Even though the bylaws are written for members, there are contracts written for the new ones as well. Example - TCU, BSU and SDSU had separate agreements to bail with different penalties.

The ONLY reason why Temple was not in for all sports for this year was Villanova demanding it. It was a bit of a compromise along with $2mil to study upgrade of fball for Nova(bribe).

Bradshaw said we had full voting rights since July 2012. No one else in an official capacity has said differently, so whats the debate??

(03-02-2013 08:50 PM)Doogie Wrote:  Even though the bylaws are written for members, there are contracts written for the new ones as well. Example - TCU, BSU and SDSU had separate agreements to bail with different penalties.

The ONLY reason why Temple was not in for all sports for this year was Villanova demanding it. It was a bit of a compromise along with $2mil to study upgrade of fball for Nova(bribe).

Bradshaw said we had full voting rights since July 2012. No one else in an official capacity has said differently, so whats the debate??

Re-read the article, which itself reports that Bradshaw's assertion is questionable, based on other league sources,whom they consulted. So, there is a debate.

No one in an official capacity has any reason to comment on this, nor would they unless and until some group actually initiates such an action.

Ok - you have a school AD on record saying its in their contract. You have a "league source" questioning it - no official claiming to it. Our AD may like his libations but he also hates to go on the record for anything. Even at the least, they are a fball member and should share in fball exit fees.

The question of whether Temple has a vote has been investigated by various media sources. Here is the initial ESPN article, indicating that this was a problem:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ources-say

Below are 3 more articles reporting various investigations into this question, all of which report the same conclusion: Temple does not have a vote in the matter of conference dissolution. There is a report that they do have a vote,in league operational matters, but not on dissolution. This would seem to explain Bradshaw's claim that they have a vote, but also why others dispute this.

http://www.nj.com/college-basketball/ind...rence.html

Note - There seems to be a problem with the above link although it is entered correctly. The last word befor html is "conference." If the link doesn't come up properly, check the web address that's showing on your browser. On mine, "conference" shows up with several other symbols mixed into the word "conference." If you remove them and make sure it just ends with "-conference.html", the link will work properly

http://zagsblog.com/temple/temple-can-st...issolution -of-big-east/

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-...ncaab.html

Ultimately this is explained by the bylaws, which give authority for such decisions to the Board of Directors, i.e. CEOs of the member institutions. Governance derives from the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Clnference, which are separate from the bylaws. However the governance is spelled out therein, it apparently has precluded Temple being seated on the Board of Directors at this time despite the fact that Bradshaw does meet with other ADs and does vote with them on league matters at that level.

I could care less about our vote on dissolution. Thats covered in the bylaw as posted before. My concern is getting access to money from exit fees, credits, etc.

None of your articles (2 did not work even withwhat you said to do) state a quote from an official - its still all sources. The zags blog article even states the source as saying Temple is a full voting member.

Until Aresco or other officials say so, we'll just have to wait and see. This whole situation(nbe) will feel a lot better knowing we have more access to the money that will be available.

(12-11-2012 07:55 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  The bylaws are a subset of a larger document. There could be provisions in the larger document that specify who gets the name, who gets the NCAA credits, etc.

Well being it is being negotiated as we speak, a fair assumption is there is no such clause.

(03-03-2013 03:40 AM)Doogie Wrote:  I could care less about our vote on dissolution. Thats covered in the bylaw as posted before. My concern is getting access to money from exit fees, credits, etc.

None of your articles (2 did not work even withwhat you said to do) state a quote from an official - its still all sources. The zags blog article even states the source as saying Temple is a full voting member.

Until Aresco or other officials say so, we'll just have to wait and see. This whole situation(nbe) will feel a lot better knowing we have more access to the money that will be available.

Sorry that the links don't work. I checked them multiple times and thry are properly entered. I don't know what's wrong with this site. Here are the titles of the articles. Anyone whgo wants to access them by googling can find them that way.

