Pac2 and departing 10 agree to mediate
- Thread starter chugspig
- Start date
In other words, WSU decides to settle, agrees to pay people who are in the wrong just to make the whole thing go away.
What a big surprise.
Yeah I'm not into this at all. Mediate what? And Quackkoff - aren't we suing him too? Why does he still have a job? And what side of the table (if any) will he be sitting on?
And another thing. Are we going to capitulate to hurry up and get a handle on the money so the Big-12 will like us? "I heard buy our way in" awhile back. Why is it anyone's (Big 12's) business how much money we have or don't have? They don't get any of it.
I have absolutely no faith in Shulz or Chun. Or Quackkoff - get him the F out of there! Hopefully the OSU Prez/AD have a clue. We need to hold out for the big pot, get our 2024 "Guest" schedule in place with the Mtn West, and go from there. This is such a no-brainer. But then so was the $30 million offer from ESPN. Basically the same offer that the big 12 jumped on.
Last edited:
Cougs can’t afford to let this drag on forever. Let’s see what they have to offer and go from there
At some point, no matter how much we were to make off with, time is more important than squeezing out more money. Pretty soon we won’t be able to build a schedule, bid for conferences, recruit/retain players, make a 2024 budget etc. Each side has stuff to lose in this fight and each stands to walk away fine if they mediate well. WSU and OSU can’t let this drag on for months, and the other 10, or some faction of them and the networks don’t want discovery. It was always going to come to this.
Can we get the MWC commissioner as the mediator?
The other side has leverage too, namely in the form of extending the trial out for months or years. If the portal opens without us having a home next season, expect 75% of the coaches and players to test the waters.
If we receive an acceptable settlement, it's probably worth taking.
Time has been our side for the past 2-3 weeks, but time is not on our side a month from now. If WSU and OSU can obtain a reasonable settlement AND end up in a power 5 conference in the next 2-3 weeks, it’s time to move on. The recruiting damaging, the retention of coaching staff and players, future scheduling, are something an extra 20-50 million can’t buy in the long run.
What does settling this in a hurry have to do with the 2024 schedule? What choices change? That's what keeps killing me about you guys. Big 12 isn't waiting to see how much money we get. It's none of their F-ing business and has nothing to do with offering or not offering WSU and OSU. Somebody see this differently? Let's hear it.
My "guest" scheduling with the WAC is the ONLY solution for 2024. Big 12 ain't coming. Someone have a different idea?
And no time is not more important than squeezing out more money.
That’s the big question in all this. These two teams deserve to be in a power 5 conference. More so than half the teams that are there. As Chip Kelly said there are some smart people in the NCAA, ( while I might disagree with that) he went on to say and they need to figure it out, these two program belong.
every answer to your questions have been discussed dozens of times over the last month. You cannot make a move to commit to any schedule or move of assimilation of conferences, when you are legally fighting to determine notice as the voiding of claim to assets.
I completely disagree. We can't put together a schedule? Where the F do you get that? The Pac2 can't schedule 11 non-con games because we are fighting the traitorous 10? WTF? And no the discussions have ALL been "we can't do anything until the court/money thing is settled". WAAAHHH.
Strictly speaking the only thing before the court is who is entitled to vote, which will be determined by a declaratory judgment. A mediation will allow the parties to discuss and potentially settle broader issues.
Here is Chapter 2, Section 3 of the bylaws:
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. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group. (6/10, 10/10, 7/11)
The tricky part is what I highlighted in bold. The conference is not seeking an injunction. IMO, WSU and OSU don't want an injunction keeping other schools around. So, how do you get to the result of the conference (with WSU and OSU as the only voting members) retaining the MPVD and other stuff? If you are WSU and OSU, I think you get the declaratory judgment saying you are the sole voting members, then amend the bylaws. That's a bit underhanded and likely to result in prolonged litigation, so it makes sense to see what kind of settlement you can get.
Here is Chapter 2, Section 3 of the bylaws:
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. Additionally, if a member delivers notice of withdrawal in violation of this chapter, the member’s representative to the CEO Group shall automatically cease to be a member of the CEO Group and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the CEO Group. (6/10, 10/10, 7/11)
The tricky part is what I highlighted in bold. The conference is not seeking an injunction. IMO, WSU and OSU don't want an injunction keeping other schools around. So, how do you get to the result of the conference (with WSU and OSU as the only voting members) retaining the MPVD and other stuff? If you are WSU and OSU, I think you get the declaratory judgment saying you are the sole voting members, then amend the bylaws. That's a bit underhanded and likely to result in prolonged litigation, so it makes sense to see what kind of settlement you can get.
The conference did interpret the bylaws, and decided that USC, UCLA and CU were not allowed to vote.
