(09-26-2013 09:28 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  From a lawyer friend

It appears that there is a substantial amount of case law regarding sovereign immunity for states where they've entered into contracts. They all cut against Maryland and in favor of the ACC - at least as far as North Carolina entering contracts is concerned.

"The State “implicitly consents to be sued for damages on [a] contract in the event it breaches the contract.”"

Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E.2d 412 (1976)

To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

(09-27-2013 07:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:28 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  From a lawyer friend

It appears that there is a substantial amount of case law regarding sovereign immunity for states where they've entered into contracts. They all cut against Maryland and in favor of the ACC - at least as far as North Carolina entering contracts is concerned.

"The State “implicitly consents to be sued for damages on [a] contract in the event it breaches the contract.”"

Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E.2d 412 (1976)

To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

This is the argument Maryland should use in court. In my opinion, Louisville’s recent accomplishments in sports would compel the courts to rule that not only was the ACC not damaged by Maryland’s departure, it actually benefited from the departure by replacing it with superior sports programs (fball and bball) that Louisville will bring to the ACC. I think the ACC should have waited until after its lawsuit to replace Maryland with Louisville. The ACC has made itself better (while getting rid of those hideous Maryland uniforms), but wants to sue for damages....

Just pay up Maryland. The longer you wait, the interest on your exit fee and the court costs are building and all these expense are just going to cost you even more money! MD, you idiots are going to ose big. The longer you delay the more it is going to cost you.

(09-27-2013 07:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You need a Federal question or complete diversity of citizenship to file a suit in Federal court.

You have to have all plaintiffs and all defendants to be citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship) or you have to have a Federal question (U.S. Constitution, Federal statute, etc..).

Otherwise, Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. They are courts of limited jurisdiction.

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction over the subject matter.

To have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in state court, that person/entity has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state (do business there, etc..) and you have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.

If you are a defendant in state court, you can try to remove the case to Federal court.

Besides the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship or a Federal question, you only have thirty days from when you are served with the state court lawsuit to file your removal action.

If you don't have diversity or a Federal question, and/or you don't remove it within thirty days of service, you are stuck in state court for the duration of the state court lawsuit.

Biasness in the juducial process is hardly a weak argument.UMD is a part of the state government of Maryland.Disagreements between state entities can hardly be handled in an unbiased fashion by a court of one of the states.

(09-27-2013 08:15 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:28 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  From a lawyer friend

It appears that there is a substantial amount of case law regarding sovereign immunity for states where they've entered into contracts. They all cut against Maryland and in favor of the ACC - at least as far as North Carolina entering contracts is concerned.

"The State “implicitly consents to be sued for damages on [a] contract in the event it breaches the contract.”"

Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E.2d 412 (1976)

To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

This is the argument Maryland should use in court. In my opinion, Louisville’s recent accomplishments in sports would compel the courts to rule that not only was the ACC not damaged by Maryland’s departure, it actually benefited from the departure by replacing it with superior sports programs (fball and bball) that Louisville will bring to the ACC. I think the ACC should have waited until after its lawsuit to replace Maryland with Louisville. The ACC has made itself better (while getting rid of those hideous Maryland uniforms), but wants to sue for damages....

You wrong beyond comprehension.

Anyone who thinks the Louisville for Maryland is trade that cures the damage is not reasoning.

The entire premise of that argument is that the ACC or any conference is an entity of finite size. We already know that conferences are not finite in size.

Look at all the blather about conferences going to 16, didn't you watch the SEC go from 12 to 14, or watch the B10 go from 11 to 12, to 14? Didn't the B10 talk about going to 16, or 18?

Louisville is not a "trade" for Maryland until you can prove the ACC was never going to expand to 16.

Moreover, you don't seem to understand the question at the bar in North Carolina. Louisville has nothing to do with the issue in Greensboro. This is all about Maryland and the ACC and all the ACC has asked the court is to declare the contract valid. None of these other issues related to value are even ripe at this point.