The one from the Newark Star Ledger at nj.com is entitled: "Big East Basketball-only Schools Close to Unified Front to Leave or Dissolve".

The one from Yahoo Sports is entitled:"Seven Schools Reportely Leaning Toward Leving Big East".

(03-03-2013 09:29 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 03:40 AM)Doogie Wrote:  I could care less about our vote on dissolution. Thats covered in the bylaw as posted before. My concern is getting access to money from exit fees, credits, etc.

None of your articles (2 did not work even withwhat you said to do) state a quote from an official - its still all sources. The zags blog article even states the source as saying Temple is a full voting member.

Until Aresco or other officials say so, we'll just have to wait and see. This whole situation(nbe) will feel a lot better knowing we have more access to the money that will be available.

Sorry that the links don't work. I checked them multiple times and ether are properly entered. I don't know what's wrong with this site. Here are the titles of the articles. Anyone who wants to access them by googling can find them that way.

The one from the Newark Star Ledger at nj.com is entitled: "Big East Basketball-only Schools Close to Unified Front to Leave or Dissolve".

The one from Yahoo Sports is entitled:"Seven Schools Reportely Leaning Toward Leving Big East".

Some newspapers seem to have added some kind of a voodoo widget where linking to their articles doesn't work right. You click on the embedded link, and the voodoo widget rewrites the link address, replacing a couple of characters with a space and a character that doesn't want you to write over it. You can fix it in the address bar, but it's irritating.

Here's a link that will work. It's the minutes of the July 9, 2003 Airport Meeting by the Big East's football CEOs as they refer to themselves in the minutes.

http://www.bigeastboards.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=5159

Scroll down to the 3rd page, then to the 3rd paragraph from the bottom:

"A discussion regarding a possible negotiation or divorce settlement with the basketball schools then takes place. Jerry Cochran explains that there is an inherent loophole in the Big East dissolution clause because it implies that only the football schools have the right to vote on dissolution."

Note the word "IMPLIES". A very dangerous word to use in legal matters.

Clearly this idea that the football schools have some kind of upper hand goes back at least 10 years. It is a belief that equally clearly emanates from the football side. It went unchallenged (and also unsupported) but this is a meeting which included no non football members.

Proceed to page 5, the formal statement in the 3rd paragraph:

"We as a group genuinely believe tht the break-(up of the Big East Conference is inevitable - and probably the best overall scenario for all parties concerned. Toward that end, we would suggest that a small group of football representatives meet with a small group of basketball representatives in order to discuss the possible fallout issues associated with this. we are prepared to do what we can to minimize the negative impact that this break-up will have on your group."

Does this sound like an attempt to block the ability of one side to pursue dissolution if that was desired?

They had heard the opinion that there might be problems with the dissolution clause. They chose, howev, to pursue a path that would make dissolution simple and easy when it came to that, i.e. the split. They did nothing to strengthen the language from which Cochran drew his inference.

The football schools were acting in their own self interest because at the time they had just considered initiating a split themselves. However, they were not interested in pursuing their self-interest at the expense of their friends and colleagues. That was clear. They believed that when the split came, it would be initiated by them and not by the other side. That's why they left the language alone. It's just an unforeseen consequence that the option is now open to the basketball schools and the old friends and colleagues who were dealing with this 10 years ago are now long gone.

I think it sounds like it was changed to what Katz was reporting- that you have to now have BOTH sides signing off on dissolving the conference. Bottom line is simple. If C7 could dissolve on their own- you would have heard it as an option in some form since Katz did his article. You can't show me 1 article that refuted it after he posted it. Not 1. C7 can't dissolve without 2 FBS schools voting to dissolve.

(03-03-2013 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it sounds like it was changed to what Katz was reporting- that you have to now have BOTH sides signing off on dissolving the conference. Bottom line is simple. If C7 could dissolve on their own- you would have heard it as an option in some form since Katz did his article. You can't show me 1 article that refuted it after he posted it. Not 1. C7 can't dissolve without 2 FBS schools voting to dissolve.

