(11-04-2011 08:49 PM)ndlutz Wrote: So I see that you're referring to 11.02 (b).
I think this provision (at least in part) is a load of crap. It says that the Big East can "seek and obtain" equitable relief...an injunction requiring the withdrawing member to adhere to 11.02 (the withdrawal requirements - 27 months notice, $5 fee, etc.). They also explain their legal theory - they want specific performance because there is no adequate remedy at law (damages - money).
Who cares? It's not up to them to decide if they're entitled to equitable relief. It's up to the court. I would also argue that this says nothing more than the Big East is entitled to sue WVU and allege that they should have to specifically perform by adhering to 11.02. They could have done this without the provision. This provision doesn't entitle them to judgment in their favor and so to me it's redundant of their rights in general.
Here's an interesting point that I found - the last sentence of 11.02 (b) states that "Such equitable relief shall be in addition to any other relief, in law or equity, to which the Conference or any of its Members may be entitled." This is standard legal stuff to put into a contract so it's not surprising to me to see it here but think about what it's saying. The paragraph begins by saying that they need specific performance because there is no adequate remedy at law. Then the last paragraph contemplates a remedy at law and other equitable remedies (whatever that would be). Everyone will look at this as nonsense but it's interesting to me.
They were slick to put the provision in 11.02 (b) that makes the withdrawing member they need to use this clause against responsible for the Conference's legal fees. It's even more interesting to me that this paragraph doesn't discriminate between a claim the Big East wins or loses. Read strictly, even if the withdrawing school is successful in defending against the injunction contemplated by this clause, they still need to pay the Big East's fees. I'm not so sure that's enforceable.
You keep referring to "they" as you talk about the Big East as though "they" are some group foreign to West Virginia. It was the West Virginia president & his attorney who wrote major parts of this!
To say that West Virginia simply agreed to this stuff as though it were foisted upon them by "the conference" is a massive understatement. It was West Virgnia itself who crafted this stuff & who expected others to adhere to it, the same West Virginia Univesity who is claiming they don't have to adhere to it. Don't think that this isn't of enormous significance.
This "load of crap" - as you refer to it - is West Virginia's own load of crap. The only question is whether the courts want to buy into the load of crap that West Virginia constructed years ago when it was trying to protect its own interests by preventing any more Miami/VY/BC type defections or the load of crap that WVU is shoveling today when they see their interests as getting out of the conference. Hoist on their own petard. Any court will see this as the transparent self-serving attempt to put their own interests before anyone else's.
You can trash this all you want. But the bottom line is that WVU created it & then got everyone else to buy into it in good faith. They agreed to it along with everyone else. They now want to violate that good faith agreement to the detriment financially & otherwise of those who were also party to this.
West Virginia is also going to have to face its own history & that of the conference. Every other member who has ever left this conference has honored whatever exit criteria that existed at the time - going back to Miami & VT. They were so careful to adhere to it that BC had to spend an extra year in the conference because they weren't able to meet the June 30 notification deadline that existed at the time. Leaving in October cost them an extra year - the very same timing as West Virginia is facing now. BC couldn't get out by the following June & WVU won't be able to either. Right up to the present situation with Pitt & Syracuse, everyone has honored the timeline, setting the precedent that there is a reasonable expectation that everyone expected the timeline to be taken seriously.
Furthermore, West Virginia felt so strongly about the integrity of the conference & its agreements being honoerd that they were party to a lawsuit against Miami, BC, & the ACC in 2003-04. How are they going to explain that away as they make their case for preferential treatment - something they weren't willing to extend to others who were in exactly the same situation. That's their history. It will be raised. West Virginia will have to live with the consequences of those actions.
Frankly, I don't see them as having a snowball's chance in hell of getting out of this unless the Big East decides that it's in their own best interests to be rid of them. In that case, they'll be able to go, but it will still cost them dearly.