But back to my point - you need to fully comprehend the difference between finite and infinite. Maryland is not a single apple in an orchard of apples. Maryland is a one of a kind object - like an art object - it is unique - it is not a widget. L

et me go way back to a legal case that bankrupted a famous actress - Kim Bassinger signed a contract to appear in movie (Boxing Helana) - she balked. The film went ahead with Sherylin Fenn in instead. One of Bassingers defenses was that Fenn was an adequate replacement - the court said otherwise as she was a unique property that had signed a contract for her personal appearance. She lost about $18 million. Only Maryland is Maryland. Louisville may be prettier at the moment, but Louisville is not Maryland.

(09-27-2013 08:56 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You need a Federal question or complete diversity of citizenship to file a suit in Federal court.

You have to have all plaintiffs and all defendants to be citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship) or you have to have a Federal question (U.S. Constitution, Federal statute, etc..).

Otherwise, Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. They are courts of limited jurisdiction.

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction over the subject matter.

To have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in state court, that person/entity has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state (do business there, etc..) and you have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.

If you are a defendant in state court, you can try to remove the case to Federal court.

Besides the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship or a Federal question, you only have thirty days from when you are served with the state court lawsuit to file your removal action.

If you don't have diversity or a Federal question, and/or you don't remove it within thirty days of service, you are stuck in state court for the duration of the state court lawsuit.

Biasness in the juducial process is hardly a weak argument.UMD is a part of the state government of Maryland.Disagreements between state entities can hardly be handled in an unbiased fashion by a court of one of the states.

Huh?

There is no magical potion that creates an opportunity for Maryland to go to Federal court at this stage of the litigation.

They should have tried to remove it within thirty days of service of the North Carolina complaint.

They did not. There must have been a good reason, such as lack of diversity and/or no Federal question.

Either that, or their lawyers completely dropped the ball.

(09-27-2013 09:54 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 08:15 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:28 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  From a lawyer friend

It appears that there is a substantial amount of case law regarding sovereign immunity for states where they've entered into contracts. They all cut against Maryland and in favor of the ACC - at least as far as North Carolina entering contracts is concerned.

"The State “implicitly consents to be sued for damages on [a] contract in the event it breaches the contract.”"

Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E.2d 412 (1976)

To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

This is the argument Maryland should use in court. In my opinion, Louisville’s recent accomplishments in sports would compel the courts to rule that not only was the ACC not damaged by Maryland’s departure, it actually benefited from the departure by replacing it with superior sports programs (fball and bball) that Louisville will bring to the ACC. I think the ACC should have waited until after its lawsuit to replace Maryland with Louisville. The ACC has made itself better (while getting rid of those hideous Maryland uniforms), but wants to sue for damages....

You wrong beyond comprehension.

Anyone who thinks the Louisville for Maryland is trade that cures the damage is not reasoning.

The entire premise of that argument is that the ACC or any conference is an entity of finite size. We already know that conferences are not finite in size.

Look at all the blather about conferences going to 16, didn't you watch the SEC go from 12 to 14, or watch the B10 go from 11 to 12, to 14? Didn't the B10 talk about going to 16, or 18?

Louisville is not a "trade" for Maryland until you can prove the ACC was never going to expand to 16.

Moreover, you don't seem to understand the question at the bar in North Carolina. Louisville has nothing to do with the issue in Greensboro. This is all about Maryland and the ACC and all the ACC has asked the court is to declare the contract valid. None of these other issues related to value are even ripe at this point.

The question in front of the bar is just the opening salvo. Right now the question is does Maryland even owe an exit fee at all due to sovereign immunity. Once it's established they do in fact owe an exit fee, then the question of the amount will be addressed. Losing on one issue does not preclude winning on the other.