Okay. I'm a reasonable guy. Show me where it was changed. The bylaws are linked here. I've read the entire document. Again. There is nothing there to support the claim.

Are you claiming some secret document?

More likely the change was in the opposite direction. Ten years ago, Jerry Cochran, as I quoted in my post above, said that the Dissolution section "implies" that only the football members can vote on dissolution.

I've read the Dissolution paragraph as it exists today 5 times. I'm familiar with contracts and have read a lot of them. There is nothing in it in line with Cochran claims. Either Cochran was talking out of his arse, or a change was made to clean up the language in the Dissolution section. In light of the discussion at the July, 203 meeting, which I've linked, I think the latter is more likely and that the language was cleaned up to remove any messy "implications".

The fact that no one else was interested enough in the topic to do any further research after Katz means absolutely nothing.

Again, show me something real to support the Katz report and I'll believe it. Link?

Show me ANYWHERE after Katz article that refuted what he said. ANYWHERE. Think about it. If C7 had this as an option SOMEONE would have brought it up. There hasn't been a WORD of dissolving the conference from ANYONE after Katz said what he said. If the C7 felt like they were being ****** by this, wouldn't some mouthpiece have brought it up as a remotely possible option, especially if they felt like the Aresco conference was just trying to string it along until after Tuesday? Silence speaks volumes.

No one has read the pre-nup, but we all know it's there. This is same thing.

(03-03-2013 01:03 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it sounds like it was changed to what Katz was reporting- that you have to now have BOTH sides signing off on dissolving the conference. Bottom line is simple. If C7 could dissolve on their own- you would have heard it as an option in some form since Katz did his article. You can't show me 1 article that refuted it after he posted it. Not 1. C7 can't dissolve without 2 FBS schools voting to dissolve.

Okay. I'm a reasonable guy. Show me where it was changed. The bylaws are linked here. I've read the entire document. Again. There is nothing there to support the claim.

Are you claiming some secret document?

Occam's Razor says it's probably in the "secret document" we already have know exists, the Mutual Commitment Agreement. If the MCA makes mincemeat of SEction 11 on withdrawals, I'm not surprised that it overrides SEction 12 on dissolution.

Quote:Again, show me something real to support the Katz report and I'll believe it. Link?

If we had a copy of the Mutual Commitment Agreement, we'd end most of these arguments.

(03-03-2013 01:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Show me ANYWHERE after Katz article that refuted what he said. ANYWHERE. Think about it. If C7 had this as an option SOMEONE would have brought it up. There hasn't been a WORD of dissolving the conference from ANYONE after Katz said what he said. If the C7 felt like they were being ****** by this, wouldn't some mouthpiece have brought it up as a remotely possible option, especially if they felt like the Aresco conference was just trying to string it along until after Tuesday? Silence speaks volumes.

No one has read the pre-nup, but we all know it's there. This is same thing.

I don't think anyone from the C-7 ever raised the possibility of dissolution. All I remember is journalists and bigtime bloggers doing what we're doing--reading the publicly available documents, doing fifth grade math to figure out that 7 out of 10 is less than 3/4 but more than 2/3, and saying, the C-7 have the option to dissolve the conference.

The C-7 never mentioned the option of splitting the conference either, before they went ahead and did it. If they do have the option of dissolving the conference in their pocket, it doesn't matter that me and AttackCoog don't know. The NBE presidents know, and they're the ones at the poker table.

I'm sure that Katz got it from a real source. What I'm not sure of is that that source was on solid ground. It could be Option A, that the source is not a lawyer, and came up with the clever reading that dissolving the conference would be a "Football Action." It could also be Option B, that the source knew the provision in the MCA.