The language we've seen is plain. There was intention drafting he bylaws the way they were drafted. We all know that swapping conferences is a long term process, not done overnight. As soon as one of your conference members announces their departure, the conferences negotiating power with the networks decreases. The hamsteinging doesn't start upon that school staring in the Big 10, it starts the day they announce, i.e., provide notice. That all being said, if UW was so confident in their motion, they wouldn't have agreed to mediation.
Laughable.
i) Violations of contracts frequently end up in front of courts. As do conflicting interpretations of them.
ii) Courts frequently rule on civil matters without every affected person present.
iii) What is UW's strong argument? Why are WSU and OSU unlikely to succeed on the merits? And who can seriously say that there's no irreparable harm?
THe bylaws are written in pretty simple language, and the interpretation seems pretty clear. It's the 10 who are trying to twist it to say something different.
Agreed, but assuming a judge tells WSU and OSU they're the only voting members, they should immediately ask for an injunction. It will be denied, but then (based on the language above) that opens the door for them to retain the MPVD. By my read, if they don't request the injunction, that avenue is not available.
UW's BS interpretation is from the first sentence "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." They're arguing that first, they have not delivered notice, and second, they're not withdrawing before August 1. That interpretation seems ridiculous on its face, and I can't believe anyone would even attempt it.
Take it to decision. Fck them all. If the roster empties it empties. The portal is full of players looking for places to be. Make the other teams pay now or they’ll always hold you over a barrel.
Why would it be denied? If you can't leave before 8/1/24, you can't leave before 8/1/24.
Like I said, the bold part is tricky.
Mediation just means settlement talks with an impartial third party facilitator, who reminds you about the strengthens of your opponent's case, and weaknesses in your's. There is no such thing as binding mediation. If you don't like the terms, there is no obligation to settle. If you are asking for extraordinary relief, which we are, it behooves WSU/OSU to demonstrate an effort to settle beforehand.
That said, Chun and Schultz were not on the ball throughout the realignment process. I'm far from convinced they really understand what "cards" they are now playing. "Risk adverse" people usually get taken to "the cleaners" in mediation, because they intend to overly discount the merit and value of their own case. I've been in the situation with clients, with cases that I'd bet my house on, begging them not to settle, but they get swayed by the mediator's pitch, over sound legal advice.
When I see Pat Chun and Kirk Schultz, I don't any see a lick of gambler in them!
That said, Chun and Schultz were not on the ball throughout the realignment process. I'm far from convinced they really understand what "cards" they are now playing. "Risk adverse" people usually get taken to "the cleaners" in mediation, because they intend to overly discount the merit and value of their own case. I've been in the situation with clients, with cases that I'd bet my house on, begging them not to settle, but they get swayed by the mediator's pitch, over sound legal advice.
When I see Pat Chun and Kirk Schultz, I don't any see a lick of gambler in them!
Can somebody copy and paste those statements on to the board? I don't do "X" and I can only read part of the statements from this link. Thanks.
If helpful to anyone, I found what appear to be the current (at least as of 2022) full text of the bylaws. They're in this handbook.
Here you go
WSU and OSU fire back at UW's ‘flimsy' legal maneuver
Washington and other defecting Pac-12 schools aiming to rob WSU and OSU of Pac-12 ownership
247sports.com
What if the deal is that WSU and OSU get $60 million each with the understanding that we join the Big 12 without a share for two years.....and the other 10 teams get $20 million each?
This is a horrible plan. We get the equity of our hundred-year affiliation with the PAC and predecessors ($60 mil). Then we forego the $30 mil share and after 2 years we have broken even. The traitors dance off with $20 mil free and clear.
$76.67 each for PAC 2 and $16.67 could work. PAC2 get 60+ 1 12th of remainder.
No deal. A clear reading of the bylaws prohibits the exiting members from attending the meetings, giving WSU and OSU controlling votes (2-0) over the future of the conference. You take EVERY legal option available to f*ck over the traitors to ensure a reasonable future going forward for the PAC, whether there is 2 or 20 members.
No. $20M is their full share, and they should not get that. I won’t go past $10M, and they don’t get to vote on anything.
That last point is not negotiable.
And why would the Big12 take us? Are you assuming we have compromising pictures of them or are they going to split the 2 years of not paying OSU and WSU amongst the conference members?
it was a hypothetical question? I was asking if our fans would take that deal....not making any kind of in depth analysis of the chances of it happening. Would you take a deal where we get three times as much money as the feckless 10 but the catch is that we get no TV money from the Big 12 for two years?
Because ESPN gives the Big XII a green light. Now, why would ESPN give the Big XII a green light? That's harder to answer.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Semi OT: Feel good story related to the upcoming Superb Owl Tomorrow
- Latest: KRUSTYtheCOUG
-
-