As for the finite size of the conference---frankly I cannot think of a more irrelevant argument. What or who the ACC might add next is simply conjecture. You might be planning to buy a Lexus, but if you get in a wreck driving your current Ford--the insurance company will pay you for the damage on your Ford---not the damage on the Lexus you may or may not buy in the future. It's a silly argument that would be laughed out of court.

The damages are the damages and the damaged party has the duty to mitigate the damage where possible. The ACC added a substitute to minimize the damage. Now the question is how much difference is there---thats the damage. So Louisville is quite relevant to the question.

If tickets sales are roughly the same and the media contract is unchanged (it's actually more since Maryland left)----on what basis can anyone say there is a monetary damage? Without significant drops in both of those income streams---substantiating no less than 52 million in legtimate damages is going to be very difficult.

Conference officials have stated multiple times that the fee was raised to make the conference more stable. What they should have been saying is that the fee was raised for the 3rd time since 2011 because the average team value went up 5 times in that period (they didnt say that because it isnt true). I think the ACC will have a very hard time convincing the cout that the 52 million dollar fee was established as a reasonable damage estimate. I think it will be fairly easy to proce that the fee has nothing to do with damages and was actualy set unreasonbly high simply to create a huge penalty that would deter exits. They were afraid of losing schools and raised the fee to a punitive amount over the objections of two schools that were most likely to leave. That's going to come out in court.

This much we know for sure:
1-It's a long process.
2-By the time a decision is made the ACC will be holding about $35M that used to belong to Maryland.
3-The ACC will have a hard time collecting the additional $17M.
4-Maryland won't ever get their $35M back.
5-The lawyers involved will get rich.

(09-27-2013 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  This much we know for sure:
1-It's a long process.
2-By the time a decision is made the ACC will be holding about $35M that used to belong to Maryland.
3-The ACC will have a hard time collecting the additional $17M.
4-Maryland won't ever get their $35M back.
5-The lawyers involved will get rich.

6-The ACC will not lose any members

On the issue of whether the ACC was damaged by the Maryland exit: the question is not whether Louisville > Maryland, but whether Louisville + Maryland > Louisville. The answer to that last question is YES.

(09-27-2013 11:16 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  On the issue of whether the ACC was damaged by the Maryland exit: the question is not whether Louisville > Maryland, but whether Louisville + Maryland > Louisville. The answer to that last question is YES.

The question though would come up, was the ACC planning on expanding prior to Maryland leaving. If the answer to that question was no, that renders your question moot- there would have been no chance of Maryland and Louisville being in the ACC together.

(09-27-2013 10:22 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 08:56 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You need a Federal question or complete diversity of citizenship to file a suit in Federal court.

You have to have all plaintiffs and all defendants to be citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship) or you have to have a Federal question (U.S. Constitution, Federal statute, etc..).

Otherwise, Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. They are courts of limited jurisdiction.

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction over the subject matter.

To have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in state court, that person/entity has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state (do business there, etc..) and you have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.

If you are a defendant in state court, you can try to remove the case to Federal court.

Besides the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship or a Federal question, you only have thirty days from when you are served with the state court lawsuit to file your removal action.

If you don't have diversity or a Federal question, and/or you don't remove it within thirty days of service, you are stuck in state court for the duration of the state court lawsuit.

Biasness in the juducial process is hardly a weak argument.UMD is a part of the state government of Maryland.Disagreements between state entities can hardly be handled in an unbiased fashion by a court of one of the states.

Huh?

There is no magical potion that creates an opportunity for Maryland to go to Federal court at this stage of the litigation.

They should have tried to remove it within thirty days of service of the North Carolina complaint.

They did not. There must have been a good reason, such as lack of diversity and/or no Federal question.

Either that, or their lawyers completely dropped the ball.

Terry, how can a North Carolina state court enforce its judgment against Maryland? It's not like Maryland has assets in North Carolina that could be seized or something.