(03-03-2013 01:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Show me ANYWHERE after Katz article that refuted what he said. ANYWHERE. Think about it. If C7 had this as an option SOMEONE would have brought it up. There hasn't been a WORD of dissolving the conference from ANYONE after Katz said what he said. If the C7 felt like they were being ****** by this, wouldn't some mouthpiece have brought it up as a remotely possible option, especially if they felt like the Aresco conference was just trying to string it along until after Tuesday? Silence speaks volumes.

No one has read the pre-nup, but we all know it's there. This is same thing.

IF . . . the C7 had this as an option???

IF . . . ??? How is it a hypothetical; it's right there in the bylaws. It's not like I'm speculating.

There hasn't been a word about dissolving the conference because the C7 have chosen to pursue a split. That's what's going on, so that's what people are writing about. Pretty simple and straightforward. I don't need any more of an explanation than that.

All we have from Katz is an unknown provision identified by an unnamed source that the Dissolution clause that's right in front of us in the bylaws in black & white is not operative.

I'm going to need more than that.

I've linked the minutes from the meeting 10 years ago when Cochran was saying the same thing in essence. Even he said it was "implied." If it was only "implied" that's a stretch and means that some layer will have to convince a judge that it's real, and that it's not dependent on some lawyer's personal reading of the document.

This is clearly spin that has been created by someone in the Big East office to preserve the conference or by the football group to invest themselves which powers that are not explicitly given to them.

Ten years ago, the other people at the table ignored Cochran's statement even though they are the ones who would have benefitted by it. The basketball schools are ignoring it now too. That tells me it doesn't exist.

We have the bylaws document in front of us. We can read would it says about "football actions". They clearly refer to football operations and to make that even more explicit, that provision has been inserted into the sections on revenue and membership, but NOT into the section on Dissolution. It's crystal clear.

Lazy reporters have simply repeated what Katz published from a single source with no corroboration or documentary support. We're giving Katz an awful lot of power in ending the discussion on this matter.

(03-03-2013 01:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 01:03 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 11:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it sounds like it was changed to what Katz was reporting- that you have to now have BOTH sides signing off on dissolving the conference. Bottom line is simple. If C7 could dissolve on their own- you would have heard it as an option in some form since Katz did his article. You can't show me 1 article that refuted it after he posted it. Not 1. C7 can't dissolve without 2 FBS schools voting to dissolve.

Okay. I'm a reasonable guy. Show me where it was changed. The bylaws are linked here. I've read the entire document. Again. There is nothing there to support the claim.

Are you claiming some secret document?

Occam's Razor says it's probably in the "secret document" we already have know exists, the Mutual Commitment Agreement. If the MCA makes mincemeat of SEction 11 on withdrawals, I'm not surprised that it overrides SEction 12 on dissolution.

Quote:Again, show me something real to support the Katz report and I'll believe it. Link?

If we had a copy of the Mutual Commitment Agreement, we'd end most of these arguments.

John, Occum's Razor says we probably have the answer right in front of us in the bylaws. There is no need for any further explanation.

The prenup does not replace Section 11 on withdrawals, which refers to actions by individual members. It creates a completely separate option which allows for the conference to continue to function but as 2 separate entities rather than one. That's a completely different matter.

That option does not negate anything Withdrawal clause. If it did, as a legal matter, they would have to revise Section 11. It couldn't continue to sit there as an invalid provision of the bylaws Similarly, if the prenup did negate anything in the in the Dissolution clause, a revision or amendment to that clause would be legally required. With no such revision or amendment, the clause sits there as valid and operational as any other part of the bylaws.

The only thing we have suggesting otherwise is Katz' oblique reference to some obscure and covert spin that was given to him by God knows whom. We have no way to evaluate the source and his motives nor do we have any way to evaluate the basis because none is provide. I'm simply not gullible enough to accept that.

