Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. That is a pretty good summary. And, yes...thank you Gib!I coincidentally clicked in at 12:11, just in time to hear that the proposed temporary injunction against league meetings was granted with a few modifications. Expedited discovery was also granted, if I understood correctly. The PAC normal order of business to follow. The employee retention issue was not addressed; opposing council then asked if that could be adopted with unanimous written consent from all members, and the PAC 2 council agreed.
And thanks, Gib, for the link!
I think the judge said “any matters” outside normal business must be unanimous.I coincidentally clicked in at 12:11, just in time to hear that the proposed temporary injunction against league meetings was granted with a few modifications. Expedited discovery was also granted, if I understood correctly. The PAC normal order of business to follow. The employee retention issue was not addressed; opposing council then asked if that could be adopted with unanimous written consent from all members, and the PAC 2 council agreed.
And thanks, Gib, for the link!
IMO you could hear the Judges homerism. So basically, no meetings can be scheduled, yet. Retention, and all other matters are a go if unanimous by all schools.
That could actually become a concern. Pac-12 counsel previously sent Colorado a letter informing them that effective immediately, they had no vote. That provides WSU and OSU a powerful precedent. But...the judge kind of just set that aside, and is allowing CU to vote.IMO you could hear the Judges homerism. So basically, no meetings can be scheduled, yet. Retention, and all other matters are a go if unanimous by all schools.
Is the PAC 12 general council the guy who was in court today?That could actually become a concern. Pac-12 counsel previously sent Colorado a letter informing them that effective immediately, they had no vote. That provides WSU and OSU a powerful precedent. But...the judge kind of just set that aside, and is allowing CU to vote.
Don’t know…but my guess is that the general counsel is an office, not a guy.Is the PAC 12 general council the guy who was in court today?
It’s Petersmeyer, not the guy in court today. I googled it.Don’t know…but my guess is that the general counsel is an office, not a guy.