(09-27-2013 11:10 AM)XLance Wrote:  This much we know for sure:
1-It's a long process.
2-By the time a decision is made the ACC will be holding about $35M that used to belong to Maryland.
3-The ACC will have a hard time collecting the additional $17M.
4-Maryland won't ever get their $35M back.
5-The lawyers involved will get rich.

Lance - your math is faulty. UM's fee based on last year's distribution is $55.5, the fee based on the current fiscal year's expected distributions will be $63 or so million. So they will owe us about $28 million on June 30, 2014. However I fully agree that collecting will be difficult.

(09-27-2013 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for the finite size of the conference---frankly I cannot think of a more irrelevant argument. What or who the ACC might add next is simply conjecture. You might be planning to buy a Lexus, but if you get in a wreck driving your current Ford--the insurance company will pay you for the damage on your Ford---not the damage on the Lexus you may or may not buy in the future. It's a silly argument that would be laughed out of court.

But isn't the scarcity of replacement parts relevant here? In this case a "replacement part" was available at no cost and the case has been made that it is a "better" part.

For a conference known for wheeling and dealing the market and then starving Maryland athletics of cash, it's not like they can attach any emotional value to Maryland.

(09-27-2013 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 09:54 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 08:15 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-26-2013 09:28 AM)DeacKillsaDevil Wrote:  From a lawyer friend

It appears that there is a substantial amount of case law regarding sovereign immunity for states where they've entered into contracts. They all cut against Maryland and in favor of the ACC - at least as far as North Carolina entering contracts is concerned.

"The State “implicitly consents to be sued for damages on [a] contract in the event it breaches the contract.”"

Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 222 S.E.2d 412 (1976)

To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

This is the argument Maryland should use in court. In my opinion, Louisville’s recent accomplishments in sports would compel the courts to rule that not only was the ACC not damaged by Maryland’s departure, it actually benefited from the departure by replacing it with superior sports programs (fball and bball) that Louisville will bring to the ACC. I think the ACC should have waited until after its lawsuit to replace Maryland with Louisville. The ACC has made itself better (while getting rid of those hideous Maryland uniforms), but wants to sue for damages....

You wrong beyond comprehension.

Anyone who thinks the Louisville for Maryland is trade that cures the damage is not reasoning.

The entire premise of that argument is that the ACC or any conference is an entity of finite size. We already know that conferences are not finite in size.

Look at all the blather about conferences going to 16, didn't you watch the SEC go from 12 to 14, or watch the B10 go from 11 to 12, to 14? Didn't the B10 talk about going to 16, or 18?

Louisville is not a "trade" for Maryland until you can prove the ACC was never going to expand to 16.

Moreover, you don't seem to understand the question at the bar in North Carolina. Louisville has nothing to do with the issue in Greensboro. This is all about Maryland and the ACC and all the ACC has asked the court is to declare the contract valid. None of these other issues related to value are even ripe at this point.

The question in front of the bar is just the opening salvo. Right now the question is does Maryland even owe an exit fee at all due to sovereign immunity. Once it's established they do in fact owe an exit fee, then the question of the amount will be addressed. Losing on one issue does not preclude winning on the other.

As for the finite size of the conference---frankly I cannot think of a more irrelevant argument. What or who the ACC might add next is simply conjecture. You might be planning to buy a Lexus, but if you get in a wreck driving your current Ford--the insurance company will pay you for the damage on your Ford---not the damage on the Lexus you may or may not buy in the future. It's a silly argument that would be laughed out of court.

The damages are the damages and the damaged party has the duty to mitigate the damage where possible. The ACC added a substitute to minimize the damage. Now the question is how much difference is there---thats the damage. So Louisville is quite relevant to the question.

If tickets sales are roughly the same and the media contract is unchanged (it's actually more since Maryland left)----on what basis can anyone say there is a monetary damage? Without significant drops in both of those income streams---substantiating no less than 52 million in legtimate damages is going to be very difficult.