Then we have the tortured logic of those who have sought an explanation for Katz' statement in the "football actions" clause. If we accept that, then we might as well tear up the bylaws because by that logic everything else is also at the whim of the football members because anything the conference does affects football.

Bylaws exist explicitly to avoid things being done at anyone's whim. The "football actions" provision exists clearly to prevent those with no participation i the football side of the conference to make decisions about football that affect those who do participate in football. That makes perfect sense and as such, it's a perfectly reasonable provision. To use it in any other way is completely unreasonable . . . although I'm sure there are lawyers who will.

(03-03-2013 05:24 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 01:09 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Show me ANYWHERE after Katz article that refuted what he said. ANYWHERE. Think about it. If C7 had this as an option SOMEONE would have brought it up. There hasn't been a WORD of dissolving the conference from ANYONE after Katz said what he said. If the C7 felt like they were being ****** by this, wouldn't some mouthpiece have brought it up as a remotely possible option, especially if they felt like the Aresco conference was just trying to string it along until after Tuesday? Silence speaks volumes.

No one has read the pre-nup, but we all know it's there. This is same thing.

IF . . . the C7 had this as an option???

IF . . . ??? How is it a hypothetical; it's right there in the bylaws. It's not like I'm speculating.

There hasn't been a word about dissolving the conference because the C7 have chosen to pursue a split. That's what's going on, so that's what people are writing about. Pretty simple and straightforward. I don't need any more of an explanation than that.

All we have from Katz is an unknown provision identified by an unnamed source that the Dissolution clause that's right in front of us in the bylaws in black & white is not operative.

I'm going to need more than that.

Katz is pretty credible. He says a knowledgeable source told him X. You need more than that, well, you're not going to be satisfied at this point.

Quote:I've linked the minutes from the meeting 10 years ago when Cochran was saying the same thing in essence.

That meeting is before the current bylaws, and before the Mutual Commitment Agreement.

Quote:This is clearly spin that has been created by someone in the Big East office to preserve the conference or by the football group to invest themselves which powers that are not explicitly given to them.

That may be true, but it's the furthest thing from "clear."

Quote:We have the bylaws document in front of us. We can read would it says about "football actions". They clearly refer to football operations and to make that even more explicit, that provision has been inserted into the sections on revenue and membership, but NOT into the section on Dissolution. It's crystal clear.

But we DON'T have the MCA in front of us, which is the document that governs relationships between the football and non-football schools as a group.

Show me one place where Katz was refuted on his story. Just one. Surely some C7 mouthpiece would have if it wasn't the case, and they could use it as leverage to get a better deal. But nada. Nothing. The fact is it has never been refuted. To me, that speaks volumes.

(03-03-2013 08:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Show me one place where Katz was refuted on his story. Just one. Surely some C7 mouthpiece would have if it wasn't the case, and they could use it as leverage to get a better deal.

Why? This isn't an election. The parties to the deal all know what's in the prenup and what isn't. The presidents don't really care what Katz is right or wrong about.

Quote:But nada. Nothing. The fact is it has never been refuted. To me, that speaks volumes.

It's more likely than not that the prenup says neither side can dissolve the conference against the will of the other. But it's not guaranteed at all. Journalists get stuff wrong sometimes, especially when their source gets it wrong.

(03-03-2013 08:21 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 08:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Show me one place where Katz was refuted on his story. Just one. Surely some C7 mouthpiece would have if it wasn't the case, and they could use it as leverage to get a better deal.

Why? This isn't an election. The parties to the deal all know what's in the prenup and what isn't. The presidents don't really care what Katz is right or wrong about.

Quote:But nada. Nothing. The fact is it has never been refuted. To me, that speaks volumes.

It's more likely than not that the prenup says neither side can dissolve the conference against the will of the other. But it's not guaranteed at all. Journalists get stuff wrong sometimes, especially when their source gets it wrong.

True, but remember how lightning quick folks were to refute the notion that Temple could stop the dissolving.