Pac2 and departing 10 agree to mediate

[Loyal Coug1]

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?

Flat I'll repeat myself. This is a horrible idea. We get $60 mil, then forego $60 mil in TV revenue share over 2 years. and end up with -0-.

BTW, we are throwing out 60+60+10x20. Ok that's $320 million. Is that a real number in terms of Pac-12 assets?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Flat I'll repeat myself. This is a horrible idea. We get $60 mil, then forego $60 mil in TV revenue share over 2 years. and end up with -0-.

BTW, we are throwing out 60+60+10x20. Ok that's $320 million. Is that a real number in terms of Pac-12 assets?

First, I used the $320 million because it's been mentioned before. I have not idea if it's real. I only used it for the hypothetical situation.

And I'm not saying it's a good idea, I was just asking the group if they would accept a breakeven (at best) scenario if it got us into a Power 5 conference. Should we be willing to give up over half the money that we might have access to if it gives us a more solid position moving into the future? Or do we go for broke and see how the chips fall?

 

[bostoncoug]

If choices are Max $ short term vs. Power 5 long term the no brained answer is Power 5. That has to be our priority.

The max $ options are the leverage we need to use to get to Power 5. If we still can’t get Power 5, we use the $ to do what we can to keep our program competitive while merging with Mtn West but our programs will struggle long term if we go this route.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

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.

We lose nothing by attempting arbitration; so long as it is not binding, it is just a form of negotiation. We all have interests here. If we avoid court (both its costs and delays) with a pretty good agreement and get it soon, that is probably better for us than a long, drawn out fight where we might get more (though our legal fees will eat up a chunk of that). If we don't get a pretty good deal, we can always go to court, and we have demonstrated that we tried arbitration first...which is usually at least somewhat of a positive when presenting arguments.

 

[425cougfan]

We lose nothing by attempting arbitration; so long as it is not binding, it is just a form of negotiation. We all have interests here. If we avoid court (both its costs and delays) with a pretty good agreement and get it soon, that is probably better for us than a long, drawn out fight where we might get more (though our legal fees will eat up a chunk of that). If we don't get a pretty good deal, we can always go to court, and we have demonstrated that we tried arbitration first...which is usually at least somewhat of a positive when presenting arguments.

Mediation, not arbitration (you know that, just a slip).

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Mediation, not arbitration (you know that, just a slip).

Yes, I'd mis-read the initial report and thought it was arbitration rather than mediation.

I'll note that, unless the arbitration is binding, I tend to view them as potayto vs. pototto. Yes, in arbitration someone else renders the opinion. In mediation it is intended to be more collaborative. But as long as the arbitration is not binding, we are free to accept or reject the opinion, as is the other party. Of course, one must have a compelling reason to reject the opinion, and it would be necessary to explain oneself in court. But if the mediation fails, the reason why it failed will also come up should this go to court. Good mediation, like good arbitration, often ends with an opinion that has distasteful aspects for both sides. I've unfortunately had to occasionally be involved in both. We have another union labor negotiation coming up next year, and the #2 business agent sees this as his pathway to becoming the BA when #1 retires, so I won't be surprised how ever it might turn out...