Conference officials have stated multiple times that the fee was raised to make the conference more stable. What they should have been saying is that the fee was raised for the 3rd time since 2011 because the average team value went up 5 times in that period (they didnt say that because it isnt true). I think the ACC will have a very hard time convincing the cout that the 52 million dollar fee was established as a reasonable damage estimate. I think it will be fairly easy to proce that the fee has nothing to do with damages and was actualy set unreasonbly high simply to create a huge penalty that would deter exits. They were afraid of losing schools and raised the fee to a punitive amount over the objections of two schools that were most likely to leave. That's going to come out in court.

You really do not understand the concept or the meaning of the word "unique". You don't even understand that the ACC's exit fee did not deter Maryland from leaving - rending their restraint of trade issue moot - something that was tossed out of court by their own state of MD judge.

(09-27-2013 11:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Terry, how can a North Carolina state court enforce its judgment against Maryland? It's not like Maryland has assets in North Carolina that could be seized or something.

The team bus?

To your point, courts and law enforcement routinely recognize judgments from other jurisdictions.

(09-27-2013 11:20 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  As for the finite size of the conference---frankly I cannot think of a more irrelevant argument. What or who the ACC might add next is simply conjecture. You might be planning to buy a Lexus, but if you get in a wreck driving your current Ford--the insurance company will pay you for the damage on your Ford---not the damage on the Lexus you may or may not buy in the future. It's a silly argument that would be laughed out of court.

But isn't the scarcity of replacement parts relevant here? In this case a "replacement part" was available at no cost and the case has been made that it is a "better" part.

For a conference known for wheeling and dealing the market and then starving Maryland athletics of cash, it's not like they can attach any emotional value to Maryland.

Major universities are not widgets, they are unique, one of a kind creatures - like objects of art. If someone steals Van Gogh's Sunflowers from you and replaces it with a Rembrandt of equal monetary value, you are not made whole.

Maryland is not going to be able to defeat it's own contract that it operated under for 63 years. That's just not going to happen. The only real question is what happens between the $32 or so million the ACC is holding on June 30, 2014 and the 3X fee on that date which will be about $63 million.

Technically Louisville is not in the equation as the ACC had not even been in contact with Louisville as a replacement for Maryland until Maryland made their announcement about leaving the ACC for the B1G. As for being considered as better, Maryland is currently winning on the field so how could the ACC not say Maryland is a loss? I'm glad I'm not a Lawyer in this fight.

(09-27-2013 11:28 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Major universities are not widgets, they are unique, one of a kind creatures - like objects of art. If someone steals Van Gogh's Sunflowers from you and replaces it with a Rembrandt of equal monetary value, you are not made whole.

Then why aren't universities paid millions as such to join a conference?

We're primarily talking about athletic departments here, which certainly can be replaced. The Chaminades and Appy States certainly can slew goliath.

(09-27-2013 11:23 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 10:26 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 09:54 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 08:15 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 07:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be honest, sovereign immunity is among the weakest legs of the Maryland claim. That said, Maryland appears to be using strategy of arguing first that it owes no exit fee at all. That's probably a loser. If it loses that argument, the fall back position is that Maryland owes an exit fee, but that 52 million is much too high and that Maryland never agreed to be bound by that number. The argument will be that a reasonable fee based on actual damages would be more in line with the fees other schools in similar positions have paid. Maryland's case is very strong on that count. I fully expect Maryland to pay an exit fee and I guarantee that it won't be anywhere near 52 million.

The ACC only truly wins if they get Maryland to pay a 52 million dollar exit fee. The ACC isn't going to get that outcome. In the end, the parties will settle out of court just like every other exit fee dispute has been settled. That is happening because the conferences know thier case is weak and they cannot afford to have the courts rule against them. It's possible in this case that the courts could rule Louisville is a reasonable substitute for Maryland finding the ACC's actual damages are zero. The ACC can't take that risk....and won't.

