from Sons of Anarchy before he kills the prison guard who allowed Opie to get killed). With a Xmas snowball no less.
Since the traitors don't appear to be talking or squawking, My alternative plan:
Don't even talk to the traitors. Let them come to us.
Fire that Quackkoff already! No severance - let him sue us. Then pay up if we have to. That should not be an expensive, protracted legal battle. At this point he is an enemy plant and needs to go. NOW!
Go through the PAC offices and get rid of any non-essential personnel. Go to the site - we have a shitload of employees. Especially the accountants. As an accountant I hate to say that.
Get our shit together regarding accounting for finances. And audit the books - maybe Quackkoff did something unsavory that we can hold against him.
Meet with OSU regularly and make sure we are on the same page. Same with Gloria and the Mnt West.
I'm not worried about Libey making any calls. He's a Coug.
I continue to believe it doesn't make sense on multiple levels to totally screw over the departing schools. Not because it wouldn't feel good or that they don't deserve it. More about corporate governance, avoiding lawsuits, etc. Be fair with them, but I won't be heartbroken if "fair" means taking a conservative position in terms of needing to retain assets or protect against future liabilities. It just needs to be defensible, consistent with their duties, and reasonably likely to withstand legal challenge (which would tend to have the effect of preventing legal challenge).
I think Libey's admonition was to prevent anyone doing anything that damaged athletes or conference operations. I don't think he was referring to distribution of the media money. And, since the bylaws say outright that the conference can retain all media disbursements...I think that's playing fair.
I think we'll pay something anyway, but I don't believe for a moment that any of the departing 10 should get a full share. Least of all UW and UO.
Kliavkoff is fired for cause. He knew that the 10 should not be part of the board - he's the one who sent the notice to Colorado. He also testified that that's what happened with USC/UCLA, so he knew the rules. In spite of that, he tried to call meetings that included the 7 new departures plus the 3 who had already been excluded. This becomes "knowing and intentional" violation of the conference bylaws. A commissioner who does that cannot be trusted, and is out the door.
