question to lawyers

[Brent H.]

Is this of any significance? The day 6 teams bounced the conference made this statement. Appears they are acknowledging that teams have left the conference.

 

[mikalalas]

Is this of any significance? The day 6 teams bounced the conference made this statement. Appears they are acknowledging that teams have left the conference.

View embedded media

That's not from those that left.

That's from the PAC 12/2, WSU, OSU(the member universities)

 

[dgibbons]

Is this of any significance? The day 6 teams bounced the conference made this statement. Appears they are acknowledging that teams have left the conference.

View embedded media

This is section 3 of the bylaws:

3. Withdrawal.
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)


Two critical things: (1) the key is the prohibition upon delivering a "notice of withdrawal" in the period of 7/24/11 to 8/1/24, rather than withdrawing effective on some convenient date like 8/2/24; and (2) The contents of the "notice of withdrawal" is not defined, how the notice of withdrawal is to be transmitted (such as by certified mail, first class mail, email, personal service, etc.) is not defined, nor are really any other details about a notice of withdrawal defined. WSU and OSU argued (so far successfully) that the public announcements by the departing schools are sufficient to provide for notice of withdrawal. This loose language is good for WSU and OSU. This combined with CU sending a "heads up" email to the conference which resulted in the conference telling CU it forfeited its voting rights, and USC and UCLA being excluded from board meetings for the last year, make it pretty dam clear that the conference has decided that any kind of communication indicating a school is leaving, is a notice of withdrawal under Section 3.

So, yes, that statement along with the announcements from the departing schools, the B1G, the Big XII and the ACC are definitely significant.

 

[dgibbons]

That's not from those that left.

That's from the PAC 12/2, WSU, OSU(the member universities)

The current lawsuit is against the conference.

 

[95coug]

I'd like it better if the statement said "our remaining member universities," or even better (at the time) "our 4 remaining member universities."

And here's a thin & twisted argument for the other side: by continuing to refer to themselves as the "Pac-12," they imply that they have 12 members. It's an impractical argument, but you could use it to try to confuse the issue.

When OSU & WSU get control, their first action should be to fire Kliavkoff. Their second action should be to formally revoke rights to all funds from the 10. Their third should be to remove the "12" from the conference name.

 

[dgibbons]

I'd like it better if the statement said "our remaining member universities," or even better (at the time) "our 4 remaining member universities."

And here's a thin & twisted argument for the other side: by continuing to refer to themselves as the "Pac-12," they imply that they have 12 members. It's an impractical argument, but you could use it to try to confuse the issue.

When OSU & WSU get control, their first action should be to fire Kliavkoff. Their second action should be to formally revoke rights to all funds from the 10. Their third should be to remove the "12" from the conference name.

The Big 10 has had more than ten members since 1990.

 

[Brent H.]

This is section 3 of the bylaws:

3. Withdrawal.
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)


Two critical things: (1) the key is the prohibition upon delivering a "notice of withdrawal" in the period of 7/24/11 to 8/1/24, rather than withdrawing effective on some convenient date like 8/2/24; and (2) The contents of the "notice of withdrawal" is not defined, how the notice of withdrawal is to be transmitted (such as by certified mail, first class mail, email, personal service, etc.) is not defined, nor are really any other details about a notice of withdrawal defined. WSU and OSU argued (so far successfully) that the public announcements by the departing schools are sufficient to provide for notice of withdrawal. This loose language is good for WSU and OSU. This combined with CU sending a "heads up" email to the conference which resulted in the conference telling CU it forfeited its voting rights, and USC and UCLA being excluded from board meetings for the last year, make it pretty dam clear that the conference has decided that any kind of communication indicating a school is leaving, is a notice of withdrawal under Section 3.

So, yes, that statement along with the announcements from the departing schools, the B1G, the Big XII and the ACC are definitely significant.

Really sounds like all the outgoing members thought the conference was over when the media rights deal fell through, same with conference and totally forgot what happened to CU, UCLA and USC when they announced they were leaving. They didn’t really realize what happened when they tried to have Schulz call a meeting and he wouldn’t call the meeting and started referencing the bylaws. That’s when all broke lose with board members behaviors and leaking stuff to Wilner that nobody has given notice, the conference isn’t viable and all these talking points for damage control.

 

[95coug]

Really sounds like all the outgoing members thought the conference was over when the media rights deal fell through, same with conference and totally forgot what happened to CU, UCLA and USC when they announced they were leaving. They didn’t really realize what happened when they tried to have Schulz call a meeting and he wouldn’t call the meeting and started referencing the bylaws. That’s when all broke lose with board members behaviors and leaking stuff to Wilner that nobody has given notice, the conference isn’t viable and all these talking points for damage control.

Seems like there was definitely movement happening and decisions being made without exploring the consequences.

With UW and UO getting half shares and Stanford/Cal getting 1/3 shares, they're now looking at being short of money for a couple years. Stanford probably doesn't care as much as the others, but I'd bet that UW and UO were counting on getting their normal Pac-12 money plus maybe some cash from dissolution to float them.

Now, if WSU/OSU get control and determine that everyone else forfeits the final year of Pac-12 distributions, then UW/UO/etc. not only don't get the dissolution cash...but they're ~$21M short this year, before going into a half share for the next 6 years. They already probably weren't likely to be competitive in the Big 12, but going in that short of cash, they're going to be in a hole they'll never get out of. Their road trips will be on buses, and the coaches will have to drive.

And when they make that pitch to OSU/WSU, the response should be... "That's what you chose. Goodbye."

 

[dgibbons]

Seems like there was definitely movement happening and decisions being made without exploring the consequences.

With UW and UO getting half shares and Stanford/Cal getting 1/3 shares, they're now looking at being short of money for a couple years. Stanford probably doesn't care as much as the others, but I'd bet that UW and UO were counting on getting their normal Pac-12 money plus maybe some cash from dissolution to float them.

Now, if WSU/OSU get control and determine that everyone else forfeits the final year of Pac-12 distributions, then UW/UO/etc. not only don't get the dissolution cash...but they're ~$21M short this year, before going into a half share for the next 6 years. They already probably weren't likely to be competitive in the Big 12, but going in that short of cash, they're going to be in a hole they'll never get out of. Their road trips will be on buses, and the coaches will have to drive.

And when they make that pitch to OSU/WSU, the response should be... "That's what you chose. Goodbye."

Yep. Oregon has Uncle Phil if need be, but that will put a damper on facility improvements.

 

[COUGinNCW]

I'd like it better if the statement said "our remaining member universities," or even better (at the time) "our 4 remaining member universities."

And here's a thin & twisted argument for the other side: by continuing to refer to themselves as the "Pac-12," they imply that they have 12 members. It's an impractical argument, but you could use it to try to confuse the issue.

When OSU & WSU get control, their first action should be to fire Kliavkoff. Their second action should be to formally revoke rights to all funds from the 10. Their third should be to remove the "12" from the conference name.

Weak argument. The Big12 had 10 members for years.

 

[KRUSTYtheCOUG]

Weak argument. The Big12 had 10 members for years.

Except the Pac (8,10,12) has never NOT had the actual corresponding number of teams to match what, as a conference, they were calling themselves unlike the B1G and Big12. That's all I have to say about that.

 

[cougcowboy]

Except the Pac (8,10,12) has never NOT had the actual corresponding number of teams to match what, as a conference, they were calling themselves unlike the B1G and Big12. That's all I have to say about that.

but it does take a bit to change the legal name of an organization; that doesn't happen overnight