This is the argument Maryland should use in court. In my opinion, Louisville’s recent accomplishments in sports would compel the courts to rule that not only was the ACC not damaged by Maryland’s departure, it actually benefited from the departure by replacing it with superior sports programs (fball and bball) that Louisville will bring to the ACC. I think the ACC should have waited until after its lawsuit to replace Maryland with Louisville. The ACC has made itself better (while getting rid of those hideous Maryland uniforms), but wants to sue for damages....

You wrong beyond comprehension.

Anyone who thinks the Louisville for Maryland is trade that cures the damage is not reasoning.

The entire premise of that argument is that the ACC or any conference is an entity of finite size. We already know that conferences are not finite in size.

Look at all the blather about conferences going to 16, didn't you watch the SEC go from 12 to 14, or watch the B10 go from 11 to 12, to 14? Didn't the B10 talk about going to 16, or 18?

Louisville is not a "trade" for Maryland until you can prove the ACC was never going to expand to 16.

Moreover, you don't seem to understand the question at the bar in North Carolina. Louisville has nothing to do with the issue in Greensboro. This is all about Maryland and the ACC and all the ACC has asked the court is to declare the contract valid. None of these other issues related to value are even ripe at this point.

The question in front of the bar is just the opening salvo. Right now the question is does Maryland even owe an exit fee at all due to sovereign immunity. Once it's established they do in fact owe an exit fee, then the question of the amount will be addressed. Losing on one issue does not preclude winning on the other.

As for the finite size of the conference---frankly I cannot think of a more irrelevant argument. What or who the ACC might add next is simply conjecture. You might be planning to buy a Lexus, but if you get in a wreck driving your current Ford--the insurance company will pay you for the damage on your Ford---not the damage on the Lexus you may or may not buy in the future. It's a silly argument that would be laughed out of court.

The damages are the damages and the damaged party has the duty to mitigate the damage where possible. The ACC added a substitute to minimize the damage. Now the question is how much difference is there---thats the damage. So Louisville is quite relevant to the question.

If tickets sales are roughly the same and the media contract is unchanged (it's actually more since Maryland left)----on what basis can anyone say there is a monetary damage? Without significant drops in both of those income streams---substantiating no less than 52 million in legtimate damages is going to be very difficult.

Conference officials have stated multiple times that the fee was raised to make the conference more stable. What they should have been saying is that the fee was raised for the 3rd time since 2011 because the average team value went up 5 times in that period (they didnt say that because it isnt true). I think the ACC will have a very hard time convincing the cout that the 52 million dollar fee was established as a reasonable damage estimate. I think it will be fairly easy to proce that the fee has nothing to do with damages and was actualy set unreasonbly high simply to create a huge penalty that would deter exits. They were afraid of losing schools and raised the fee to a punitive amount over the objections of two schools that were most likely to leave. That's going to come out in court.

You really do not understand the concept or the meaning of the word "unique". You don't even understand that the ACC's exit fee did not deter Maryland from leaving - rending their restraint of trade issue moot - something that was tossed out of court by their own state of MD judge.

Yes---I do understand it. Do you not get that Lousiville is "unique" as well? Every parcel of real estate is unique. Does that mean no two parcels of real estate can have equal value?

What you are failing to understand is the nature of damages. The court is not going to make the "unique" property of Maryland return to the ACC. Damages will be paid in dollars. Thus, the difference (if any) between the monetary value of an ACC with Maryland and the monetary value of an ACC with Louisville will need to be determined.

You also need to look into the law regarding cancelled games. Courts have largely held that a replacement game is equal to the game it replaced. In other words, the courts see a game as a game. They don't really distinguish between the fact that the cancelled game was with Notre Dame and the replacement was with Texas Southern. The fact that the revamped ACC sports schedule has Louisville in place of a "unique" Maryland is not likely in and of itself to illicit a large estimate of actual damages from the court.